Dido Valley Phase 3 Addendum Geotech Report

SUPPLEMENTARY GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION FOR
DIDO VALLEY HOUSING PHASE 3 AREA

for
OWS Civils (Pty) Ltd
APRIL 2024 Project no: 002-12
Introduction and terms of reference

As requested, we have carried out an additional geotechnical investigation for for the Phase 3 area of
the Dido Valley Housing Project in Simon’s Town. The proposed development will consist of new
single/double (duplex) storey residential units. Previous Phase 1 (2012) & Phase 2 (2017) Geotechnical
investigations were conducted by others for the broader site development. Extensive additional bulk
earthworks has however been carried out since these investigations took place.
As such, this report is essentially an addendum to the initial investigations.
The objectives of this investigation can be summarized as follows:
• To confirm and refine, where necessary, recommendations for foundation design and related
geotechnical aspects with regards to the proposed Phase 3 development area.
1. Nature of the investigation
In order to refine foundation recommendations specific to the Phase 3 area of development,
additional investigation was conducted in this area. This investigation comprised:
a) A total of fifteen additional test pits (TP1 to TP15) excavated using a TLB. Test pits were formally
profiled.
b) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing conducted from ground level and within test pits in
order to assess soil compressibility and strength with depth.
c) Additional laboratory testing conducted (grading analysis, Atterberg limits, Mod-Density and
CBR testing) on selected material across the site area.
Test locations are shown on the attached site plan (Figure 1A in Appendix A). Copies of the soil
profiles and DCP profiles are also attached in Appendix B & C, respectively.
2. Site geology and geohydrology
The following can be noted regarding the soil profile:
A) North of Maeuye Road
• The test pits (TP1, TP15, TP6, TP8 & TP10) indicate a variable profile, comprising variable
quality fill overlying naturally occurring in-situ sandy and gravelly sandy soils.
• The ‘Fill’ material comprises alternating horizons of sand, gravelly sand (sometimes
with angular to subrounded sandstone cobbles and small boulders).
• Although near surface these soils appear to have undergone compaction, deeper
horizons of ‘uncontrolled fill’, comprising variably compacted predominantly sandy
soils with variable amounts of rubble (brick and concrete), were also encountered.
• Seepage was not encountered within 3.0m of ground level in this area.
B) South of Maeuye Road
• In this area an emplaced gravelly sandy ‘fill’ (generally compacted) sometimes with
scattered sandstone cobbles and small boulders, overlies the in-situ transported sandy
and gravelly sandy soils. The fill in this area only contained isolated pieces of rubble.
Tel: 021 671 4280 Email: admin@coregeotech.co.za

Physical address: Unit 6, Inospace Island Works, 22 Cumberland Road, Paardeneiland, 7405
Postal address: 4c Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road, Kenilworth, 7708, Cape Town
Core Geotechnical Consultants Pty Ltd registration no. 2020/031932/07

Directors: EW Laubscher BSc (Geol.) (MEng) Pr.Sci.Nat, SC Smith (BA)
• With increased depth, residual sandstone (comprising cemented gravelly sand) and
residual siltstone (comprising a sandy clayey silt) was encountered, generally within
1.1-2.0m of ground level.
• Seepage was only encountered in one test pit (TP5) at a depth of 1.3m, close to the
upper contact of the residual soils. A similar perched water table could develop in
other areas with a similar profile, during the wet winter.
A summary of the soil profile is provided in Figure 2.1. Detailed descriptions of the soils
encountered may be found in the enclosed soil profiles (Appendix B).
Figure 2.1 Summary of soil profile
Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Simon’s Town Dido Valley housing Phase 3 area – addendum report 2
3. Geotechnical evaluation
Following the additional geotechnical investigation the following should be noted with regards to
the geotechnical conditions on site:
a) Penetration testing
The DCP penetration testing indicates the following:-
i. Soil compressibility for the erven located on the northern edge of the site (north of Maeuya
Street) is highly variable.
The upper approximately 0.5m of emplaced soil fill appears to have undergone compaction
and has a moderate to low compressibility. However due to variability in the quality, and
compaction of the deeper fill material, soils alternate between zones of high compressibility
and moderately compressibility between a depth of 0.5m to 2.5m.
Zones of moderate compressibility are however often due to the presence of buried rubble
that limit penetration and may thus skew results. Greater variability in compressibility is also
expected closer to the crest of the slope, which drops down steeply towards the north,
beyond the northern site boundary.
Due to the depth and thickness of these highly compressible zones and presence of variable
quality fill (often containing buried rubble), conventional founding with strip footings in this
area is not recommended.
Northern Side
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
D epth (cm below test level)
-150 DCP 1 -150
DCP 1b
DCP 6
DCP 6b
-200 -200
DCP 8
DCP 8b
DCP 8c
DCP 10
-250 -250
DCP 10b
DCP 15
DCP 15b Zone of high

compressibility
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Penetrate rate in mm/blow No. of blows/100mm (N10)
Figure 3.1 DCP results northern side (north of Maeuya Street)

ii. DCP testing on the southern side of the site (south of Maeuya Street) indicate bulk
earthworks have compacted the upper 0.5m to 0.8m from surface (low to moderate
compressibility).
With increased depth there is however some variability in compressibility in what was likely
the original in-situ material, with alternating zones of high compressibility and moderate
compressibility at depths of between 0.8m to 1.8m.
With greater depth (approaching the residual soils and bedrock) compressibility rapidly
decreases.
Due to the variability in compressibility between 0.8m to 1.8m, variable settlement is
expected across the area and likely below individual structure footprints, depending on final
loading conditions and founding depths (bulk earthworks dependent). This may affect the
site classification and foundation recommendations in this area.
iii. A summary plot of all DCP tests for the northern side and southern side of Maeuya Street, is
provided in Figure 3.1 & 3.2, respectively.
Southern Side
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
DCP 2
-150 DCP 2b -150
DCP 3
DCP 3b
DCP 4
DCP 4b
DCP 5
DCP 5b
-200 -200
DCP 7
DCP 7b
DCP 9
DCP 9b
DCP 11
DCP 11b
-250 DCP 12 -250
DCP 12b
DCP 13
DCP 13b
DCP 14
Zone of high
DCP 14b compressibility
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 3.2. DCP results from Southern side (south of Maeuya Street)

b) Material Usage
Additional laboratory testing (grading analysis, Atterberg limits, Mod-density & CBR testing) was
conducted on selected samples taken from the trial pits. Samples included emplaced fill,
naturally occurring in-situ transported soils and residual soils. Results are summarized in Table
3.1 and discussed further below:-
i. Gravelly sandy fill
The gravelly sandy fill, as encountered at surface across most of the site area, has been
placed through previous bulk earthworks. These soils appear to have been compacted, but
some variability in compressibility, with alternating zones of high compressibility, are still
encountered. These soils are generally granular and have a low to moderate post
compaction strength. Some variability in gravel and coarser cobble fractions is however
evident across the site. The sample tested at TP1 classified as a G8 quality selected layer
material. These soils are thus suitable for use as general fill or as a a lower quality selected
layer and should thus compact well under optimum conditions. Where used in construction,
compaction in layers not exceeding 150mm, to 93-95% MDD (over the full thickness of the
engineered fill) at ±2% of optimum moisture content, is recommended. Quality of
compaction would require assessment with both troxler density and DCP testing.
ii. Uncontrolled fill
Zones of “uncontrolled” fill were encountered in numerous test pits (TP15, TP6, TP8 &
TP10) along the northern edge of the Phase 3 area (north of Maeuya Street). The
uncontrolled fill comprised predominantly a gravelly sandy soil, but also contained variable
amounts of variably sized pieces of buried rubble (brick and concrete). Given the variability
in compressibility and composition of this rubble component, this fill was clearly not
constructed or emplaced in a “controlled” manner or accordance with COTO specifications,
and is thus not considered an engineered fill material, but “uncontrolled” fill. Use of this
uncontrolled fill in construction is generally not recommended
iii. Transported sand
The naturally occurring in-situ transported sandy soils were tested at both TP2 and TP7.
These soils are generally granular (non-plastic) and have a low to moderate post compaction
strength. There is some variability in classification due to a variable gravel, cobble and fines
content. These soils as tested, classified as a G7/G8 quality selected layer material (following
removal of the coarser cobble and gravel fractions). Use of this material in terrace
construction, or as a lower quality selected layer material (G8 quality) could be considered.
It would however be recommended to first create a thoroughly blended stockpile where
coarser cobble, gravel and boulder fractions can be removed or crushed, as these fractions
will hamper compaction efforts.
Any engineered fill would need to be constructed through compaction in layers not
exceeding 150mm, to at least 95% MDD, at ±2% of optimum moisture content. Under
these conditions, in accordance with COTO specifications, a maximum grain/particle size of
100mm is allowed. Larger gravel/cobble fractions would need to be removed or crushed to
enable suitable compaction to be achieved.
iv. Residual siltstone
A small sample of residual siltstone (a sandy clayey silt), was tested from test pit TP4.
This material had a high fines (silt) content, but low plasticity (PI <10). This material will
have low strength, once disturbed, and will have poor compaction and drainage properties.
Use of this material in construction is thus not recommended.
Laboratory testing indicates this material generally has low potential for heave movement
(<7.5mm expected).

Table 3.1 Summarized soils basic engineering properties
Test pit TP1 TP2 TP4 TP7
Depth of Sample (m) 0.2-1.5m 0.7-1.4m 1.0-1.7m 0.2-1.5m
Sand with low silt Sand with low gravel
Soil Description Gravelly sand Sandy clayey silt
and gravel content content
Origin Fill Transported Residual siltstone Transported
USCS Soil Class SM/SP SM/SP CL SP
Liquid Limit - - 30 -
Plastic Index NP NP 8.8 NP
Linear Shrinkage - - 4.7 -
Moisture content % - - 16 -
Grading Modulus 1.55 1.64 0.19 1.68
MOD AASHTO (Kg/m3) 1824 1841 - 1868
Optimum Moisture content
12.4 12.4 - 12.5
%
CBR @93% 12 16 - 15
CBR @95% 13 17 - 16
Swell (max) % 0 0 - 0
TRH14/COTO classification G8 G7 - G7/G8
Heave potential (van der
- - Low -
Merwe)
Table 3.2 Expected soil shear strength engineering properties (with reference to laboratory
test results and NAVFAC DM7 (1971))
Mohr-Coulomb
Saturated
USCS Soil Dry unit Tan
Soil type Cohesion c' Angle of internal 3 unit weight
class weight (kN/m ) Ø'
friction Ø' (kN/m3)
(kPa)
(degrees)
Sandy fill and Transported SM/SP 0 [0] 30-35 [30] 16.5-19.7 [18] 18-20 [20] 0.57
gravelly slightly silty sand
Residual siltstone CL 8-12 [10] 28-30 [28] 16.5-19.7 [17] 18-20 [19] 0.53
Notes: [Values in brackets indicate recommended values and values used in analysis where applicable]
c) Excavation classification
With reference to the soil profile encountered as indicated in Figure 2.1, “Soft Excavation” in
terms of SANS 634:2012 will be applicable for any fill soils and transported sandy soils.
Excavation within the cemented residual soils should classify as “soft to intermediate”
excavation.
Test pits were excavated with a TLB and generally met refusal or experienced difficulty in
excavation within the strongly cemented residual sandstone and very soft to soft rock sandstone
bedrock, which depth varies from 1.5m to 2.5m south of Maeuya Street. Excavation within the
sandstone bedrock can be classified as hard rock excavation, with occasional, but very limited
zones of intermediate excavation (where close jointing and bedding planes may allow ripping
with the larger excavator fitted with a rock bucket).

Depending on the depth of excavation required, the use of rock buckets, pneumatic breakers,
power tools and blasting (or possibly chemical fracturing if blasting is not allowed) may be
required within the deeper bedrock.
d) Groundwater conditions
This supplementary investigation was carried out in March 2024 (at the end of the dry summer
period). Seepage was only encountered in one test pit (TP5) at a depth of 1.3m. This was close
to the upper contact of the very low permeability residual soils. A similar shallow perched water
table may develop within 0.5m of the residual bedrock in other nearby areas during the wet
winter season. Seepage may thus be encountered within 1.0-1,5m of ground level. Careful
consideration to overall site drainage design and stormwater management is thus required.
The following should be noted in this regard:-
• Conventional dewatering measures such as pumping from sumps should provide the most
efficient means of dewatering in limited areas if seepage is encountered during any future
bulk earthworks. Although unlikely, the need for more extensive dewatering measures would
need to be assessed during construction.
• Sound water management in the control and disposal of storm water is required and will also
minimize the risk of water ingress and consequential settlement occurring in soils below
foundations, pavements and surface beds.
• Given the risk of stormwater runoff from higher lying sloping areas located towards the south,
sound water management in the control and disposal of storm water is required and will also
minimize the risk of water ingress and consequential settlement and rutting occurring in soils
below pavements and surface beds. Although a stormwater drain is located above and below
the gabion retaining wall, there is currently no stormwater drain on the upslope side of the
brick retaining wall located south of TP13. It is also uncertain if any formal drainage has been
installed behind this retaining wall (which would be strongly recommended in order to
prevent build-up of pore water pressures in backfill soils).
• The grading of slopes to promote run-off away from structures and towards storm water
collection points is recommended.
• All sloping areas, embankments and engineered terraces should be constructed with
adequate erosion protection measures. This may include catchment drains above the crest of
the slope/embankment, and adequate vegetation or formal erosion protection across the
slope face.
• Full drainage should be installed behind any new retaining walls (if applicable).
• Adequate stormwater drains are required across the site.
• Ensure the efficient collection and disposal of storm water and water from downpipes off-site
into formal drains (not directly into terrace soils) and regular checking of wet services for
leaks.
• Structures will require standard damp-proofing measures.
All drainage and storm water services should be designed in accordance with sound engineering
practice.
e) Stability of excavations
Minor sidewall collapse generally occurred within the areas of deeper fill and in zones of loose
transported sandy and cobbly sandy soils, once disturbed. The following should however be
noted with regards to sidewall stability for excavations <2.5m deep:-
• Table 3.3 provides a summary of recommended cut/excavation slope angles in varying soil
types as recommended by the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor).

• Any ‘Fill’ soils and transported soils, given their variable compressible and generally
cohesionless nature, will classify as “Type C” soils.
• The residual sandstone and sandstone bedrock is generally competent, but variable jointing
and bedding plane spacing (close to medium spaced) was encountered within the sandstone.
Thus unless this material can be assessed on site, the residual sandstone, sandstone bedrock
(due to presence of jointing and bedding planes that act as planes of weakness within the
rockmass) would generally classify as “Type A” material.
• If any shallow seepage is encountered, further flattening of sidewalls may be required.
Dewatering and the use of sandbagging or formal shoring may be required, even for shallow
excavations <1.5m deep.
• Excavated soils are to be stockpiled at least 1.50m away from the edge of the crest of cut
faces so as to prevent additional surcharge on the cut sidewalls. Surcharge from any plant
equipment, moving close to the crest of the cut slopes should also be avoided.
• Cuts/excavations deeper than 2.5m will require individual assessment and may require
formal shoring or further flattening of sidewalls.
Table 3.3 Recommended cut/excavation slope angles in varying soil types as
recommended by OSHA
Soil *Description Height/Depth ratio Slope angle
Type (degrees)
Stable Stable rock Generally vertical, but will 90
rock depend on the degree of
weathering and also the
presence of any jointing.
Type A Includes firm to stiff clay (UCS>150kPa) and cohesive or ¾:1 53
cemented sands and gravels (hardpan) above the groundwater
table which have no fissures, weak layers, or inclined layers
that dip into the trench.
Type B Include cohesive soils with an unconfined compressive 1:1 45
strength between 50 - 150kPa and include angular gravel, silt
and soils that meet compressive strength requirements of Type
A soil but that are fissured. Layered material sloping into the
trench will also classify as Soil Type B.
Type C Include cohesive soils with an unconfined compressive 1,5:1 34-35
strength of <50kPa. Type C soils typically consist gravel, sand
and submerged soil, soil from which water freely seeps and
submerged rock.
*Certain exceptions/construction or site conditions may result in a lower soil type classification than described
f) Site Classification
• In accordance with SANS 10400-H, a conventional site classification is generally based on
strip footings, either 0.60m (single storey) or 0.80m (double storey) wide, with a load limited
to 50kPa founded at a depth of approximately 0.5m.
• As indicated in the profiles and DCP test results, founding conditions and soils vary from
north to south of Maeuya Street and these two areas were thus analysed separately.
• Using the results of the penetration testing, an analysis of total elastic settlement was
conducted using the above loading conditions and parameters, together with the method of
Burland and Burbidge. These results are summarized in Table 3.3 below:-

• Although bearing pressures for site classification purposes should be limited to 50kPa, in
accordance with SANS 634 and SANS10400-H, previous experience indicates that bearing
pressures of up to 80kPa are often applicable for duplex structures. Expected movement for
80kPa bearing pressures under the same founding conditions are thus also included in
Table 3.1, for indicative purposes, if required.
• Although residual siltstone, with a low potential for heave movement (<7.5mm) was
encountered in limited parts of the site, and thus the addition of the site classification “H”
could be considered, the potential for total and differential movement is considered more
applicable to foundation design for future structures. This site class was thus not included in
the site classification for simplification purposes, but overall site drainage design would need
to be carefully considered so as to limit seasonal moisture changes in deeper residual clayey
and silty soils.
Table 3.4 Expected settlement and site classifications applicable to structures founded at
nominal depth from current ground level using strip footings ≤800mm wide with 50kPa
bearing pressures
Site Area Applicable Bearing Expected soil movement (based Applicable
results pressures on strip footings not exceeding site class
(kPa) 800mm wide) based on
expected
movement
Best case result Worst Case
result
50 15mm 21mm S2
North of Maeuya Street DCP1,6,8,10,15
80 25mm *>30mm S2
DCP2,3,4,5,7,9, 50 <5mm 13mm S1

South of Maeuya Street
11,12,13,14 80 <7mm 20mm S1
*Notes: Settlement >25mm is not considered acceptable for conventional foundations
• The results indicate a high expected settlement (potentially exceeding 20mm in some areas)
is expected for erven along the northern side of the site, even under nominal loading
conditions. Given the presence of deeper variable “uncontrolled fill” (containing variable
amounts of rubble and variably compacted) encountered in this area a site class of P(fill)/S2
is thus applicable.
• Less settlement is expected on the southern sides of the site. Although emplaced fill from
bulk earthworks is present in this area, the fill does not contain much rubble and has
undergone compaction. The applicable site class for this area will thus be based on soil
compressibility only. High variability in expected total settlement and thus potentially
differential settlement (<5mm to 13mm) can however be expected due to variable
compressibility. A site class of S1 is thus applicable in this area.
• The aerial extent of the applicable site classes is indicated on the attached layout plan
(Appendix A).

4. Foundation recommendations
In accordance with SANS 10400-H, Table 4.1 provides typical foundation recommendations
applicable to the most relevant site classes identified in Section 3.
Table 4.1 Foundation recommendations for single/double storey masonry structures (limited
to 50kPa bearing pressures) based on site classification in accordance with SANS 10400-H
Site Estimated Founding Construction Foundation design and building procedures (expected
class range Option type damage limited to category 1 of expected damage
settlement
(mm)
• Reinforced strip footings

• Articulation joints at some internal doors and all
Modified external doors
1 normal
• Light reinforcement in masonry
construction
• Site drainage and service and plumbing precautions
• Foundation pressure not to exceed 50 kPa
• Remove in-situ material below foundations to a depth

Compaction of and width of 1,5 times the foundation width or to a
in-situ soils suitable soil horizon and replace with material
2 below compacted to 93 % MOD AASHTO density at −1 % to
individual +2 % of optimum moisture content
footings • Normal construction with lightly reinforced strip
S1 10-20
foundations and light reinforcement in masonry
• Normal construction with drainage precautions when

Deep strip founding on a suitable soil horizon below the problem
3 soil horizon
foundations
• mesh reinforcement in floor slabs
• Remove in-situ material to 1,0 m beyond the perimeter

of the building to a depth of 1,5 times the widest
foundation or to a suitable soil horizon and replace
4 Soil raft with material compacted to 93 % MOD AASHTO
density at −1 % to +2 % of optimum moisture content
• Normal construction with lightly reinforced strip
footings and light reinforcement in masonry
Founding options essentially same as options 2,3 & 4 for S1 class soils (as shown
above, with additions of option 5&6 below). Option 1 (modified construction) is
not considered applicable for S2 soils.
Stiffened or cellular raft with lightly reinforced or

articulated masonry
S2 (very Stiffened or
limited 5 • Bearing pressure not to exceed 50 kPa
>20 cellular raft
site • Mesh reinforcement in floor slabs
extent) • Site drainage and service and plumbing precautions
• Reinforced concrete ground beams or solid slabs on

Piled or pier piled or pier foundations
6
foundations • Ground slabs with fabric reinforcement
• Good site drainage

With reference to Table 4.1, the foundation recommendations for each identified site class is
discussed further below:-
1) Site class P(fill)/S2
a) Due to the variable quality, depth and thickness of the uncontrolled fill (variably compacted
fill containing some pieces of rubble) in this area, the use of Founding options 2 (compaction
below individual footings) & 3 (deepened strip footings) in Table 4.1 are not recommended.
b) Option 4 (soil raft) could potentially be considered but would require extensive additional
bulk earthworks to implement, as it would require stripping out all soils to a depth of
approximately 1.2m below the bottom of foundation level (for 800mm wide strip footings)
and compacting these soils to at least 93% MDD in layers not exceeding 150mm. Fill soils
containing rubble, refuse or organic materials would need to be removed over its full depth,
stripped to spoil and replaced with a suitable quality granular material. This extensive
additional bulk earthworks may well not be considered feasible.
c) The use of piled foundations would require additional investigation in the form of rotary
core drilling to determine most suitable piling type, pile depths and for pile design and
costing purposes. Piled foundations would likely also be considered economically not
feasible given the small scale structures planned.
d) The most suitable option applicable to the S2 site class and site conditions encountered on
site would be the use of stiffened concrete raft foundations for the erven located north of
Maeuye Street.
2) Site Class S1
Although numerous founding options are available for this area (as per Table 4.1) the most
suitable option will depend on the bulk earthworks still required in this area. Apparently, due to
the elevation difference of approximately 1.0-1.5m between lower lying road level (northern
side) and higher lying rear side (southern side) of the erven, additional bulk earthworks will be
required. This will either take the form of:
i. A terrace cut, lowering the higher lying central to rear side of the erven to an elevation level
closer to that of road level. In terms of foundations, this would essentially lower the founding
level on the cut side of the site, but with minimal cut on the northern, lower lying side.
Founding would thus take place on a combination of deeper in-situ soils (in varying depth of
cut) to nominal depth in areas of little to no cut.
This option will however require cuts and removing of soil material at a distance of
approximately 1.5m from the toe of the gabion retaining wall located at the rear side of the
Phase 3 development area. Although gabion retaining walls are designed as mass retaining
wall structures, and should thus be minimally affected, removal of material close to the toe of
any retaining wall may affect both internal (sliding and overturning) stability and global
stability. Since the design parameters of the gabion retaining wall are unknown, suitability of
this option would need to be assessed by the retaining wall design engineers before
implementation.
Lowering the rear side of the erven will also remove material at the toe of the brick retaining
wall located south of TP13. Removal of material at the base of the brick retaining wall is not
recommended as this wall is founded at a shallow depth and there is a risk of undermining
the foundations or affecting foundation stability. This wall does also not function as a mass
gravity retaining wall. It will thus be much more susceptible to undermining, overturning and
sliding and the removal of material at the toe of the wall would also need to be assessed by
the wall design engineers.

ii. Importing engineered terrace fill to raise levels on the lower lying side of the site, closer to the
road.
Any engineered terrace would need to be constructed using a well compacted (at least 93-
95% MDD recommended) and suitable quality granular material in accordance with SANS
10400-H. This engineered terrace would either need to be supported by a suitably designed
retaining wall, or a suitably sloped and erosion protected embankment (depending on the
amount of available space).
Any new formal retaining wall would need to be designed and assessed in terms of internal
stability and global slope stability, using appropriate soil shear strength parameters (as
provided in Table 3.2), as well as taking any temporary and permanent surcharge loading
(from future structures) into consideration. Full drainage should be provided behind all
retaining walls.
For sloped terrace embankments, in accordance with SANS 10400-H, this generally requires
the toe of foundations (strip footings or slab-on-the-ground foundations) to be at least 1.0m
from the edge of the 1(v): ≥1(h) sloped engineered fill embankment, with an additional
erosion protection support berm (preferably vegetated) sloped of not less than 1(v): ≥2(h)
extending beyond the engineered fill section.
Due to this likely variable thickness of engineered fill required to create the level terrace,
conventional founding would thus take place at nominal depth on a combination of in-situ
soils (in areas of little to no fill) to engineered fill of varying thickness
Both options thus pose a potential risk of variable differential settlement due to founding on a
combination of soil types.
With reference to Table 4.1, the following can thus be noted:
a) Founding using modified construction (Option 1 Table 4.1)
This option is not recommended in the S1 area unless structures can be designed to
accommodate high potential differential settlement as can possibly be expected given the
variability in settlement when founding on both a cut platform or a fill platform of varying
thickness. This potential differential settlement is indicated by the varying expected best case
and worst case settlement (in Table 4.2 below) when founding at different depths relative to
current ground level, as would be expected when creating either a partial cut terrace
(Option A in Table 4.2) or fill terrace (Option B in Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Expected settlement and site classifications applicable to structures founded
varying depths from current ground level using strip footings ≤800mm wide with limited
bearing pressures
Founding conditions Bearing pressures Expected soil movement (based on strip Applicable
(kPa) footings not exceeding 800mm wide) site class
based on
Best case Worst Case expected
movement
A) For creation of a cut terrace, with cuts along the rear to central parts of the erven
Founding at nominal depth (0.5m 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

below current ground level) in areas
of little to no cut 80 ≤7mm 20mm S1
Founding at a depth of a least 1.0m 50 ≤3mm ≤7mm S

below current ground level (or
deeper) in areas of cut (≥ 0.5m cut) 80 ≤5mm ≤10mm S

Founding conditions Bearing pressures Expected soil movement (based on strip Applicable
(kPa) footings not exceeding 800mm wide) site class
based on
Best case Worst Case expected
movement
B) For creation of a raised engineered terrace along the front to central parts of the erven
Founding at nominal depth (0.5m 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

below current ground level) in areas
of little to no fill 80 ≤7mm 20mm S1
Founding at current ground level 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

depth in areas where fill raises
elevation by 0.5m 80 5mm 21mm S2
Founding at 0.5m above current 50 ≤5mm 12mm S1

current ground level depth in areas
where fill raises elevation by 1.0m 80 8mm 18mm S1
*Notes: Settlement >25mm is not considered acceptable for conventional foundations
b) Founding on compacted soils (Option 2 & 4 Table 4.1)

Founding on compacted soils either below individual footings (Option 2, Table 4.1), or creating
a soil raft (as per Option 4 Table 4.1) could be considered. Compaction could likely partially be
negated if an adequately compacted raised engineered fill terrace option is considered.
However the raised portion of terrace will vary in thickness and is not likely to extend across
the entire erf. Thus depending on the proposed foundation size and founding depth, depth of
compaction would need to extend below the base of the raised terrace into in-situ soils
(especially in areas of little to no terrace fill and also areas where deeper foundations are
required so as to avoid placing additional loads on any new retaining walls).
As indicated in Table 4.1, compaction would need to extend to a depth of at least 1.5 times
foundation width (900mm deep for 600mm strip footings and 1200mm deep for 800mm strip
footings), below the bottom of foundation level.
This will thus require the necessary depth of over excavation and compaction of in-situ soils
prior to terrace fill construction so as to meet this requirement. Under these conditions
settlement is not expected to exceed 10mm if loads are limited to 50kPa. Expected settlement
for heavier loads would depend on final loading conditions and quality of compaction achieved
on site.
c) Found on a combination of conventional and deep strip footing (Option 3 Table 4.1)
The option that will likely require the least additional compaction bulk earthworks, would be to
first create a cut terrace. Then depending on the depth of cut across the site, structures could
be founded using a combination of conventional strip footings at nominal depth (0.5m deep in
areas where cut exceeded 0.5m), to stepping down, deepened strip footings, extending to a
depth of at least 1.0m below current ground level, in areas of little to no cut.
The aim would be to place the load across the footprint, at a depth of at least 1.0m below
current ground level, as soils below this level show less variability in compressibility. This may
require deepened strip footings along certain sections of the individual structure footprint.
As indicated in Table 4.2, expected settlement for both best and worst case for founding at a
depth of 1.0m (below current ground level) should not be expected to exceed 10mm for
50-80kPa. Differential settlement between best and worst case may however still be in the
order of 75-100% and would need to be accommodated in the design of the structures.
As mentioned previously, although this option does provide the least settlement with the least
additional compaction earthworks required, the removal of material close to the toe of the
existing retaining walls (especially the brick retaining wall south of TP13) would need to be
carefully assessed by the wall design engineers. Additional support for these retaining walls may
be required to maintain overall stability.
5. General
• Any uncontrolled fill or soils containing rubble, refuse or organic material (if encountered
within foundation trenches) are unsuitable for founding purposes or for use in construction.
• Any future engineered terrace needs to be constructed using a suitable quality granular
material (G7/G8 quality recommended). It would need to be constructed through compaction
in lifts not exceeding 150mm, compacted to at least 93-95% MDD, with adequate erosion
protection and/or lateral support, in accordance with SANS 10400-H specifications. As
discussed above, depending on the founding option, compaction of underlying in-situ soils
may also be required. This may require over excavation and similar compaction (in 150mm
lifts as above). Adequate quality control of compaction, with both troxler density and DCP
testing, is required.
• Structures should be designed to accommodate the relevant expected total and differential
settlement as indicated in Tables 3.4 & 4.2. Both best and worst case conditions have been
provided as an indication of the degree of differential settlement that should be accounted for
in the design of the structures. Heavier loads can be assessed separately, if required, but are
expected to yield greater estimates of settlement and may result in a different applicable site
classification.
• Surface beds can be founded conventionally on suitably compacted terrace soils (where
applicable (compaction to at least 95% MDD recommended) and in accordance with SANS
10400-J) following removal of any topsoil, uncontrolled fill (if encountered).
Surface beds should be isolated from the walls and contain suitable reinforcement in
accordance with national standards.
Alternatively they can be designed as suspended slabs.
In summary, the additional investigation has further refined the foundation recommendations for lightly
loaded residential structures within the Phase 3 development area. Two different site classifications have
been identified across the area, each with there own foundation recommendations, depending on the
final bulk earthworks still required.
We trust this report meets your requirements.
Kind regards
EUGENE LAUBSCHER
Appendix A: Site plans (figure 1a-c)

Appendix B: Soil Profiles
Appendix C: DCP test results
Appendix D: Lab results
Appendix E: Settlement analysis
Appendix F: Test pit and site Photos

TP1/DCP1
TP15/DCP15
TP2/DCP2
TP6/DCP6
TP8/DCP8
TP3/DCP3 TP10/DCP10
TP5/DCP5
TP4/DCP4
TP11/DCP11
TP7/DCP7
TP9/DCP9
TP12/DCP12
TP14/DCP14
TP13/DCP13
Key
Test pit, DCP location Client: OWS

Project
Dido Valley Phase 3 Infill testing
title:
Drawing
Site plan with test positions
title:
Tel: +27 21 671 4280 Date: 04/2024 Traced by: EL
Email: admin@coregeotech.co.za
Postal address: 4c Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road, Kenilworth, 7708
Scale: NTS Fig no.: 1a Job no.: 006-24
TP1
[0-0.3]
[0.3-1.8]
TP2 [1.8-3.0]
TP15
[0-0.7]
[0.7-1.3] [0-0.5]
[1.3-1.9] [0.5-0.7] TP6 [0-0.3]
TP3 [0.7-1.6] [0.3-1.3] TP8
[1.6-2.9] [1.3-1.9] [0-0.6] TP10
[0-0.2] TP4 [1.9-3.1] [0.6-2.0] [0-0.6]
[2.0-3.1]
[0.2-0.7] TP5 [0.6-1.1]
[0.7-1.9] [0-0.6] [1.1-2.3]
[1.9-2.4] [0.6-1.0] TP7 [2.3-2.9]
[0-0.8]
[1.0-1.7]
[0.8-1.5] TP9 TP11
[1.3] [0-0.2]
[1.5-2.3]
[0.2-1.5] TP12
[1.5-1.6] [0-0.4] [0-0.6]
[0.4-1.3] [0.6-1.7] [0-0.2]
[1.3-2.0]
TP14 [1.7-2.0] [0.2-1.0]
[2.0-2.3] [2.0-2.2] [1.0-1.8]
[1.8-2.0]
[0-0.2]
Summary of soil profile with depth [mbgl] [0.2-1.4]
[1.4-2.3]
[x-xx]Sandy and gravelly sandy fill (little to no rubble)
[x-xx] Cobbly gravelly sandy fill (little to no rubble)
[x-xx] Sandy fill with variable amounts rubble TP13
[x-xx] Transported sand, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles
[x-xx] Residual sandstone/sandtone bedrock [0-0.3]
[0.3-1.4]
[1.3] Depth of seepage [1.4-1.7]
Key
Client: OWS
Test pit, DCP location
Project
title:
Drawing
Site plan with test positions and soil profile summary
title:
Date: 04/2024 Traced by: EL
Tel: +27 21 671 4280
Postal address: 4c Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road, Kenilworth, 7708
Scale: NTS Fig no.: 1b Job no.: 006-24
TP1
TP2
TP15
S1
TP6
TP3 P(fill)/S2 TP8
TP4 TP10
S1 TP5
P(fill)/S2
TP7
TP9 TP11
TP12
S1
TP14
TP13
Key
Client: OWS
Test pit, DCP location Project
title:
Area not included in investigation Drawing
Site layout plan with site classifications
title:
Site class Date: 04/2024 Traced by: EL
Tel: +27 21 671 4280
Postal address: 4c Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road, Kenilworth, 7708 S1 P(fill)/S2 Scale: NTS Fig no.: 1c Job no.: 006-24
GLENCAIRN DIDO VALLEY HOLE No: TP01
PHASE 3 AREA Sheet 1 of 1
TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry grey brown loose gravelly sand. Fill.
0.25
Dry to slightly moist yellow orange loose to medium dense angular to
subangular sandstone cobbles and small boulders in gravelly sand. Fill.
BULK
1.80
Moist dark brown medium dense silty sand with scattered gravel and
sandstone cobbles. Possibly transported
2.20
Moist brown loose to medium dense intact fine to medium grained sand
with low silt content. Transported.
3.00
End of test pit on sand.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
2) No sidewall collapse.
3) Not refusal but machine limit reached.
4) BULK sample at at 0.25--1.8m.

CONTRACTOR : INCLINATION : ELEVATION : Ground level
MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD :
DRILLED BY : DATE : Y-COORD :
PROFILED BY : Eugene Laubscher DATE : 4 April 2024
HOLE No: TP01
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47 DIDO VALLEY
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..eyPhase3soilprofiles.txt
D068 Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd. dotPLOT 7022 PBpH67
Scale 0.00
1:10 Dry light brown medium dense weakly cemented fine to medium grained
sand with sandstone cobbles and gravel. Fill.
0.30
Dry to slightly moist brown with light orange loose to medium dense fine
to medium grained sand with scattered gravel, isolated rubble (pieces of
brick) and cobbles. Fill.
0.70
Slightly moist light brown loose to medium dense intact fine to medium
grained sand with scattered sandstone gravel and angular to subangular
cobbles. Transported.
BULK
1.40
Slightly moist cream and orange medium dense to very dense weakly to
moderately cemented sand with sandstone gravel and cobbles. Residual
sandstone.
1.90
End of test pit on Residual sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in residual

sandstone.
4) BULK sample at at 0.7--1.4m.

CONTRACTOR : INCLINATION : ELEVATION : Ground level
HOLE No: TP02
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry light brown medium dense gravelly sand with low silt content. Fill.
0.20
Slightly moist orange medium dense cobbly gravelly sand with low fines
content. Likely fill.
0.70
Moist to very moist dense fine to medium grained sand with scattered
sandstone gravel and cobbles. Transported.
2.00
Slightly moist cream and orange medium dense to very dense weakly to
moderately cemented sand with sandstone gravel and cobbles. Residual
sandstone.
2.40
End of test pit on sand with sandstone gravel and cobbles. Residual
sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.

sandstone.
CONTRACTOR : INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

HOLE No: TP03
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:10 Slightly moist light brown and yellow loose to medium dense fine to
medium grained sand with angular sandstone gravel, cobbles and
boulders. Fill.
0.60
Moist brown loose fine to medium grained sand with scattered sandstone
gravel and cobbles. Likely transported.
1.00
Moist creamy grey firm closely jointed sandy clayey silt. Residual siltstone.
* Some root growth along joints.
SMALL
1.70
End of test pit on sandy clayey silt. Residual siltstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.

siltstone.
4) SMALL sample at 1.0--1.7m.

HOLE No: TP04
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Slightly moist light brown and yellow loose to medium dense fine to
medium grained sand with angular sandstone gravel, cobbles and
boulders. Fill.
0.80
Moist brown loose fine to medium grained sand with scattered sandstone
gravel. Likely transported.
1.3m
1.60
Very moist cream and yellow firm to stiff sandy silty clay. Residual
sandstone.
1.90
Wet yellow and orange dense weakly cemented clayey sand. Residual
sandstone.
2.30
End of test pit on clayey sand. Residual sandstone.
NOTES
1) Low to moderate seepage at 1.3m.
2) Sidewall collapse in transported soils.

sandstone.

HOLE No: TP05
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry brown very loose to loose fine to medium grained sand with
sandstone cobbles. Fill - contains isolated pieces of brick rubble.
0.30
Slightly moist light brown loose to medium dense fine to medium grained
sand with low fines and gravel content. Fill - contains isolated rubble.
1.30
Slightly moist brown variable consistency sand. Uncontrolled fill - contains
abundant brick rubble and some pieces of wood.
1.90
Slightly moist to moist yellow and brown variable consistency fine to
medium grained sand with low gravel (sandstone) content. Possibly
transported.
3.10
Refusal on rubble.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
2) Sidewall collapse in fill.
3) Refusal on rubble.
HOLE No: TP06
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:10 Dry cream very loose gravelly sand. Fill.
0.20
Slightly moist to moist orange medium dense to dense cobbly gravelly
sand. Transported and reworked residual sandstone.
* Becomes increasingly cemented with depth.
BULK
1.50
End of test pit on cemented gravelly sand. Residual sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in very dense

residual sandstone.
4) BULK sample at 0.2--1.3m.

HOLE No: TP07
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Slightly moist brown loose cobbly gravelly sand. Fill.
0.30
Slightly moist orange loose to medium dense cobbly gravelly sand. Fill.
0.60
Slightly moist brown variable consistency fine to medium grained sand
with scattered sandstone cobbles, small boulders. Uncontrolled fill -
contains large pieces of rubble.
2.00
Slightly most orange medium dense gravelly sand. Transported.
3.10
End of test pit on gravelly sand.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
2) Sidewall collapse in fill.
3) Not refusal machine limit reached.

HOLE No: TP08
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry to slightly moist orange brown dense cobbly gravelly sand. Fill.
0.40
Slightly moist brown very loose to loose fine to medium grained sand with
low gravel and fines content. Likely fill - no rubble.
1.30
Moist yellow orange medium dense to dense weakly cemented gravelly
sand with low fines content. Possibly transported.
* Degree of cementation increases with depth.
2.00
Moist yellow orange dense weakly to moderately cemented slightly clayey
sand. Residual sandstone.
2.30
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty on residual sandstone.

HOLE No: TP09
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry brown dense cobbly gravelly sand with low fines content. Fill.
* Has undergone compaction.
0.60
Slightly moist orange variable consistency gravelly silty sand. Fill -
contains isolated rubble.
1.10
Slightly moist brown and orange loose gravelly silty sand. Uncontrolled
Fill - contains pieces of rubble.
2.30
Slightly moist brown loose to medium dense slightly silty fine to medium
grained sand with isolated gravel. Possibly transported.
2.90
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty on residual sandstone.

HOLE No: TP10
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:10 Dry yellow orange medium dense to dense cobbly gravelly silty sand. Fill -
compacted.
0.60
Dry to slightly moist brown very loose to loose fine to medium grained
sand with isolated gravel. Fill - contains isolated pieces of wire.
* Zones of organic rich sandy silt present from 1.0-1.6m.
1.70
Dry orange brown dense to very dense cemented gravelly sand. Residual
sandstone.
2.00
Refusal on soft rock sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Refsal on soft rock sandstone.

HOLE No: TP11
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:10 Dry light brown loose gravelly sand. Fill.
0.20
Dry yellow orange medium dense to dense cobbly gravelly silty sand. Fill -
compacted.
1.00
Dry to slightly moist brown loose to medium dense fine to medium grained
sand with minor zones or organic rich sandy silt.
1.80
sandstone.
2.00
Refusal on very soft rock sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Refusal on very soft rock sandstone.

HOLE No: TP12
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:10 Slightly moist brown loose to medium dense gravelly sand. Fill - contains
isolated rubble.
0.40
Moist yellow orange loose intact fine to medium grained sand with
isolated gravel and low fines content. Possibly transported.
1.40
sandstone.
1.70
Refusal on very soft rock sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Refusal on very soft rock sandstone.

HOLE No: TP13
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Slightly moist brown loose to medium dense gravelly sand. Fill - contains
isolated rubble.
0.20
Moist light brown loose to medium dense fine to medium grained sand
with isolated gravel. Possibly transported.
1.30
Moist yellow medium dense to dense weakly cemented gravelly sand.
Residual sandstone.
2.10
sandstone.
2.30
Refusal on soft rock sandstone.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Refusal on soft rock sandstone.

HOLE No: TP14
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
Scale 0.00
1:15 Dry light brown variable consistency cobbly gravelly slightly silty sand. Fill
- contains isolated boulders and pieces of rubble.
0.50
Dry yellow orange variable consistency gravelly silty sand. Fill.
0.80
Dry light brown very loose gravelly fine to medium grained sand with
scattered cobbles and small boulders and pieces of rubble (brick and
concrete). Uncontrolled Fill.
1.60
Slightly moist medium brown loose fine to medium grained sand with
isolated gravel.
2.90
End of test pit on sand with isolated gravel.
NOTES
1) No seepage.
3) Not refusal but machine limit reached.

HOLE No: TP15
TYPE SET BY : DATE : 19/04/2024 06:47
GLENCAIRN DIDO VALLEY JOB NO.: 002-12
PHASE 3 AREA
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER DCP 1

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 1b
LEVEL: -1.0m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
Depth (cm below test level)
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 1
DCP 1b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0
Penetration mm/blow No. of blows/100mm (N10)

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 2b
LEVEL: -0.8m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 2
DCP 2b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 3b
LEVEL: -0.9m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 3
DCP 3b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 4b
LEVEL: -0.9m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 4
DCP 4b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 5b
LEVEL: -0.6m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 5
DCP 5b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 6b
LEVEL: -0.6m
0 0
-50 -50
Refusal on boulder
Refusal on boulder
-100 -100
Refusal on rubble
Refusal on rubble
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 6
DCP 6b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 7b
LEVEL: -0.6m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 7
DCP 7b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 8b
LEVEL: -0.7m
DCP 8c
LEVEL: -1.3m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
Refusal on rubble
-150 -150
Refusal on rubble
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 8
DCP 8b
DCP 8c
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 9b
LEVEL: -0.6m
50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 9
DCP 9b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 10b
LEVEL: -0.7m
302
0
-50
-50
-100
-100
-150
-150
-200
-200
-250
-250
DCP 10
DCP 10b
-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No. of blows/100mm (N10)
Penetration mm/blow
PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 11b
LEVEL: -0.6m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 11
DCP 11b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 12b
LEVEL: -1.0m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 12
DCP 12b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 13b
15 -0.7m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 13
DCP 13b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 14b
LEVEL: -0.7m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 14
DCP 14b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA

(DCP) LEVEL: GL
DCP 15b
LEVEL: -0.8m
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
DCP 15
DCP 15b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA
Combined all erven
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER
(DCP)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
DCP 1
DCP 1b
DCP 2
DCP 2b
DCP 3
DCP 3b
DCP 4
-200 DCP 4b -200
DCP 5
DCP 5b
DCP 6
DCP 6b
DCP 7
DCP 7b
DCP 8
DCP 8b
DCP 8c
DCP 9
DCP 9b
DCP 10
-250 DCP 10b -250
DCP 11
DCP 11b
DCP 12
DCP 12b
DCP 13
DCP 13b
DCP 14 Zone of High
DCP 15
DCP 15b
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA
Northern erven
(DCP)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 DCP 1 -150
DCP 1b
DCP 6
DCP 6b
-200 -200
DCP 8
DCP 8b
DCP 8c
DCP 10
-250 -250
DCP 10b
DCP 15
Zone of High
Zone of high
compressibility
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PHASE 3 AREA
Southern erven
(DCP)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
DCP 2
-150 DCP 2b -150
DCP 3
DCP 3b
DCP 4
DCP 4b
DCP 5
DCP 5b
-200 -200
DCP 7
DCP 7b
DCP 9
DCP 9b
DCP 11
DCP 11b
-250 DCP 12 -250
DCP 12b
DCP 13
DCP 13b
Zone of High
DCP 14 compressibility
DCP 14b Zone of high
compressibility
-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

01 March 2022 Rev05 TR - SW0006
11 Gooderson Road Blackheath

PO Box 58 Blackheath 7581
Tel: 021 905 0435
Fax: 086 499 9482
Email: info@steynwilson.co.za
Web: www.steynwilson.co.za
Client: Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd
Project: Dido Valley Infill
Attention: Mr E Laubscher
Your Ref. No: -
Date Reported 18/04/2024
TEST REPORT REFERENCE NUMBER / JOB NUMBER : SWL33229

Dear Sir / Madam
Herewith please find the original reports pertaining to the above mentioned project.
Test Requested Site Sampling and Materials Information
3 x MDD / CBR /IND Sampling Method Sampled by CLIENT
Enviromental Condition Windy
Deviation from the prescribed

No deviation from standard test method.
test method
Responsibility of information The sample information was received from the customer.
disclaimer Results apply to the sample as received from the Customer.
FINAL REPORT
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your valued support.
Should you have any further enquiries please don't hesitate to contact me.
Yours Faithfully
STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD
Remarks:
1. Information contained herein is confidential to STEYN-WILSON PTY LTD and the addressee
2. Opinions & Interpretations are not included in our schedule of Accreditation. Mr. J.Steyn
3. The samples where subjected and analysed according to SANS 3001. Technical Signatory
4. The results reported relate only to the sample tested, Further use of the attached information is not
the responsibility or liability of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
5. This document is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other
than with full written approval from a director of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
6. Measuring equipment is traceable to national standards (Where applicable).
7. Should there be any deviation from the prescribed test method comments will be made thereof,
pertaining to the test on the relevant materials report.
8. Uncertainty of measurement is calculated and corresponds to a coverage probability of approximately 95%. Available on request.
9. The decision rule states that the measurement of uncertainty can be applied by the customer to the test results, on request. It is not the responsibility or
liability of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
DIRECTORS: Mr. J. Steyn ND-Civil (Managing) | Mr. R. Wilson B-Tech Civil (Operations)
Compiled By: M.Steyn Approved By: J.Steyn / R. Wilson Page 1 of 2

01 March 2022 Rev05 TR - SW0006

Tel: 021 905 0435
Fax: 086 499 9482
JOB NO: SWL33229 Your Ref - Date 18/04/2024

CLIENT: Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd
PROJECT: Dido Valley Infill
4C Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road
Kenilworth BALANCE: AC1/0003
7708 OVEN: AB1/0001
AUTO COMPACTOR: AD1/0002
ATTENTION: Mr E Laubscher CBR PRESS: AA1/0001
CBR REPORT - TMH5 MD1, MD2 / SANS 3001 GR1, PR5, GR10, GR12, GR20, GR30, GR40, AG10, AG4, AG14, TMH1 A20, TMH1 A21T, *COTO, SANS 3001 AG20/21
The unambiguous description of the sample/s as received are as follows :
SAMPLE No. 33279/1 SPEC 33279/2 SPEC 33279/3 SPEC
HOLE No. / SV. / CHAINAGE TP1 TP2 TP7
ROAD No. OR NAME Dido Valley Dido Valley Dido Valley

LAYER TESTED / SAMPLED FROM 0,2-1,5m 0,7-1,4m 0,2-1,5m
DATE RECEIVED 05/04/202 COTO - G8 05/04/202 COTO - G7 05/04/202 COTO - G7
CLIENTS MARKING - - -
DESCRIPTION
OF Light Yellowish Brown Sand Light Yellowish Brown Sand Light Yellowish Brown Sand
SAMPLE With S/Stone With S/Stone With S/Stone
(COLOUR & TYPE)
1,0000 1,0000 0,0345
REDUCTION FACTOR / RF CHECK
0,07 < 1% 0,08 < 1% 0,07 < 1%
100,0 100 - 100 - 100 -
75,0 100 - 100 - 100 -
63,0 100 - 100 - 98 -

SIEVE ANALYSIS (mm)
53,0 100 - 100 - 98 -

SANS 3001 GR1
37,5 100 - 100 - 95 -
28,0 100 - 100 - 91 -
20,0 100 - 100 - 88 -
14,0 100 - 100 - 87 -
5,00 96 - 100 - 84 -
2,00 94 - 97 - 82 -
0,425 44 - 31 - 47 -
0,075 5,8 - 7,2 - 2,8 -
ACV % 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 % FACT SANS AG10 kN 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 % FACT Wet / Dry ratio % 0 0 0 0 0 0
FLAKINESS INDEX SANS AG4 % 0 - 0 - 0 -
FRACTURED FACES *COTO % 0 - 0 - 0 -
ATTERBERG LL% - 0,425mm N.P - N.P - N.P -
LIMITS P.I. - 0,425mm N.P ≤ (3xGM) + 10 N.P ≤ (3xGM) + 10 N.P ≤ (3xGM) + 10
LS% - 0,425mm 0,0 - 0,0 - 0,0 -

SANS 3001 GR10, GR12 P.I. - 0,075mm 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
GM 1,55 0,75 ≥ GM ≤ 2,7 1,64 0,75 ≥ GM ≤ 2,7 1,68 0,75 ≥ GM ≤ 2,7
Coarse sand 53 68 42
Fine sand 41 25 54
SOIL-MORTAR
Coarse fine sand 16 12 24
PERCENTAGES
Medium fine sand 14 8 19
SANS 3001 PR5 Fine fine sand 11 5 11
Silt and clay 6 7 3
Coarse sand ratio 0,5 0,7 0,4
MOD AASHTO OMC % 12,4 12,4 12,5
SANS 3001 GR30 MDD (kg/m³) 1824 1841 1868
APPARENT & BULK DENSITY / AD (kg/m³) 0 0 0
WATER ABSORPTION BD (kg/m³) 0 0 0
SANS 3001 AG20/21 WA % 0 0 0
COMP MC % 12,3 12,3 12,4
SWELL % 0,0 ≤ 1,5 0,0 ≤ 1,5 0,0 ≤ 1,5
100% 19 - 23 - 20 -
C.B.R. 98% 17 - 21 - 18 -
SANS 3001 GR40 97% 15 - 19 - 17 -
95% 13 - 17 - 16 -
93% 12 ≥ 10 16 ≥ 15 15 ≥ 15
90% 9 - 13 - 13 -
pH TMH1 A20 % 0 0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Conductivity TMH1 A21T (S/m) 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
Water Soluble Sulfates *SANS 5850-1 % 0 0 0

Acid Soluble Sulfates *SANS 5850-2 % 0 0 0 0 0 0
Durability Mill Index (max) - 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0

SANS AG16
% passing 0,425mm sieve after Test % 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0
NOTE : All tests marked with (*) means that those test methods are not accredited.
Compiled By: M.Steyn Approved By: J.Steyn / R. Wilson Page 2 of 2

03 March 2022 Rev06 TR - SW0017

Tel: 021 905 0435
Fax: 086 499 9482
Client: Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd
Project: Dido Valley Infill
Attention: Mr E Laubscher
Your Ref. No: -
Date Reported 18/04/2024
TEST REPORT REFERENCE NUMBER / JOB NUMBER : SWL33229

Dear Sir / Madam
Herewith please find the original reports pertaining to the above mentioned project.
Test Requested Site Sampling and Materials Information
1 x FOUNDATION INDICATOR Sampling Method Specimens delivered to Steyn Wilson Laboratory.
Environmental Condition Sunny
Deviation from the prescribed

No deviation from standard test method.
test method
The sample information was received from the customer.
Responsibility of information
Results apply to the sample as received from the
disclaimer
Customer.
FINAL REPORT
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your valued support.
Should you have any further enquiries please don't hesitate to contact me.
Yours Faithfully
STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD
Remarks:
1. Information contained herein is confidential to STEYN-WILSON PTY LTD and the addressee
2. Opinions & Interpretations are not included in our schedule of Accreditation. Mr. J.Steyn
3. The samples where subjected and analysed according to ASTM. Technical Signatory
4. The results reported relate only to the sample tested, Further use of the attached information is not
the responsibility or liability of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
5. This document is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other
than with full written approval from a director of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
6. Measuring equipment is traceable to national standards (Where applicable).
7. Should there be any deviation from the prescribed test method comments will be made thereof,
pertaining to the test on the relevant materials report.
8. Uncertainty of measurement is calculated and corresponds to a coverage probability of approximately 95%. Available on request.
9. The decision rule states that the measurement of uncertainty can be applied by the customer to the test results, on request. It is not the responsibility or
liability of STEYN-WILSON LABORATORIES (PTY) LTD.
DIRECTORS: Mr. J. Steyn ND-Civil (Managing) | Mr. R. Wilson B-Tech Civil (Operations)
Compiled by: M.Steyn Approved By: J.Steyn / R. Wilson Page 1 of 2

03 March 2022 Rev06 TR - SW0017

Tel: 021 905 0435
Fax: 086 499 9482
Customer : Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd Project : Dido Valley Infill
4C Manor Mews, 4 Lancaster Road Date Received : 05/04/2024
Kenilworth Date Reported : 18/04/2024
7708 Req. Number : -
Attention : Mr E Laubscher Date Sampled: 05/04/2024
FOUNDATION INDICATOR ASTM D422
Material Description: Light Grey Hornfels Sample Number: 33229/1
Cassgranda
Position: TP4 Liquid Limit SANS 3001 GR12
30,1 Linear Shrinkage 4,7
Depth: 1,0-1,7m Plasticity Index 8,8 Insitu M/C% 16
(TMH1 A21T)
PH (TMH1 A20) 0 Conductivity 0 SG (TMH1 A12T)* 2,643
s.m-1
SIEVE ANALYSIS (TMH 1 A1a)* HYDROMETER ASTM D422
100 75 63 53 37,5 26,5 19,0 13,2 9,5 6,7 4,75 2,36 1,18 0,60 0,425 0,300 0,150 0,075 0,059 0,045 0,022 0,006 0,005 0,003 0,003 0,001
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 82,8 74,0 58,0 36,0 24,0 20,0 14,0 12,0 2,0
% Passing
Particle Size Distribution

100
90
80
Cumulative percentage Passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0,1 0,01 0,001
Particle Size (mm)
% Gravel 0 % Sand 21 % Silt 67 % Clay 12
Plasticity Chart Potential Expansiveness

70 L M H
A Line o e i
w d g Very High
60 i h
60 u
m
50
50
Plasticity Index
Plasticity Index
40 40
30 30
20
20
10
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Liquid Limit
Clay Percentage
NOTE: All tests marked with (*) means that those test methods are not accredited.
Compiled by: M.Steyn Approved By: J.Steyn / R. Wilson Page 2 of 2

SITE CLASS P(fill)/S2
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS BASED ON CONVENTIONAL FOUNDING SOLUTIONS USING Burland and Burbidge
assumed value where penetration was not possible
Penetration (mm/blow) Correlation of SPT N is equal to DCP penetration of

Average DCP below founding level 300mm x 0.3
Elastic
Test point Founding solution Ic= B(foundati
Wieghted q(load in Settlement
(1.71/N^1. on width Site Class
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)1.5- average kPa) in mm(si =
4) in m)
[1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m SPT(N)2.0-2.5m AverageN qB^0.7*Ic)
DCP1 30,00 30,00 20,00 25,00 3,00 3,00 4,50 3,60 3,50 3,0669873 0,356 50,000 0,800 15,23 S1
DCP6 50,00 20,00 25,00 25,00 1,80 4,50 3,60 3,60 3,30 2,6126136 0,446 50,000 0,800 19,06 S1
Conventional Strip
DCP8 footings on in-situ 50,00 20,00 30,00 25,00 1,80 4,50 3,00 3,60 3,10 2,4236125 0,495 50,000 0,800 21,18 S2
soils
DCP10 30,00 25,00 30,00 15,00 3,00 3,60 3,00 6,00 3,20 3,0267949 0,363 50,000 0,800 15,52 S1
DCP15 30,00 45,00 25,00 28,00 3,00 2,00 3,60 3,21 2,87 2,4625215 0,484 50,000 0,800 20,71 S2
Mean 40 25 22,5 25 2,25 3,60 4,00 3,60 3,28 2,8248485 0,400 50,000 0,800 17,09 S1
Penetration (mm/blow)
Correlation of SPT N is equal to DCP penetration of
Average DCP below founding level 300mm x 0.3 Elastic
average kPa) in mm(si =
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)1.5- 4) in m)
qB^0.7*Ic)
[1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m SPT(N)2.0-2.5m AverageN
DCP1 30,00 30,00 20,00 25,00 3,00 3,00 4,50 3,60 3,50 3,0669873 0,356 80,000 0,800 24,37 S1
DCP6 50,00 20,00 25,00 25,00 1,80 4,50 3,60 3,60 3,30 2,6126136 0,446 80,000 0,800 30,50 S1
DCP8 Conventional Strip
footings on in-situ 50,00 20,00 30,00 25,00 1,80 4,50 3,00 3,60 3,10 2,4236125 0,495 80,000 0,800 33,88 S2
soils
DCP10
30,00 25,00 30,00 15,00 3,00 3,60 3,00 6,00 3,20 3,0267949 0,363 80,000 0,800 24,82 S1
DCP15 30,00 45,00 25,00 28,00 3,00 2,00 3,60 3,21 2,87 2,4625215 0,484 80,000 0,800 33,14 S2
Mean 40 25 22,5 25 2,25 3,60 4,00 3,60 3,28 2,8248485 0,400 80,000 0,800 27,34 S1
SITE CLASS S1
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS BASED ON CONVENTIONAL FOUNDING SOLUTIONS USING Burland and Burbidge
assumed value where penetration was not possible

Elastic
4) in m)
0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m SPT(N)2.0-2.5m AverageN qB^0.7*Ic)
DCP2 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 10,50 7,0630682 0,111 50,000 0,800 4,74 S
DCP3 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 7,20 5,6411543 0,152 50,000 0,800 6,49 S
DCP4 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 6,79 4,8751017 0,186 50,000 0,800 7,96 S1
DCP5 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 5,20 3,5477288 0,290 50,000 0,800 12,42 S1
DCP7 Strip footings at 10,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 9,00 18,00 18,00 12,00 9,4019238 0,074 50,000 0,800 3,17 S
DCP9 0.5m
50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 8,27 3,976756 0,248 50,000 0,800 10,59 S1
DCP11 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 8,50 4,3693221 0,217 50,000 0,800 9,28 S
DCP12 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 50,000 0,800 6,98 S1
DCP13 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 9,50 5,8003379 0,146 50,000 0,800 6,24 S
DCP14 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 6,00 4,7009619 0,196 50,000 0,800 8,38 S
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 7,08 5,2015665 0,170 50,000 0,800 7,27 S1

Elastic
4) in m)
DCP2 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 10,50 7,0630682 0,111 80,000 0,800 7,58 S
DCP3 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 7,20 5,6411543 0,152 80,000 0,800 10,38 S1
DCP4 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 6,79 4,8751017 0,186 80,000 0,800 12,74 S1
DCP5 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 5,20 3,5477288 0,290 80,000 0,800 19,88 S1
DCP9 0.5m
50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 8,27 3,976756 0,248 80,000 0,800 16,94 S1
DCP11 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 8,50 4,3693221 0,217 80,000 0,800 14,85 S1
DCP12 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 80,000 0,800 11,17 S1
DCP13 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 9,50 5,8003379 0,146 80,000 0,800 9,99 S
DCP14 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 6,00 4,7009619 0,196 80,000 0,800 13,40 S1
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 7,08 5,2015665 0,170 80,000 0,800 11,63 S1
Elastic
4) in m)
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)1.5- qB^0.7*Ic)
0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m SPT(N)2.0-2.5m AverageN
DCP2 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 10,50 7,0630682 0,111 100,000 0,800 9,47 S
DCP3 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 7,20 5,6411543 0,152 100,000 0,800 12,98 S1
DCP4 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 6,79 4,8751017 0,186 100,000 0,800 15,92 S1
DCP5 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 5,20 3,5477288 0,290 100,000 0,800 24,84 S2
DCP9 0.5m
50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 8,27 3,976756 0,248 100,000 0,800 21,17 S2
DCP11 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 8,50 4,3693221 0,217 100,000 0,800 18,56 S1
DCP12 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 100,000 0,800 13,96 S1
DCP13 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 9,50 5,8003379 0,146 100,000 0,800 12,48 S1
DCP14 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 6,00 4,7009619 0,196 100,000 0,800 16,75 S1
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 7,08 5,2015665 0,170 100,000 0,800 14,54 S1
Founding in cut
Elastic
4) in m)
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)1.5- qB^0.7*Ic)
0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m SPT(N)2.0-2.5m AverageN
DCP2 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 15,00 12,401924 0,050 50,000 0,800 2,15 S
DCP3 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 10,20 6,5626933 0,123 50,000 0,800 5,25 S
DCP4 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 9,79 5,8666553 0,144 50,000 0,800 6,14 S
DCP5 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 10,00 6,2250828 0,132 50,000 0,800 5,65 S
1.0m below current
DCP9 ground level 50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 13,67 9,9138899 0,069 50,000 0,800 2,95 S
DCP11 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 13,50 9,6028857 0,072 50,000 0,800 3,08 S
DCP12 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 11,00 7,877501 0,095 50,000 0,800 4,07 S
DCP13 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 14,00 10,535898 0,063 50,000 0,800 2,71 S
DCP14 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 10,50 7,0630682 0,111 50,000 0,800 4,74 S
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 11,08 7,5722123 0,100 50,000 0,800 4,30 S

Elastic
4) in m)
DCP2 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 15,00 12,401924 0,050 80,000 0,800 3,45 S
DCP3 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 10,20 6,5626933 0,123 80,000 0,800 8,40 S1
DCP4 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 9,79 5,8666553 0,144 80,000 0,800 9,83 S1
DCP5 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 10,00 6,2250828 0,132 80,000 0,800 9,05 S1
1.0m below current
DCP9 ground level 50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 13,67 9,9138899 0,069 80,000 0,800 4,72 S
DCP11 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 13,50 9,6028857 0,072 80,000 0,800 4,93 S
DCP12 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 11,00 7,877501 0,095 80,000 0,800 6,51 S1
DCP13 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 14,00 10,535898 0,063 80,000 0,800 4,33 S
DCP14 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 10,50 7,0630682 0,111 80,000 0,800 7,58 S1
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 11,08 7,5722123 0,100 80,000 0,800 6,88 S1
Founding on raised platform with foundations at current ground level (Engineered fill terrace depth of 0.5m)
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)2.0- average kPa) in mm(si =
4) in m)
0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.0m 1.5m SPT(N)1.5-2.0m 2.5m AverageN qB^0.7*Ic)
DCP2 10,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 7,50 6,2009619 0,133 50,000 0,800 5,68 S
DCP3 18,00 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 5,87 4,4654767 0,210 50,000 0,800 9,00 S
DCP4 15,00 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 6,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 5,79 4,1290746 0,235 50,000 0,800 10,04 S1
DCP5 10,00 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 5,20 3,5477288 0,290 50,000 0,800 12,42 S1
Strip footings at
DCP7 current ground 10,00 10,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 9,00 9,00 18,00 18,00 9,00 9 0,079 50,000 0,800 3,37 S
level (elevated
DCP9 platforms of Approx 10,00 50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 5,27 3,4629668 0,300 50,000 0,800 12,85 S1
0.5m)
DCP11 10,00 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 5,50 3,9387505 0,251 50,000 0,800 10,73 S1
DCP12 10,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 50,000 0,800 6,98 S
DCP13 20,00 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 5,00 4,5669873 0,204 50,000 0,800 8,72 S
DCP14 30,00 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 4,00 3,5669873 0,288 50,000 0,800 12,33 S1
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 5,33 4,7449741 0,193 50,000 0,800 8,27 S
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)1.0- SPT(N)2.0- 4) in m)
qB^0.7*Ic)
0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m 1.5-2.0m 2.0-2.5m 1.0m 1.0m 1.5m SPT(N)1.5-2.0m 2.5m AverageN
DCP2 10,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 4,50 9,00 18,00 18,00 7,50 6,2009619 0,133 80,000 0,800 9,10 S
DCP3 18,00 10,00 25,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 9,00 18,00 5,87 4,4654767 0,210 80,000 0,800 14,40 S1
DCP4 15,00 10,00 38,00 10,00 5,00 6,00 9,00 2,37 9,00 18,00 5,79 4,1290746 0,235 80,000 0,800 16,07 S1
DCP5 10,00 25,00 30,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 3,00 9,00 18,00 5,20 3,5477288 0,290 80,000 0,800 19,88 S2
Strip footings at
DCP7 current ground 10,00 10,00 10,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 9,00 9,00 18,00 18,00 9,00 9 0,079 80,000 0,800 5,40 S
level (elevated
DCP9 platforms of Approx 10,00 50,00 18,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 1,80 5,00 18,00 18,00 5,27 3,4629668 0,300 80,000 0,800 20,56 S2
0.5m)
DCP11 10,00 30,00 20,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 3,00 4,50 18,00 18,00 5,50 3,9387505 0,251 80,000 0,800 17,17 S1
DCP12 10,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 9,00 4,50 6,00 9,00 18,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 80,000 0,800 11,17 S1
DCP13 20,00 20,00 15,00 5,00 5,00 4,50 4,50 6,00 18,00 18,00 5,00 4,5669873 0,204 80,000 0,800 13,96 S1
DCP14 30,00 20,00 20,00 10,00 5,00 3,00 4,50 4,50 9,00 18,00 4,00 3,5669873 0,288 80,000 0,800 19,73 S2
Mean 15 22,6 8 5 6,00 6,00 3,98 11,25 18,00 5,33 4,7449741 0,193 80,000 0,800 13,23 S1
Founding on raised platform with foundations at current ground level (Engineered fill terrace depth of 0.5m)
Elastic
SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)0.5- average kPa) in mm(si =
4) in m)
+0.5-0.m 0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m +0.5-0.m 1.0m 1.0m SPT(N)1.0-1.5m AverageN qB^0.7*Ic)
DCP2 15,00 10,00 20,00 10,00 6,00 9,00 4,50 9,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 50,000 0,800 6,98 S
DCP3 15,00 18,00 10,00 25,00 6,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 6,67 5,6258337 0,152 50,000 0,800 6,51 S
DCP4 15,00 15,00 10,00 38,00 6,00 6,00 9,00 2,37 7,00 6,1339746 0,135 50,000 0,800 5,77 S
DCP5 15,00 10,00 25,00 30,00 6,00 9,00 3,60 3,00 6,20 4,8472251 0,188 50,000 0,800 8,02 S
Strip footings on
DCP7 0.5m terrace fill 15,00 10,00 10,00 10,00 6,00 9,00 9,00 9,00 8,00 7,1339746 0,109 50,000 0,800 4,67 S
DCP9 (elevated platforms
of Approx 1.0m) 15,00 10,00 50,00 18,00 6,00 9,00 1,80 5,00 5,60 3,7916859 0,265 50,000 0,800 11,32 S1
DCP11 15,00 10,00 30,00 20,00 6,00 9,00 3,00 4,50 6,00 4,5 0,208 50,000 0,800 8,90 S
DCP12 15,00 10,00 20,00 15,00 6,00 9,00 4,50 6,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 50,000 0,800 6,98 S
DCP13 15,00 20,00 20,00 15,00 6,00 4,50 4,50 6,00 5,00 4,5669873 0,204 50,000 0,800 8,72 S
DCP14 15,00 30,00 20,00 20,00 6,00 3,00 4,50 4,50 4,50 3,75 0,269 50,000 0,800 11,49 S1
Mean 15,00 15 22,6 22,6 6,00 6,00 6,00 3,98 6,00 6 0,139 50,000 0,800 5,95 S

SPT(N)0.5- SPT(N)0.5- average kPa) in mm(si =
4) in m)
+0.5-0.m 0-0.5m [1]0.5-1.0m [2]1.0-1.5m +0.5-0.m 1.0m 1.0m SPT(N)1.0-1.5m AverageN qB^0.7*Ic)
DCP2 15,00 10,00 20,00 10,00 6,00 9,00 4,50 9,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 80,000 0,800 11,17 S1
DCP3 15,00 18,00 10,00 25,00 6,00 5,00 9,00 3,60 6,67 5,6258337 0,152 80,000 0,800 10,42 S1
DCP4 15,00 15,00 10,00 38,00 6,00 6,00 9,00 2,37 7,00 6,1339746 0,135 80,000 0,800 9,23 S
DCP5 15,00 10,00 25,00 30,00 6,00 9,00 3,60 3,00 6,20 4,8472251 0,188 80,000 0,800 12,84 S1
Strip footings on
DCP7 0.5m terrace fill 15,00 10,00 10,00 10,00 6,00 9,00 9,00 9,00 8,00 7,1339746 0,109 80,000 0,800 7,47 S
DCP9 (elevated platforms
of Approx 1.0m) 15,00 10,00 50,00 18,00 6,00 9,00 1,80 5,00 5,60 3,7916859 0,265 80,000 0,800 18,11 S1
DCP11 15,00 10,00 30,00 20,00 6,00 9,00 3,00 4,50 6,00 4,5 0,208 80,000 0,800 14,25 S1
DCP12 15,00 10,00 20,00 15,00 6,00 9,00 4,50 6,00 6,50 5,3543561 0,163 80,000 0,800 11,17 S1
DCP13 15,00 20,00 20,00 15,00 6,00 4,50 4,50 6,00 5,00 4,5669873 0,204 80,000 0,800 13,96 S1
DCP14 15,00 30,00 20,00 20,00 6,00 3,00 4,50 4,50 4,50 3,75 0,269 80,000 0,800 18,39 S1
Mean 15,00 15 22,6 22,6 6,00 6,00 6,00 3,98 6,00 6 0,139 80,000 0,800 9,52 S1
Appendix: DIDO Valley housing Phase 3 area – Test pit & Site photos
TP1 TP2
TP3 TP4
TP5 TP6
TP7 TP8
TP8-spoil TP9
TP10 TP11
TP12 TP13
TP14 TP15
Appendix: DIDO Valley housing Phase 3 area – Test pit &
Site photos
Looking North to TP1
Looking East across site from TP2
Looking South-West from TP5.

Looking south from TP10
Looking South-west across gabion retaining wall
Looking west across fill terrace along northern edge of site
Fill and brick retaining wall south of TP13

Looking East across TP5
Looking NW across TP13 position

Looking south across TP14 position
Looking South towards TP18

Dido Valley Phase 3 Addendum Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dido Valley Phase 3 Addendum Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dido Valley Phase 3 Addendum Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPPLEMENTARY GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION FOR

DIDO VALLEY HOUSING PHASE 3 AREA

Introduction and terms of reference

Tel: 021 671 4280 Email: admin@coregeotech.co.za

Core Geotechnical Consultants Pty Ltd registration no. 2020/031932/07

Figure 2.1 Summary of soil profile

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

D epth (cm below test level)

-150 DCP 1 -150

DCP 15b Zone of high

Penetrate rate in mm/blow No. of blows/100mm (N10)

Figure 3.1 DCP results northern side (north of Maeuya Street)

Penetrate rate in mm/blow No. of blows/100mm (N10)

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

DCP2,3,4,5,7,9, 50 <5mm 13mm S1

*Notes: Settlement >25mm is not considered acceptable for conventional foundations

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

• Reinforced strip footings

• Remove in-situ material below foundations to a depth

• Normal construction with drainage precautions when

• Remove in-situ material to 1,0 m beyond the perimeter

Stiffened or cellular raft with lightly reinforced or

• Reinforced concrete ground beams or solid slabs on

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Founding at nominal depth (0.5m 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

Founding at a depth of a least 1.0m 50 ≤3mm ≤7mm S

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Founding at nominal depth (0.5m 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

Founding at current ground level 50 ≤5mm 13mm S1

Founding at 0.5m above current 50 ≤5mm 12mm S1

*Notes: Settlement >25mm is not considered acceptable for conventional foundations

b) Founding on compacted soils (Option 2 & 4 Table 4.1)

Appendix A: Site plans (figure 1a-c)

Core Geotechnical Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Test pit, DCP location Client: OWS

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

3) Not refusal but machine limit reached.

4) BULK sample at at 0.25--1.8m.

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in residual

4) BULK sample at at 0.7--1.4m.

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in residual

CONTRACTOR : INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in residual

4) SMALL sample at 1.0--1.7m.

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

2) Sidewall collapse in transported soils.

3) Not refusal but machine experienced difficulty excavating in residual

CONTRACTOR : INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

TEST PIT SOIL PROFILES JOB NUMBER: 002-12

2) Sidewall collapse in fill.