4.4 groundwater · alluvial soils and 36 to 38° for the glacial soils (peck, hansen &...

Project Rock Geotechnical Interpretative Report

16

4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in the majority of the trial pits and observed as slow to occasionally moderate inflows or seepages. Groundwater was intercepted in each of the cable percussion boreholes and details are presented on the engineering logs (Appendix 1 of factual report). Groundwater was also intercepted in the Geobor holes but with polymer gel flush used, detection was difficult. Water flush loss occurred in the Geobor holes and this is characteristic of coring in karst weathered limestone. The standpipes installed in the boreholes and core drillholes show confined conditions operating at the site and the elevations suggest a north to south flow direction. Equilibrium groundwater levels are high with monitoring during September 2013 showing elevations of 37.45 to 38.36m OD in the superficial deposits and 37.91 to 38.01m OD in the bedrock. In hydrogeological terms, the Waulsortian limestone is classed as a highly productive aquifer and vulnerability rating is high.

Table 2 - Summary Details of Groundwater Levels in Standpipes

BH

Final Depth

(m)

Standpipe

Response Zone (m bgl)

Groundwater

Level (m bgl)

Groundwater

Elevation (m OD)

BH 1

7.50

1.00 to 7.50

1.49

38.36

BH 7

9.50

1.00 to 9.50

0.19

37.92

BH EMBH 1

9.70

1.00 to 9.70

2.10

38.13

BH EM BH 2

10.40

1.00 to 10.40

0.25

37.45

GB 1

15.20

9.20 to 15.20

1.80

38.01

GB 4

15.20

10.00 to 15.20

0.41

37.91

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


17

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS & BEDROCK UNITS The geotechnical properties of the superficial deposits and bedrock are discussed in this section and parameters for geotechnical design are developed from this data.

5.1 Shear Strength of Alluvial & Glacial Soils In-situ vane tests were conducted at ten locations to evaluate undrained shear strength (Su) of the soils between ground level and approximately 2m. These gave peak shear strengths ranging from 40 to 103 kN/m2. Remoulded shear strengths are significantly lower and clustered between 11 and 26 kN/m2 (refer to Figure 8). It is highlighted that sandy silt has a ‘toughness’ and this has a major influence during shearing of the vane and tends to produce higher values than could be expected. When compared with the hand vane tests carried out during trial pitting, the in-situ shear vane tests show considerably greater strengths. The hand vane tests produced Su values largely between 25 and 50 kN/m2 and these are more typical of a slightly over-consolidated alluvial deposit. Figure 8 – In-Situ Shear Strength v Depth Plot

In situ Geonor Shear Vane Readings (kPa) Vs Depth (m bgl)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Shear Strength (kPa)

Dep

th (

m b

gl)

Shear Strength (kPa) Remoulded Shear Strength (kPa)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


18

Undisturbed samples (UT100’s & Geobor cores) were recovered in the alluvial soils and facilitated a programme of triaxial testing. Summary details of the triaxial tests are presented in Table 3. The triaxial testing (unconsolidated with multi-stage loading) produced cohesion values mostly ranging from 19 to 54 kN/m2 (ignoring the outliers). These suggest that the alluvial soils are characteristically low strength (i.e. 20 to 40 kN/m2 envelope) in nature. The shear strengths from the triaxial tests are noticeably lower than the in-situ shear vane tests. The shear vane strength data suggest that the soils are more typically medium strength (i.e. 40 to 75 kN/m2) to locally high strength (> 75 kN/m2). For geotechnical design purposes a characteristic undrained shear strength of 35 to 40 kN/m2 is considered appropriate for the alluvial soils. Table 3 – Summary Details of Triaxial Tests

Borehole

Sample Depth

(m)

Moisture

Content (%)

Dry Density

(Mg/m3)

Bulk Density

(Mg/m3)

Cohesion (kN/m2)

BH 1 5.00 18 2.09 1.78 27 BH 2 3.00 18 2.31 1.96 19 BH 2 5.00 13 2.38 2.10 54 BH 3 3.00 23 2.24 1.82 38 BH 3 5.00 21 2.27 1.87 24 BH 4 4.00 12 2.24 2.00 244 BH 4 6.50 23 2.25 1.84 9 BH 5 2.00 21 2.14 1.77 - BH 5 6.50 22 2.24 1.84 25 BH 7 4.00 22 2.04 1.67 32 BH 8 3.00 21 2.14 1.77 27 BH 8 5.00 20 1.93 2.33 47 GB 2 3.20 15 1.84 2.12 34 GB 3 4.70 18 1.85 2.18 87 GB 4 3.2 23 1.71 2.10 31 GB 5 4.70 23 1.62 2.00 21

SPT’s were carried out at regular intervals in the cable percussive boreholes to assess shear strength / stiffness. The N-Values (refer to Figure 9) suggest that the fine-grained alluvial soils are low strength (taking Su ! 5N) while the glacial soils are generally upperbound medium dense or stiff to very stiff. It is probable that due to groundwater ingress during boring and associated disturbance, that the SPT N-Values slightly underestimate the strength of the alluvial soils. Soil modulus is strain dependent and can range from 1 to 5N (MN/m2). Taking an N-Value of say 5 to 7 and Mv of 0.3 m2/MN, then an E’ value of the order of 10 MN/m2 is suggested for the alluvial soils.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


19

Figure 9 – SPT Data Plot

>>>>

>>

>>

>>

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

100 10 20 30 40 50

DEP

TH (m

)

SPT N-VALUE vs DEPTH

SPT N-VALUE

LEGEND

BH01BH02BH03BH04

Client: Jazz Pharmaceuticals

Project: Project Rock

Number: 17090

AGS3

SPT

VS

DEP

TH 1

7090

.GPJ

IG

SL.G

DT

18/

9/13

BH05BH06BH07BH08

LEGEND

EMBH01EMBH02

LEGEND

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


20

The SPT N-Values can be used to derive drained strength or friction angle (") and the principal range of values shown in Figure 9 indicates friction angles of the order 26 to 28° for the fine grained alluvial soils and 36 to 38° for the glacial soils (Peck, Hansen & Thorburn). Youngs Modulus is often taken to be approximately 1.2 x N (MPa), hence the data indicates E values of the order of 8 to 10 MPa for the alluvial soils and 35 to 40 MPa for the glacial deposits.

5.2 Compressibility of Alluvial Soils Oedometer consolidation tests were undertaken on a number of UT100 samples to determine Modulus of Volume Compressibility (Mv) and Coefficients of Consolidation (Cv) parameters. Summary details of the one dimensional oedometer tests are presented in Table 4. Table 4 - Summary Details of Consolidation Tests

BH

Sample Depth

(m bgl)

Mv

(m2/MN)

Cv

(m2/yr)

BH 1 5.00 0.27 4.5 BH 2 1.00 0.20 3.7 BH 3 1.00 0.39 1.9 BH 3 5.00 0.37 1.8 BH 5 2.00 0.33 13.5 BH 7 4.00 0.24 10.6 BH 8 3.00 0.36 5.1

Notes: Mv & Cv taken from 20 to 40 kN/m2 pressure range

Inspection of the oedometer test data shows Mv’s range between 0.2 and 0.39m2/MN in the 20 to 40 kN/m2 pressure range. Coefficients of consolidation (Cv) were also calculated and appear to be quite consistent, with values typically of the order of 2 to 4 m2/yr. The oedometer consolidation tests suggest that the alluvial soils are of medium compressibility (Mv 0.1 to 0.3 m2/MN as classed in Table 2.11 of Tomlinson (7th Edition). The voids ratio / pressure plots (elog P) show that settlement in the initial stress range is quite large but then reduces considerably for the remainder of the applied pressure stages. This is characteristic of a silt or sandy silt type deposit where the material compresses quickly as pore pressures dissipate. For settlement calculations, a Modulus of Volume Compressibility (Mv) value of 0.3 m2/MN would be deemed to be reasonable.

5.3 Stiffness of Alluvial & Glacial Soils Surface wave velocities (Rayleigh waves) were measured by Apex Geoservices using an array of geophones at designated spacings. The shear wave velocity data (Vs) was used to derive small strain shear modulus or stiffness values (Gmax) against depth. Shear wave spreads were performed at the building footprint and survey locations are presented in the Apex report. (Appendix 8 of the factual report). The shear wave velocity and small strain stiffness data plots for MASW Profile 1 are presented in Figures 10 and 11 respectively. The shear wave velocities can be used to derive Bulk Modulus, Youngs Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio and Gmax. Values of dynamic moduli (Gmax) are typically an order of magnitude greater than static values, established by routine in-situ testing. Ground strains are generally accepted to be < 0.1% and therefore small strain stiffness values can be used to make reasonable predictions of deformations (Jardine et al. 1986).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


21

The Apex geophysical report presents values of Vs, Vp, Density, Poissons Ratio, Youngs Modulus (dynamic & static) and Bulk Modulus. MASW profiles 1 and 2 were positioned over the building footprint and velocities range from 73 to 531 m/s (averaging 223 m/s) for the superficial soils. Soils with velocities of <175 m/s are interpreted as soft in consistency and the MASW data suggests a ‘kick’ from approximately 6 to 7m bgl (velocities increasing to 350 to 400 m/s). Figure 10 - Shear Wave Velocities v Depth (MASW Profile 1)

!"#$%&'()*+ ,-."'/(0*/(#-12/%+#-" ,324#5 ,!67

892!78:8:: 2/%+#-" ,32 !"#$%&'()*+ ;"$#5/ 6"$/"<="5 >98:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350 1450

Dep

th (m

)

Fig. 3.1 Shear wave Velocity, Vs (m/s), M1

M1.0mM1.18mM1.36mM1.54mM1.72mM1.90mM1.108mM1.126mM1.144mM1.162mM1.180mM1.198mM1.216mM1.234mM1.252m

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Dep

th (m

)

Fig. 3.2 Gmax (MPa), M1


Figure 11 - Plot of GMax v Depth (MASW Profile 1)

!"#$%&'()*+ ,-."'/(0*/(#-12/%+#-" ,324#5 ,!67

892!78:8:: 2/%+#-" ,32 !"#$%&'()*+ ;"$#5/ 6"$/"<="5 >98:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350 1450

Dep

th (m

)

Fig. 3.1 Shear wave Velocity, Vs (m/s), M1


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Dep

th (m

)

Fig. 3.2 Gmax (MPa), M1


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


22

An important design parameter in geotechnical engineering is the ratio of small strain shear modulus (Gmax) to undrained shear strength. The design parameter Gmax / Su is thought to be significantly higher for Irish tills than for documented tills in the UK. Figure 12 presents relationships established between shear strength (Su) and shear wave velocity (Vs) established by MASW Profiling. Taking a characteristic shear wave velocity (Vs) value of 125 to 175 m/s, then an undrained shear strength (Su) of 30 to 40 kN/m2 could be adopted for the fine-grained alluvial soils. With regard to the glacial soils, seismic velocities of +350 to 400 m/s have been established, hence an undrained shear strength of 150 to 200 kN/m2 is suggested for the fine grained glacial soils (based on research work by Long, Quigley & Donohue7). Figure 12 – Relationship Between Undrained Shear Strength & Shear Wave Velocity

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Vs (m/s)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

s u (k

Pa)

Dail EireannDPT CAUC or CIUCDPT - UUGrand Canal Sq

Mater HospitalKerry siteGrangegormanCentral Dublin Site

DuleekNavanWaterford

Metro NorthDublin - Merrion Sq.

su = 0.001 V2s + 0.016 Vs + 60.8 (kPa)

R2 = 0.87

5.4 Bedrock

A number of geophysical profiles (i.e. R1, R2, R5, S4, S5, S8. S9 etc) were positioned over the building footprint. The purpose of this was to assess depth to bedrock and evaluate if any significant anomalies are present. Using the geophysical data and integrating the Geobor core findings, a series of ground profiles (x-sections) and ground models have been developed. Figure 13 illustrates interpreted geological profiles at R1, R, R3 and R4 respectively. R1 and R2 show relatively consistent depths to bedrock. However, the interpreted sections at R3 and R4 show very prominent weathered zones, which are deemed to represent karst altered bedrock. An interpreted depth to bedrock map has been developed (refer to Figure 14) from the geophysical and geotechnical data. This shows that the upper bedrock is typically at 30 to 32m OD at the building footprint.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


23

Figure 13 - Interpreted Ground Models (R1, R2, R3, R4) Ground Profile at R1

Ground Profile at R2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


24



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


25

Figure 14 - Interpreted Depth to Bedrock

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


26

Diametral Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) tests were performed on the limestone bedrock cores from GB 1 and GB 3. The PLSI tests produced Is50 values ranging from 3.44 to 5.56 MPa with a mean value of 4.4 MPa. The compressive strength of the rock (qc) can be established using a correlation suggested by Goodman where UCS ! 18 to 24 x Is50. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests established values of 30 to 77 MPa. The point load and UCS test data shows the intact limestone is typically strong. A characteristic compressive strength of 80 MPa is suggested for the fresh to slightly weathered Waulsortian Limestone. On the other hand, the highly weathered bedrock has the structure of dense angular GRAVELS / COBBLES and in engineering rock mass terms, this unit is classed as extremely weak or very weak. For foundation design purposes the highly weathered bedrock could be assumed to have a compressive strength of < 1 MPa and piles should be designed using friction only.

5.5 Geotechnical Design Parameters

The geotechnical properties of the superficial deposits have been outlined in the previous sub-sections. Suggested guideline geotechnical design parameters are presented in Table 5. It should be noted that these design parameters are provided as guidelines for specialist foundation / ground engineering contractors and civil engineering designers. Ground engineering (e.g. piling) contractors should examine and interpret all of the relevant factual geotechnical and geophysical data pertaining to the particular structures.

Table 5 - Guideline Geotechnical Design Parameters

Parameter

Alluvial Soils

Glacial Soils

Bedrock

Bulk Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

18

21

26

Angle of Shearing

Resistance (Ø)

26º

38º

40

Undrained Shear

Strength (Su)

Compressive Strength (Bedrock)

40 kN/m2

150 kN/m2

1MPa in highly

weathered limestone

80 MPa in Intact limestone

Mv Cv

0.3 m2/MN

3m2 / yr

-

-

Small Strain Stiffness

(Gmax)

20 MPa

250 MPa

500 MPa in highly

weathered bedrock

3000 MPa in intact bedrock

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


27

6. GROUND ASSESSMENT & ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General It is understood that a biopharmaceutical facility is under consideration for this site. On foot of the findings from the geotechnical and geophysical works, the following ground engineering issues are developed for civil engineering design and budgeting purposes:

• Foundations

• Earthworks

• Slopes

• Pavement construction

• Buried concrete

• Karst risk

6.2 Bearing Capacity & Foundations The geotechnical investigations have established a prominent thickness of alluvial soils to be present at the site. These are classed as being of low strength (20 to 40 kN/m2 as set out in IS EN 14688 & Section 41.3.2 of BS 5930;199+A2;2010) and hence have significant implications for foundations and floor slabs. The in-situ and laboratory test data suggests that the alluvial material is slightly over-consolidated and of medium compressibility. The alluvial soils would be expected to provide a safe or allowable bearing capacity of 40 to 50 kN/m2 however primary settlement (consolidation) would be expected to be of the order of 50 to 60mm. (assuming a UDL of 50 kN/m2, Mv of 0.3 m2/MN & compressible layer thickness of 6 to 7m). This would be regarded as unacceptable for such a facility. In addition, differential settlement is very difficult to assess due to the presence of fine sand in the alluvial deposits. Where prominent sand layers exist, the pore pressures would dissipate very quickly (due to high permeability) during loading, whereas the clay / silt dominant alluvial material is of low permeability and primary consolidation would take several years to occur. Based on the borehole findings and the likelihood that the ground at building area will be reduced to around 38.5m OD, recommended foundation solutions are presented in Table 6. In light of the shear strength and compressibility characteristics of the alluvial deposits, piles are recommended to support the main column loads (as summarized in Table 6). Ground improvement techniques (i.e. Vibro Concrete Columns or Cement Stabilized Columns) should be considered to support the floor slabs, especially the lightly loaded floor slabs such as the Administration Building. The alternative to piling the main load bearing columns would be install a closely spaced network of VCC’s or CSC’s over the whole of the building footprint. This would allow the loads to be distributed over a larger area act as a raft type foundation solution. It is expected that the structural loadings from a raft type system would be relatively modest (expected to < 75 kN/m2). The key advantage of this solution is that the floor slab loadings can also be transferred to the columns. If piles are selected, then odex / symmetrix piles are considered to be most suitable for the ground conditions at this site. Boulder obstructions in the glacial deposits and the erractic and highly variable nature of the upper bedrock suggests that driven or displacement piles would not be suitable. Continuous flight auger (CFA) piling methods would not be regarded as being suitable for the ground conditions at this site. The purpose of installing piles by symmetrix or odex drilling techniques is to ensure that pile capacity is achieved by skin friction and no reliance is placed on end bearing.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


28

Pile embedment depths will be governed by rock mass quality and where intact strong bedrock is present (e.g. GB 1), a penetration depth of 1.5 to 2m would be satisfactory for a 450mm diameter odex pile (safe working load or capacity of 750 kN). In contrast, the karst altered bedrock as established by GB 2, 4 and 5 would require the piles to designed as if founded in a dense granular deposit. For a 450mm diameter, a pile capacity of 750 kN would require a penetration depth of approximately 18m (assuming 10m of skin friction in the glacial soils and highly weathered bedrock and using for a factor of safety of 1.5). Table 6 – Foundation Solutions for Structures & Floor Slabs

Structure

Dead Load (kN)

Imposed

Loads (kN)

Floor Slab Loadings

Structural

Foundations

Floor Slabs

Utility Building

240 - 600

20 - 130

UDL 25 kN/m2

Point Loads 100 kN

Piles

Piles

Warehouse

25 - 250

20 - 80

UDL 40 to 50 kN/m2 Point Loads 40 to

100 kN

Piles

Piles

Administration

Building

310 - 620

240 - 480

UDL 10 kN/m2

Piles

VCC or

CSC

Process Building

20 - 150

10 - 70

UDL 20 kN/m2

Point Loads 40 kN

VCC or SCC

VCC or

CSC

VCC: Vibro concrete columns CSC: Cement Stabilized Columns

6.3 Earthworks Given the ground elevations at the site, bulk earthworks will be required to achieve the formation levels for the structures, loading docks and road pavements. The alluvial soils would not be suitable for re-use as engineering fill, however this material could be modified by lime (calcium oxide) and cement to produce a bulk engineering fill (i.e. CBR of at least 5%). The expectation is that the alluvial soils should produce a good exothermic reaction, as it contains sufficient fines. Laboratory trial testing using varying mix proportions (lime and cement binders) should be carried out to evaluate the response of the alluvial soils to modification. The testing should include soaked CBR’s, determination of maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents. sulphates and frost susceptibility. From in-house experience and testing of modified soils, it is thought that approximately 1% lime and 2% cement should produce an engineering fill with a CBR of 5% or shear strength > 150 kN/m2. It is understood that landscape berms will be required at the site. Again, the alluvial soils would not have adequate shear strength for compaction but could be used in dry / warm weather if layers are allowed to dry out. The silt dominant alluvial material is very sensitive to small increases in moisture content and therefore is highly unlikely to be used in earthworks without improvement (modification).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


29

6.4 Slopes A maximum slope angle of 1V to 3H (18º) is recommended for berms or batters constructed in the alluvial soils. For excavation works (service trenches etc), the low strength alluvial soils will be highly susceptible to instability and this coupled with a high groundwater table, means that trench boxes or sheet piles will be required to ensure safe excavation works. It is highlighted that the sidewalls in the trial pits collapsed instantaneously as depths extended below 1m. Multiple sidewall collapses were noted and details are documented on the trial pit logs (Appendix 2 of factual report). Site operatives or personnel should not enter unsupported excavations and should be informed of the potential risks. Where site operatives or engineering staff work in close proximity to temporary slopes or batters, these should be inspected daily by a suitably experienced civil engineer. 6.5 Pavement Construction Dynamic cone penetrometer testing (DCP) was undertaken across the site and produced CBR values ranging from 2 to 35%. In contrast, the re-moulded laboratory CBR tests gave values of 0.2 to 3.7%. In accordance with NRA and DMRB Design Guidance for Road Pavement (HD 25) the lower-end equilibrium CBR values should be used to determine appropriate capping layer thickness. Reference to Interim Advice Note 73/06 (Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations) shows that the ‘Restricted Design’ approach is appropriate at the site investigation stage. For soils with low CBR values, a number of options are available including removal and replacement with granular fill, lime / cement stabilization or the use of geogrid reinforcement with granular fill.

Table 7 – Summary Details of Laboratory CBR Testing

Test Location Depth (m) Moisture Content CBR Value (%)

TP 2 0.50 21 1.8 TP 3 0.60 18 3.7 TP 4 0.80 24 1.6 TP 5 1.00 24 1.7 TP 6 1.00 21 0.4 TP 7 0.90 20 0.2 TP 8 0.65 18 2.7 TP 9 0.50 25 2.2

Taking a design CBR value of 2% (based on the laboratory method), then 600mm of capping would be required to support the road pavements. However, the road and loading dock pavements are expected to be subjected to heavy trafficking, therefore a strong foundation layer will be essential. In light of the re-moulded CBR values, silt dominant nature of the soils and potential for softening / degradation due to rainfall, a starter layer (NRA 6A/6B granular fill) should be considered in conjunction with a capping layer. This would provide a satisfactory foundation layer and adequately support the pavement. Approximately 500mm of Class 6A / 6B material is recommended in conjunction with 350 to 400mm of capping material. The alternative to using a starter layer would be to incorporate geogrid reinforcement to stiffen (mechanically stabilize) the pavement foundation. For a CBR design value of 2% a mechanically stabilized layer would be expected to consist of two layers of geogrid with 650 to 700mm of granular fill (well graded aggregate with maximum particle size of 75mm). The durability of the capping material needs to be carefully considered, as the capping will be exposed to the elements (especially if the works are undertaken during the winter / spring period). It is vital that argillaceous limestone, calcareous mudstone, shale and other fine-grained sedimentary

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


30

rocks are not used as capping or as a starter layer. These have high potential to give rise to degradation and slaking and hence would not be suitable. Capping material should be thoroughly examined, tested and approved in advance of being used in pavement construction.

6.6 Buried Concrete The chemical analysis laboratory tests on the soil samples show sulphate aqueous extract (SO4) values are low. The sulphates fall into BRE DS Class 1 (< 500 mg/l). Table C1 in BRE SD 1 (2005) could be used in the selection of and design of concrete. Assuming mobile groundwater conditions for the site, then ACEC class AC-1d concrete would be expected to be appropriate for piles, pads and floor slabs. 6.7 Karst Risk Karst subsidence is a function of groundwater movement and hydrogeological changes in surface water and groundwater play a key role in the formation of subsidence sinkholes. A subsidence sinkhole was defined by Waltham (1989) as a ‘failure of soil or weak rock into underlying cavernous limestone’. Newton & Waltham (1989) identified sinkholes into two types: firstly those resulting from water level decline and secondly, those resulting from diversion or impoundment of surface drainage. Lowering of the water table is known to be a significant contributory factor in sinkhole development. It is well established, that periods of dry weather followed by very heavy prolonged rainfall can trigger subsidence. Similarly, stripping of topsoil or earthworks increases the rate of infiltration of surface water and redirection of run-off can cause preferential flow and initiate subsidence. Drainage works will be important for this project, especially in view of the high equilibrium water table.

Groundwater was encountered in each of the boreholes and the standpipes show an equilibrium groundwater level of c38m OD. With cut / fill earthworks required for the scheme, provision should be made for careful control of groundwater and surface water run-off using swales and attenuation ponds. Closed or sealed drainage systems (not French Drains) are strongly advised. It is vital that surface water is channeled and controlled, so as to avoid indiscriminate run-off or dissipation into the upper soils. If water infiltration is not adequately managed, then this has the potential to trigger karst subsidence features (sinkholes). The use of PVC drains should be considered (added flexibility) to deal with differential settlement or strains due to changes in equilibrium surface drainage. It is vital the civil engineering contractor understands and addresses the risks associated with earthworks and piling operations. The potential for karst subsidence features to develop at this site are high and piling / ground improvement operations present their own challenges in karst weathered bedrock. These operations can give rise to conduits for water migration and therefore re-activation of dormant karst features. 6.8 Additional Geotechnical Investigations The geophysical and geotechnical investigations carried out show that a very complex ground model exists at this site. The combination of low strength compressible soils allied to the karstification of the bedrock presents real challenges for earthworks, foundations, pavements and drainage. To facilitate detailed design and limit ground risk, additional geophysical and geotechnical investigations are recommended. The use of micro-gravity geophysical surveying is advised to assess if any anomalies exist under the building footprint. The Geobor core drillholes have provided highly valuable information on the weathering and engineering geological characteristics of the upper bedrock. Further Geobor core drillholes are recommended to assess rock mass quality especially at the eastern portion of the building footprint.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:34


31

Due to budget constraints, no earthworks testing was performed on the upper soils. If the alluvial soils are to be re-used, then modification and stabilization with lime (calcium oxide) and cement will be required. Trial testing (in the laboratory) would be required to evaluate the behavior of these soils with various mix proportions. Moisture Condition Value (MCV), California Bearing Ratio (CBR), sulphates and compressive strength testing is recommended on the trial mix samples.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35


32

References 1. Apex Geoservices Geophysical Report, September 2013, (Project No. AGL13133) 2. BS 5930 (1999)+A2:2010 Code of Practice for Site Investigation, British Standards Institution

(BSI). 3. BS 1377 (1990) Methods of Testing of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, BSI.

4. BRE Special Digest SD 1, Concrete in Aggressive Ground, 2005

5. Geological Survey of Ireland,1:100,000 Bedrock Series

6. IGSL Ltd, Factual Ground Investigation Report (Project No. 17090), September 2013

7. Long.M, Quigley. P, Donohue. S, Undrained shear strength and stiffness of Irish Glacial Tills

from shear wave velocity. Proceedings of Geophysical Association of Ireland / Engineers Ireland Seminar, February 2011

8. Site Investigation Practice: Assessing BS 5930 (1986), Geological Society Special Publication, No. 2.

9. Stroud, M.A & Butler, F.G (1975) ‘ The SPT and the Engineering properties of Glacial

Materials”. Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering Behaviour of Glacial Materials, Birmingham

10. Tomlinson, M.J. Foundation Design & Construction, 7th Ed

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35


33

Appendix 1

Site Plan

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

DRAFT COPY - UNCHECKED - MAY BE INCOMPLETE

DRAFT COPY - UNCHECKED - MAY BE INCOMPLETE

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND

PROJECT ROCK

GEOTECHNICALSITE INVESTIGATIONREFERENCE PLAN

IE0311133

IE0311133-30-DR-0011NONE

DRAFTIssue Draft No. Date ByA 1

J P armaceuticalsazz h

NOTES

EXISTING ROAD

EXISTING ROAD

PROPOSEDGREEN BELT

PROPOSEDGREEN BELT

PROPOSED SITEENTRANCE

BALANCING

TANKS

LOGISTIC

SYARD

ESB

PROPOSED CARPARK(STAFF / VISITORS - 45 SPACES)

ESB

PUMP

HOUSE

F.WP.W

GAS

CROSS RIVER

PROPOSEDGREEN BELT

S

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35


34

Appendix 2

Geotechnical X-Sections

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1.30

1.70

4.70

7.207.50

5/300mm

6/300mm

9/300mm

SPT

1.30

2.10

2.80

7.20

8.20

7/300mm

8/300mm

8/300mm

50/75mm

SPT

1.20

2.70

7.40

9.20

17/300mm

6/300mm

16/300mm

45/300mm

SPT

0.20

1.70

4.70

6.20

8.00

9.40

15.20

SPT

0.200.50

3.20

4.00

4.70

6.30

7.00

9.00

10.10

10.70

14.90

SPT0.050.25

0.95

1.60

3.00

SPT

SUBSURFACE SECTION E-W Pr1fileClient: Jazz Pharmaceuticals

Pr@ject: Pr@ject R@ck

Number: 17090

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

Red

uced

Lev

el (m

)

Sandy silty CLAY Sandy SILT Gravelly silty CLAY Silty sandy GRAVEL SAND

Gravelly SILT Clayey silty sandyGRAVEL

Sandy gravelly c@bblyb@uldery CLAY TOPSOIL Sandy gravelly CLAY

Clayey sandy GRAVEL Silty sandy gravellyc@bbly b@uldery CLAY LIMESTONE Clayey SAND GRAVEL

FEN

CE

A3

CA

RR

IGTW

OH

ILL

170

90.G

PJ

IGS

L.G

DT

25/

9/13

BH01BH02 BH03GB1 GB2

TP06

BH01 BH02

BH03

GB1 GB2

TP06

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0.40

1.10

2.60

6.70

7.50

5/300mm

6/300mm

4/300mm

6/300mm

SPT

0.50

1.30

5.70

6.40

7.60

9.50

6/300mm

5/300mm

6/300mm

28/300mm

50/10mm

SPT

0.200.50

2.20

3.20

6.75

7.10

9.00

15.10

SPT

0.500.70

1.70

6.206.506.757.00

9.00

15.20

SPT

0.45

2.00

3.10

SPT

0.20

1.20

SPT

0.050.30

0.95

SPT

SUBSURFACE SECTION E-W Pr1fileClient: Jazz Pharmaceuticals


Number: 17090

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

Red

uced

Lev

el (m

)

Clayey PEAT Silty SAND Sandy SILT SILT Sandy gravelly c@bblySILT

C@bbly SILT Gravelly silty clay withc@bbles

Clayey silty sandyGRAVEL TOPSOIL Clayey SAND

Sandy gravelly clayeySILT Gravelly CLAY Sandy gravelly c@bbly

CLAY LIMESTONE Sandy silty CLAY

FEN

CE

A3

CA

RR

IGTW

OH

ILL

170

90.G

PJ

IGS

L.G

DT

25/

9/13

BH06BH07

GB3

GB4TP12 TPCBR04

TPCBR09

BH06BH07

GB3

GB4

TP12TPCBR04TPCBR09

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

1.20

2.70

7.40

9.20

17/300mm

6/300mm

16/300mm

45/300mm

SPT

0.50

1.30

5.70

6.40

7.60

9.50

6/300mm

5/300mm

6/300mm

28/300mm

50/10mm

SPT

0.70

1.10

2.30

2.70

4.30

6.50

7.10

7.70

8.60

9.409.70

4/300mm

6/300mm

7/300mm

9/300mm

30/300mm

28/300mm

SPT

0.200.50

3.20

4.00

4.70

6.30

7.00

9.00

10.10

10.70

14.90

SPT

0.500.70

1.70

6.206.506.757.00

9.00

15.20

SPT

0.350.50

3.00

6.20

8.60

9.40

15.20

SPT

0.100.400.70

2.00

3.00

SPT

0.45

2.00

3.10

SPT

0.350.70

2.50

3.20

SPT

0.80

1.30

SPT

SUBSURFACE SECTION N-S Pr0fileClient: Jazz Pharmaceuticals


Number: 17090

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

Red

uced

Lev

el (m

)

Sandy silty CLAY Sandy SILT Gravelly SILT Sandy gravelly c@bblyb@uldery CLAY Clayey PEAT

SILT C@bbly SILT Gravelly silty clay withc@bbles

Clayey silty sandyGRAVEL Sandy gravelly CLAY

Sandy CLAY Silty SAND Gravelly silty CLAY Silty sandy GRAVEL Sandy b@uldery CLAY

FEN

CE

A3

CA

RR

IGTW

OH

ILL

170

90.G

PJ

IGS

L.G

DT

25/

9/13

BH03

BH07

EMBH01

GB2

GB4GB5

TP08

TP12TP17TPCBR06

BH03BH07

EMBH01

GB2

GB4

GB5

TP08TP12

TP17TPCBR06

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

1.70

3.40

4.60

7.70

8.308.50

10.40

0/300mm

6/300mm

6/300mm

11/300mm

20/300mm

9/300mm

SPT

0.40

1.20

1.65

3.00

SPT

0.50

2.50

3.10

SPT

0.85

1.20

2.20

3.00

SPT

0.15

0.70

1.05

SPT

0.20

1.20

SPT

0.80

1.80

SPT

SUBSURFACE SECTION N-S Pr0fileClient: Jazz Pharmaceuticals


Number: 17090

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

Red

uced

Lev

el (m

)

Clayey PEAT SILT Silty CLAY Silty GRAVEL CLAY

Clayey sandy GRAVEL TOPSOIL Silty @rganic SAND Gravelly SILT Sandy SILT

Clayey gravelly PEAT Silty SAND Sandy @rganic SILT PEAT

FEN

CE

A3

CA

RR

IGTW

OH

ILL

170

90.G

PJ

IGS

L.G

DT

25/

9/13

EMBH02TP09TP13

TP15

TPCBR03

TPCBR04TPCBR07

EMBH02

TP09TP13

TP15

TPCBR03

TPCBR04TPCBR07

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

0.40

2.10

2.80

7.00

7.40

13/300mm

7/300mm

6/300mm

SPT

1.70

3.40

4.60

7.70

8.308.50

10.40

0/300mm

6/300mm

6/300mm

11/300mm

20/300mm

9/300mm

SPT

0.20

1.70

4.70

6.20

8.00

9.40

15.20

SPT

0.200.50

2.20

3.20

6.75

7.10

9.00

15.10

SPT0.050.35

0.75

2.30

3.00

SPT0.100.300.65

1.60

3.00

SPT

0.40

0.75

1.90

3.30

SPT

0.35

0.70

2.50

3.20

SPT

SUBSURFACE SECTION NW-SE Pr1fileClient: Jazz Pharmaceuticals


Number: 17090

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

Red

uced

Lev

el (m

)

Sandy CLAY Sandy SILT SAND SILT Clayey silty gravellySAND

Clayey PEAT Silty CLAY Silty GRAVEL CLAY Clayey sandy GRAVEL

TOPSOIL Sandy gravelly CLAY Silty sandy gravellyc@bbly b@uldery CLAY LIMESTONE Silty SAND

FEN

CE

A3

CA

RR

IGTW

OH

ILL

170

90.G

PJ

IGS

L.G

DT

25/

9/13

BH05

EMBH02

GB1GB3

TP02TP03

TP11TP17

BH05

EMBH02GB1

GB3TP02TP03

TP11TP17

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND

PROJECT ROCK

NOISE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS

IE0311133

IE0311133-22-DR-00041:1000

J P armaceuticalsazz h

NOTES

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PM GROUP

KILLAKEE HOUSE

BELGARD SQUARE

DUBLIN 24

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS

LEGEND

FORMAL ISSUE

NSL 1

N

N

PROPOSED

1.5m HIGH BERM

LANDSCAPING

LANDSCAPING

LA

ND

SC

AP

IN

G

LA

ND

SC

AP

IN

G

LA

ND

SC

AP

IN

G

PROPOSED

1.5m HIGH BERM

PROPOSED

1.5m HIGH BERM

PROPOSED

1.5m HIGH BERM

WILD MEADOW

WILD MEADOW

WIL

D M

EA

DO

W

N

N

ENTRANCE BELOW

ROOF OVER

ADMINISTRATION

ROOF OVER PACKAGING

ROOF OVER UTILITIES

ROOF OVER FALLOW SPACE

(ADMIN / LABORATORY / PROCESS)

ROOF OVER

MANUFACTURING

ROOF OVER UTILITIES

ROOF OVER WAREHOUSE

ROOF OVER PLANT AREA

ROOF OVER

MANUFACTURING

ROOF OVER FALLOW SPACE (ADMIN / LABORATORY / PROCESS)

ROOF OVER LABORATORY

EXISTING

CARTY

MEATS

BUILDING

EXISTING

DWELLING

PROPOSED

BUILDING

(F.F.L - 39.50m)

PROPOSED PERMEABLE GRASS-CRETE ROAD

PR

OP

OS

ED

A

SP

HA

LT

R

OA

D

WILD MEADOW

MEADOW

GRASS

MEADOW

GRASS

NSL 1

NSL 2

NSL 3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 30-12-2013:23:24:35

4.4 groundwater · alluvial soils and 36 to 38° for the glacial soils (peck, hansen &...

Documents