Site Conditions

A desk study of the site was undertaken and the findings from Kenleys report (1992) confirms the
geological make up to of the site to be of Brighton Group with the age of its materials ranging from
late Miocene to early Pliocene.
The Brighton Group comprises of mainly Red Bluff Sands underlain by the Black Rock Sandstone.
Both the proposed foundation will lie within the Red Bluff Sands and it is therefore important to
understand the properties of this section of the ground for the purposes of this project.
The stratigraphy of the Red Bluff Sands predominantly consist of clayey and silty sands with parts of
clays, sandy clays, clayey and silty sands, sands as well as silts (Kenley 1992). Inferring from the
geotechnical investigation of the site, the surface layer fill is underlain by 4 to 5 metres of stiff clay
and sandy/silty clays with an allowable bearing capacity of around 150 to 250 kPa. This is followed
by 9 to 11 metres of dense sand and clayey/silty sands with allowable bearing capacity of up to 700
kPa for spread footings and up to 2500 kPa for piers at a 6m depth. A simplified layering of the
stratigraphy is summarised in Figure X.

0 0.3 m Fill


4 -5 m Clay and Sandy/Silty Clays








9 to 11m Sand and Clayey/Silty Sands







Foundation for Concept 1
Foundation
The proposed foundation for concept 1 is the use of spread footing for the columns of the building.
Using an upper bound allowable bearing capacity of 750 kPa, the maximum factored column load of
approximately 6250 kN can be supported by a 3x3 m footing placed into the dense sand layer 4 to
5m deep (Detailed Calculations in Project Folder 05 Geotechnical). Considering that the basement
car park is already 2.3 metres in below ground surface, an additional 2 to 3 metres of excavation is
feasible due to the high bearing capacity and over consolidation of the soil layer.
This foundation is the most attractive option for concept 1 due to its reduced affects to nearby
buildings. The use of shallow foundation would cause considerably less disturbance to the soil near
surrounding buildings in addition to the noise and vibrations as compared to the deep foundation
alternative.
Although the proposed footing size is large, the column spacing range of 5 to 10 metres allows
sufficient constructability. Mat foundation was also considered as an alternative due to the high area
of the shallow foundation. However, noting that the dense sand has high bearing capacity and there
is no groundwater in close proximity, the spread footing is a much more economically viable solution
as it minimises the need for formwork (http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~cnan/BOWLE/22477_10a.pdf).

Retaining Wall

Foundation for Concept 2
A deep foundation is proposed for concept 2. A deep foundation is preferred to the shallow
foundation as the proposed location is at a distance from neighbouring buildings and allows for
deeper drilling to not affect the surrounding buildings. The reduced excavations in comparison to
concept 1 will result in significant cost savings.
The most cost common deep foundations for structures on land are piled foundations that are either
bored (non-displacement) or driven (displacement). In addition to providing an allowable bearing
capacity, piled foundations also help reduce the settlement of structures significantly (Tomlinson
1995, p.265).
Due to the nature of dense sands found on the project site, a non-displacement piles are proposed
to minimise heave and potential to damage services such as the underground electricity found in
close proximity. Non-displacement also allow for improved constructability when working in dense
sands (http://www.franki.com.au/PDF/All_FrankipilesPDFs.pdf). Bored piles will are a commonly
used non-displacement pile used for heavy structures. However, their construction can be costly and
time consuming (Tomlinson 1995, p. 370). Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles have been shown to be
an effective alternative that carry out high loads in cost effective and timely manner. Examples of its
success have been the New Horizons Building at Monash University as well as the Eureka Tower
(Ervin and Finlayson 2006). Consequently, a 300mm diameter CFA pile driven to refusal in the dense
sand layer is proposed.

REFERENCES

Geological Survey of Victoria, 1974, Melbourne, map 1:63,630, Melbourne Sheet SJ 55-1
Nielson, J. L 1992, Geology of Yarra Delta, Engineering Geology of Melbourne, pp. 223-243
Johnston, I. W 1992, Silurian and Lower Devonian Engineering Properties, Engineering Geology of
Melbourne, pp. 95-106
Tomlinson, M. J 1995, Foundation Design and Construction, Longman Singapore Publishers,
Singapore.
Das, M. B 2004, Principles of Foundation Engineering, Thomson Learning, United States of America.
Arulrajah, A, Abdullah A, Bo M. W, Bouazza A 2009, Ground Improvement Techniques for Railway
Embankments, Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 162, issue G11, pp.3-14
Ervin C. M, Finlayson E. J 2006, Piled Foundations for Eureka Tower, Melbourne, Australia, Institution
of Civil Engineers, vol. 159, issue GE3, pp. 187-194
Al- Waily, M 2012, Effect of Area Replacement Ratio on Bearing Capacity of Soil Treated with Stone
Column, Journal of Kerbala University, vol. 10, no.4, pp. 280-290
Standards Australia 2009, AS2159 Piling Design and Installation, standards, viewed 21 August 2014,
http://www.saiglobal.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/PDFTemp/osu-2014-08-1/3080910041/2159-
09(+A1).pdf