Myburgh Minimum 2018 PDF

The Minimum Site Investigation Requirements Needed to
Define Site Conditions Considering the Results of Ground

Investigations and its True Reflection of Actual Site
Conditions Found During Construction
by
Keshia Shermané Myburgh
Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering in the Faculty of Civil Engineering at
Stellenbosch University
The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is hereby
acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not
necessarily attributed to the NRF.
Supervisor: Professor P.W. Day

Co-supervisor: Mrs. Nanine Fouché
March 2018
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Declaration
By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein
is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise
stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any
third-party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any
qualification.
March 2018
Copyright © 2018 University of Stellenbosch

All rights reserve
i
BYLAE 1
Plagiaatverklaring / Plagiarism Declaration

1 Plagiaat is die oorneem en gebruik van die idees, materiaal en ander intellektuele eiendom van ander
persone asof dit jou eie werk is.
Plagiarism is the use of ideas, material and other intellectual property of another’s work and to
present is as my own.
2 Ek erken dat die pleeg van plagiaat 'n strafbare oortreding is aangesien dit ‘n vorm van diefstal is.
I agree that plagiarism is a punishable offence because it constitutes theft.
3 Ek verstaan ook dat direkte vertalings plagiaat is.

I also understand that direct translations are plagiarism.
4 Dienooreenkomstig is alle aanhalings en bydraes vanuit enige bron (ingesluit die internet) volledig
verwys (erken). Ek erken dat die woordelikse aanhaal van teks sonder aanhalingstekens (selfs al word
die bron volledig erken) plagiaat is.
Accordingly, all quotations and contributions from any source whatsoever (including the internet)
have been cited fully. I understand that the reproduction of text without quotation marks (even when
the source is cited) is plagiarism.
5 Ek verklaar dat die werk in hierdie skryfstuk vervat, behalwe waar anders aangedui, my eie
oorspronklike werk is en dat ek dit nie vantevore in die geheel of gedeeltelik ingehandig het vir
bepunting in hierdie module/werkstuk of ‘n ander module/werkstuk nie.
I declare that the work contained in this assignment, except where otherwise stated, is my original
work and that I have not previously (in its entirety or in part) submitted it for grading in this
module/assignment or another module/assignment.
14950898
Studentenommer / Student number Handtekening / Signature
K.S Myburgh 17 October 2017
Voorletters en van / Initials and surmane Datum / Date
ii
Abstract
The success of civil engineering projects, whether it involves the construction of houses, bridges,
roads or tunnels, depend largely on the adequate identification of subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical engineering, even in its most primitive form, has been around for hundreds of years,
and unfortunately, so have geotechnical related problems. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is probably one
of the oldest and most well-known examples of the problems related to uncertainty within the ground,
and so, the importance of ground investigations. The geotechnical investigation aims to reduce the
occurrence and impact of such problems as far as possible. Although risk inherent in the ground is
inevitable, it can ideally be identified and mitigated by way of incorporating geotechnical
investigations in contractual agreements. This way, thorough understanding of requirements and
preparation of an adequate investigation may assist in minimising the risk as well as cost and schedule
overruns on construction projects.
In South Africa, there are various national standards, codes of practice and legislation available that
are intended to guide geotechnical practitioners and associated professionals in the planning and
execution of adequate geotechnical site investigations. Yet, the occurrence of structural foundation
failures and construction cost overruns due to inadequate investigations still occur frequently.
This research comprehensively evaluates the investigation requirements specified in regulatory

frameworks, as well as the procedures that are currently being followed by geo-practitioners in the
industry. The study found that the occurrence of geotechnical related failures is mainly ascribed to
inadequate implementation of the regulatory framework. Furthermore, unlike related professions,
there are currently no standardised specifications for geotechnical investigations.
By identifying pitfalls associated with current site investigation trends in South Africa, the study
provides a basis from which the required minimum specifications can be developed and successfully
incorporated as contractual obligations by means of a standardised specification.
iii
Opsomming
Die sukses van siviele ingenieursprojekte, of dit die bou van huise, brûe, paaie of tonnels behels, hang
grootliks af van die voldoende identifisering van ondergrondse toestande.
Geotegniese ingenieurswese, selfs in sy mees primitiewe vorm, bestaan al honderde jare, en, so ook
geotegniese verwante probleme. Die leunende toring van Pisa is waarskynlik een van die oudste en
mees bekende voorbeelde van die probleme wat verband hou met onsekerheid in die grond, en dus
ook die belangrikheid van grondondersoeke. Die geotegniese ondersoek poog om die voorkoms en
impak van sulke probleme sover moontlik te verminder. Alhoewel inherente risiko in die grond is
onvermydelikis, kan dit ideaal gesproke geïdentifiseer en versag word deur middel van geotegniese
ondersoeke wat uitgevoer word ooreenkomstig met toepaslike wetgewing en die norme van die
bedryf. Dit sal deeglike begrip van die vereistes en voorbereiding van n voldoende ondersoek
verseker, en so ook help om risiko, sowel as koste en schedule oorskryding op konstruksieprojekte te
vermider.
In Suid-Afrika is daar verskeie nasionale standaarde, praktykskodes en wetgewing beskikbaar wat

beoog om geotegniese praktisyns en geassosieerde professionele persone te lei in die beplanning en
uitvoering van voldoende geotegniese terreinondersoeke. Tog is die voorkoms van strukturele
grondslagfoute en konstruksiekoste-oorskryding as gevolg van onvoldoende ondersoeke steeds n
gereelde verskyning.
Hierdie navorsing evalueer die ondersoekvereistes in regulatoriese raamwerke, asook die prosedures
wat tans deur geo-praktisyns in die bedryf gevolg word. Die studie het bevind dat die voorkoms van
geotegniese verwante mislukkings hoofsaaklik toegeskryf word aan onvoldoende implementering
van die regulatoriese raamwerk. Verder, in teenstelling met verwante beroepe, is daar tans nie
gestandaardiseerde spesifikasies vir geotegniese ondersoeke nie.
Deur identifisering van tekortkominge wat geassosieer word met huidige terrein ondersoek neigings
in Suid-Afrika, bied die studie 'n basis waarvan die vereiste minimum spesifikasies ontwikkel kan
word en suksesvol as kontraktuele verpligtinge by wyse van 'n gestandaardiseerde spesifikasie
opgeneem word.
iv
Acknowledgements
Mrs Nanine Fouché, I would like to express my deepest appreciation for the patience you have
shown in reading numerous drafts, and responding promptly with valuable feedback. Thank you for
believing in my ability to conduct this research, for always sharing your experience and giving
invaluable advice on studies, work and life.
Dr Marius De Wet, as well as all other personnel in the Civil Engineering Department, thanks for
the warm welcome, sincere support and continuous words of encouragement. It has been a
heartening experience having been a part of such an amazing group of people.
My sincere thanks go to Mr Trevor Pape for offering me the opportunity to be a part of his team and
for leading me in working on diverse and exciting projects. Thank you for your patience and
understanding and showing interest in my professional and academic development.
My very profound gratitude goes to my parents, Adriaan and Karin, whose love, guidance and
support are with me in whatever I pursue. Your belief encouraged me to belief in my own capability.
You are my greatest inspiration!
To my brother, Cohan and my aunt Benita, thank you for providing me with unfailing support and
continuous encouragement throughout my years of study.
Dr Hanlie Engelbrecht, you have been a great source of warmth and comfort every step of the way.
Thank you for generous inspiration and always providing me with food for thought by enabling
interesting discussions with regards to this research.
Professor Peter Day,

You have set an example of excellence as a geo-professional, researcher and role model.
As my supervisor and mentor, you have taught me so much more than I could ever give you credit
for here.
Thank you for always sharing my excitement for this research from the very beginning. It was your
very first lecture I attended that inspired not only this research, but also my profound interest in
geotechnical investigations. There are not enough words of appreciation for this.
v
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background to Study ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Contribution of Research ................................................................................................................................... 2
Research Objective ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Research Methodology and Report Layout ....................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 6
Historical overview of geotechnical engineering ............................................................................................... 7
Geotechnical Development in South Africa ...................................................................................................... 8
Recent (practical) Geotechnical Advances in South Africa ............................................................................. 10
The Geotechnical Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Planning .................................................................................................................................................. 12
2.5.2 Procurement............................................................................................................................................ 12
2.5.3 Implementation/Execution...................................................................................................................... 14
2.5.4 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Investigation Methods...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.1 Non-intrusive Methods ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.1.1 Remote Sensing ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.6.1.2 Geophysical Methods .................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.2 Intrusive Methods ................................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.2.1 Test holes / Soil Profiling .............................................................................................................. 17
2.6.2.2 Geotechnical Drilling ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.3 In-situ Test Methods (Field Testing) ...................................................................................................... 19
2.6.4 Laboratory Test Methods........................................................................................................................ 20
Phases of Investigation .................................................................................................................................... 21
2.7.1 Preliminary Site Investigation (Phase I – Desk Study) ........................................................................... 21
2.7.2 Detailed Site Investigation (Phase II – Intrusive) ................................................................................... 21
2.7.3 Investigation during Construction .......................................................................................................... 22
Cost of Investigations ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: The Regulatory Framework for Geo-Professionals in South Africa ............................................................... 25
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Legislative Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations .............................................................................. 25
3.2.1 National Building Regulation and Building Standards Act .................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act ....................................................................................... 26
3.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Act....................................................................................................... 26
Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.3.1 SAICE Code of Practice for Site Investigations ..................................................................................... 27
3.3.2 The Application of the National Building Regulations .......................................................................... 28
vi
3.3.3 Investigations for Houses, Townships and Developments on Dolomite Land ....................................... 28
3.3.4 Design Standards .................................................................................................................................... 28
Professional Conduct, Statutory and ethical Obligations ................................................................................. 30
Standard forms of Contracts used in the Engineering Industry ....................................................................... 31
Dissatisfaction with Professional Services ...................................................................................................... 32
3.6.1 Professional Misconduct......................................................................................................................... 32
3.6.2 Civil Liability ......................................................................................................................................... 32
3.6.3 Criminal Liability ................................................................................................................................... 32
Determination of Professional Liability ........................................................................................................... 33
Professional Indemnity Insurance .................................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4: Specific requirements for various categories of development......................................................................... 35
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Geotechnical Investigations for Township Development ................................................................................ 35
4.2.1 Applicable Standards .............................................................................................................................. 35
4.2.2 Objectives of Investigation ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.3 Specific Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 36
Geotechnical Investigations for Houses ........................................................................................................... 38
Geotechnical Investigations on Dolomite Land ............................................................................................... 39
Geotechnical Investigations for Pile Foundations............................................................................................ 42
Geotechnical Investigations - Excavations and Lateral Support ...................................................................... 44
Linear Structures: Roads, Railway Lines and Pipelines .................................................................................. 46
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 5: Case Histories ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Township and Housing Development .............................................................................................................. 51
5.2.1 Cape Peninsular – Slope Instability ........................................................................................................ 52
vii
5.2.1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 52

5.2.1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 52
5.2.1.3 Sequence of events relating to slope instability ............................................................................. 53
5.2.1.4 Description of Failure .................................................................................................................... 54
5.2.2 Landslip – Cape South Coast.................................................................................................................. 56
5.2.2.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.2.2 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 57
5.2.2.3 Detailed Investigation Outcomes ................................................................................................... 58
5.2.2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 59
5.2.3 Golf Estate - Gauteng ............................................................................................................................. 60
5.2.3.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 60
5.2.3.2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 60
5.2.3.3 Historical Overview of the Developed Area .................................................................................. 61
5.2.3.4 Geotechnical Investigations ........................................................................................................... 61
5.2.3.5 Description of the problem ............................................................................................................ 62
5.2.4 Free State Province – Mass (RDP) Housing Failures ............................................................................. 63
5.2.4.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 63
5.2.4.2 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.4.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 65
Investigations for Piled Foundations ............................................................................................................... 65
5.3.1 Plettenberg Bay Commercial Building ................................................................................................... 65
5.3.1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 66
5.3.1.2 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 66
5.3.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation Findings .............................................................................................. 67
5.3.1.4 Description of Problem .................................................................................................................. 68
Investigation for Excavations and Lateral Support .......................................................................................... 69
5.4.1 Basement 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 69
5.4.1.1 Description of development ........................................................................................................... 69
5.4.1.3 Description of Problems Encountered ........................................................................................... 70
5.4.2 Basement 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 71
5.4.2.1 Description of Development .......................................................................................................... 71
5.4.2.3 Problems Encountered ................................................................................................................... 73
Development on Dolomite Land ...................................................................................................................... 75
Linear Structures: Roads, Railway Lines and Pipelines .................................................................................. 76
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 77
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................ 78
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 78
Township and Housing Development .............................................................................................................. 78
6.2.1 Cape Peninsular – Slope Instability ........................................................................................................ 78
6.2.2 Southern Cape - Landslip ....................................................................................................................... 79
viii
6.2.3 Gauteng Golf Estate – Structural damage to houses ............................................................................... 80

6.2.4 Mass Housing (RDP) on Karoo Formations (Free State) ....................................................................... 81
6.2.5 Summary for Housing developments ..................................................................................................... 81
Plettenberg Bay Piled Foundations .................................................................................................................. 81
Investigations for Excavations and Lateral Support ........................................................................................ 82
Recommendations – Changes Needed (Potential Solutions) ........................................................................... 83
6.5.1 Township and Housing Development .................................................................................................... 83
6.5.2 Investigations for Piles and Lateral Support ........................................................................................... 84
6.5.3 General recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 85
Example of Standardised Specifications .......................................................................................................... 87
Overall Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Future Research ............................................................................................................................................... 89
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 90
Appendices
Appendix A: Geo-professional’s Conduct
Appendix A1: ECSA Code of Conduct
Appendix A2: SACNASP Code of Conduct
Appendix B: Classification of Road Materials
Appendix B1: COLTO:1998 Specification
Appendix B2: COLTO:1998 Specification
Appendix B3: SABS 1200M:1996 Classification
Appendix C: Structural Defects of Houses in Various Areas
Appendix D: Example of Standardised Specifications
Appendix D1: Standardised Specification for Townships and Housing
Appendix D2: Standardised Specification for Excavations and Lateral Support
Appendix D3: Standardised Specification for Pile Foundations
ix
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: The four-stage-approach to geotechnical investigations. ............................................................................... 11
Figure 2.2: The impact of expenditure on cost overruns for UK highway projects. (Mott MacDonald & Soil Mechanics
Ltd. 1994). ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 5.1: Site locality and respective properties (images from Google Earth (2017), after Jones & Wagener, 2015). . 52
Figure 5.2: Erven location and layout oblique view (Google Earth, 2017). ..................................................................... 53
Figure 5.3: Step in ground level and cracks in adjacent properties (Jones &Wagener, 2015). ......................................... 54
Figure 5.4: Forces acting on a natural slope ..................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 5.5: Site locality and oblique view of residential area (Beales and Paton, 2017). ................................................. 56
Figure 5.6: Cracks observed in structures around residential area (Beales and Paton, 2017). .......................................... 57
Figure 5.7: CSW test results (left) and microscopic image showing striations (right) (after Beales and Paton, 2017). ... 58
Figure 5.8: 2- Dimensional slope model (after Beales and Paton, 2017) .......................................................................... 59
Figure 5.9: Size and displacement of tension crack observed in the ground (Beales and Paton, 2017). .......................... 59
Figure 5.10: Cracks observed in the walls of the house. ................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.11: Cracks observed in houses located in various areas (Professor Peter Day). ................................................. 63
Figure 5.12: Simplified geological map of Karoo Formations outcrop in South Africa (Wikipedia, 2014). .................... 64
Figure 5.13: Distribution of expansive and collapsible soils in South Africa (Williams, Pidgeon and Day, 1985). ........ 65
Figure 5.14: Distribution of dolomite in South Africa (Oosthuizen & Richardson, 2011). .............................................. 75
Figure 5.15: Site location (GoogleEarth). ......................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 5.16: Geological map of the area (extracted from the1:250 000 scale geological map 3322 Oudtshoorn). .......... 67
Figure 5.17: Aerial view of excavations in progress during 2015 (Source: GoogleEarth). .............................................. 69
Figure 5.18: Backfill around the perimeter of the excavation........................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.19: Positions and associated depths of test pits and boreholes. .......................................................................... 73
Figure 5.20: Exposed test pit showing material found on site. ......................................................................................... 74
Figure 6.1: A summary of the recommendations presented in the research. .................................................................... 87
x
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Most commonly used field tests. .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 2.2: Most commonly used laboratory tests (after Franki Africa, 2008). ...................................................... 20
Table 2.3: Site investigation costs (Rowe, 1972)................................................................................................... 23
Table 3.1: General requirements for various geotechnical categories (after Day, 2015). ...................................... 29
Table 3.2: Geotechnical requirements for each category (Table A.1, SANS 10160-5:2010). ............................... 29
Table 4.1: Site class designations for Township development from Table 1 of SANS 10400-H. ......................... 37
Table 4.2: Description of sinkhole sizes, as per Table 2 of SANS 1936-2:2012. .................................................. 40
Table 4.3: Inherent hazard categories, as per Table 3 from SANS 1936-2:2012. .................................................. 40
Table 4.4: Inherent hazard classification, as per Table 4 from SANS 1936-2:2012. ............................................. 41
Table 4.5: Dolomite area designations, as per Table 1 from SANS 1936-1:2012 ................................................. 41
Table 4.6: Classification of excavation material (as in Table 5 of SANS 634:2012). ........................................... 46
Table 4.7: Minimum number of data points required for linear structures ............................................................ 47
Table 4.8: Material depths for design CBR of in-situ subgrade, as per ................................................................. 48
Table 4.9: Subgrade CBR of classification, as per Table 16 of TRH4: 1996. ....................................................... 48
Table 4.10: Specification of material properties for earthwork construction as per Table 1 of S4140:2006. ........ 49
Table 4.11: Material classification for bedding (pipes) as in clause 3.1 to 3.3 in SABS 1200LB:1983. ............... 49
Table 4.12: Specification for backfill material as given in clause 3.5 of SABS 1200 DB:1989. ........................... 50
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Projects we have completed demonstrate what we know, future projects decide what we will learn.”
- Dr Moshin Tiwana
Background to Study
Research published by several sources, from as long as over thirty years ago, illustrates and concludes
that the largest element of technical and financial risk in civil engineering projects lies within the
ground (National Research Council, 1984; Institution of Civil Engineers, 1991; Littlejohn et al., 1994
and Whyte, 1995). The discovery of unexpected subsurface features during construction can lead to
project delays, design changes and unplanned and expensive construction works. Cost and schedule
overruns on large civil engineering projects are typically the effect of unforeseen geological
conditions and associated geotechnical problems. “Despite numerous attempts to deal with these
situations, such as incorporating various clauses in contract documents, the problems persist” (Hoek
& Palmieri, 1998).
Geotechnical engineering has been a topic of great interest for centuries. Excellent progress has been
made in terms of research over the years, with significant contributions from South African
researchers. The emphasis has however not been placed upon the minimum geotechnical investigation
requirements for different types of developments. The specification of the minimum extent of
fieldwork and laboratory testing will ensure a realistic assessment of the subsurface conditions and
provide relevant input data on the basis of which realistic engineering decisions can be made.
This research is inspired by the increased demand in infrastructure due to a rapidly growing
population in South Africa. Although the construction sector is growing, there seems to be no
accompanying growth in the investment in, and quality of geotechnical investigations. By using at
least, the minimum sampling or exploratory requirements needed to define site conditions as
accurately as possible, the quality and success of civil engineering projects will increase and
construction costs and failures will be reduced significantly.
Problem Statement
A poor geotechnical investigation typically results in the collection of insufficient geotechnical data,
which is the main cause of project delays, disputes, claims, and project cost overruns and failures
(Temple & Stukhart, 1987). According to Osterberg (1979), site investigation can be considered a
failure if it does not accurately reveal subsurface conditions needed for safe economical design of
foundations or earth structures.
1
Although geotechnical investigation requirements are set out in various national standards, codes of
practice and legislation, structural foundation failures and construction cost overruns due to
inadequate investigations still occur frequently.
Contribution of Research
There are various national standards, codes of practice and legislation available that are intended to
guide geotechnical practitioners and associated professionals in the planning and execution of
adequate geotechnical site investigations. The knowledge, techniques and equipment required to
carry out investigations in accordance with these codes exists. The fact that construction and project
failures still occur rather frequently, is an indication that these codes are not being implemented.
Part of the reason why these codes are not being implemented lies in the manner in which geotechnical
investigations are procured. All too often, a tender (or enquiry / request for proposal) is issued with
no accompanying specification of minimum requirements for such an investigation. As a result,
widely varying bids are received and, all too often, the only yardstick on which these bids are
adjudicated is price.
It is clear that there is a need to investigate means whereby minimum requirements for geotechnical
investigation can be conveniently specified for different types of developments in much the same way
as a quantity surveyor would use a standardised specification such as SANS 1200 to set minimum
requirements for construction works. Adequate specification of the correct investigation
requirements from the start will go a long way to establishing improvements in the quality of the
geotechnical investigations.
The findings of this research are not sufficiently detailed to be incorporated into revisions of national
standards and codes of practice. However, the findings have the potential to mitigate construction
and project failures caused by inadequate geotechnical investigation by means of identifying pitfalls
associated with current site investigation trends in South Africa and provide a basis from which the
required minimum specifications can be developed. It may also offer young, inexperienced
practitioners and non-geotechnical members of the project team the opportunity to become acquainted
with minimum investigation requirements applicable to different types of developments and provide
a basic understanding of the specific procedures to be followed when doing specialised investigations
for different types of projects such as development of dolomite land, basement excavations, piled
foundations, etc.
2
Research Objective
The main objective of the research study is to critically assess shortcomings in geotechnical
investigation practices and the need for minimum site investigation requirements in South Africa, that
are essential to accurately define site conditions for different types of development. It will also
identify and illustrate the pitfalls of current practice by means of case studies of inadequate
investigations. It will conclude by recommending changes needed in the future.
The following specific objectives were formulated with the goal of achieving the main objective:
i. To provide an overview of the various components of a geotechnical investigation and an

overview of the requirements of legislation, codes and standards in South Africa.
ii. Demonstrate the consequences of inadequate investigations as a result of non-compliance of

the geotechnical regulatory framework.
iii. Propose revisions to codes, standards and legislation to improve project success and reduce
contractual claims and disputes arising from inadequate investigations.
iv. Produce an initial draft of a standardised specification for geotechnical investigations of

residential townships and housing.
The purpose of this study is to create a comprehensive methodology that will guide South African
engineers and engineering geologists in conducting adequate geotechnical investigations and provide
related professions with the means of specifying an appropriate scope of work when calling for
proposals for such investigations. Research questions that relate to the study include, but are not
limited to:
i. What combination of field investigation techniques and specifications are the most effective
in terms of quality of information gained and its influence on adequately determining
subsurface conditions?
ii. What are the minimum site investigation requirements to accurately define soil conditions and
identify potential geotechnical hazards, including problem soils?
iii. Why do the actual site conditions often differ from what was found during the geotechnical
site investigations and what are the potential consequences of these differences?
The study further aims to provide an understanding of what the minimum geotechnical investigation
requirements for different types of development are and what aspects needs to be avoided and
improved to achieve satisfactory investigation results.
3
Research Methodology and Report Layout

The research is based on a qualitative approach that relies on information and data available from
geotechnical practitioners that have substantial experience from working in the industry for many
years. Data gathered for this study comprise information and reports on investigation failures relating
to specific types of developments, presented as case studies. A comprehensive evaluation of the
investigation requirements specified in regulatory frameworks, as well as the procedures that are
currently being followed by geo-practitioners in the industry form the core of this research.
The case studies highlight foundation and project failures and how these relate to the effectiveness or
otherwise of the geotechnical investigation requirements set out in national standards, codes of
practice and legislation. The aim of the review is to provide insight to the intended outcomes these
regulatory frameworks, to determine the degree of compliance therewith and identify areas of concern
regarding their implementation.
For ease of reference to the reader, a brief overview of the contents and objectives of each chapter is
given below.
Chapter 2: Literature Review

The literature review comprises an overview of the history of geotechnical engineering at both
national and international levels. The idea is to demonstrate and emphasize that the need for site
investigations was recognised hundreds of years ago. In this chapter however, the focus is mainly on
geotechnical investigations. Relevant existing information from various sources was gathered and
reviewed to lay the foundation of this research. Important aspects of the site investigation, including
various methods of investigation, different phases of investigation and investigation cost are
discussed, accompanied by examples relevant to the South African industry. Attention is paid to how
these aspects relate to one another. The chapter is therefore written as to tell a story to inexperienced
and non-geotechnical practitioners, helping them to gain an appreciation of the geotechnical site
investigation process.
Chapter 3: The regulatory framework for geo-professionals in South Africa

This chapter introduces the regulatory documents that set requirements for geotechnical investigation
in South Africa. As part of the summary relating to the objectives of each document, it is pointed out
how the geotechnical investigation forms part of these regulations by referring to specific clauses that
deal with site investigations. This forms the base for the specific investigation requirements that are
discussed in more detail in the following chapter. Furthermore, the effects of inadequate
4
investigations are discussed, leading to the legal and professional responsibility that rests upon
geotechnical practitioners and associated professionals who fails to carry out adequate investigations.
Chapter 4: Specific requirements for various categories of development

Specific geotechnical investigation requirements for various types of development including
townships, houses, linear structures, pile foundations, lateral support and developments on dolomite
land are set out in detail in Chapter 4. The applicable standards, objectives and specific requirements
for these developments are described with reference to the specific clauses, sections, chapters and
tables that lay down the minimum site investigation requirements needed to adequately define
subsurface conditions. The aim is to extract all the geotechnical site investigation requirements
specified in various documents, to incorporate and organize it according to the applicable types of
developments.
Chapter 5: Case Histories

Chapter 5 presents the analysis of cases histories from real projects that highlight the effects of
inadequate site investigations. The review of multiple case studies can be regarded as an all-inclusive
case study that illustrates current site investigation shortcomings in practice. These case studies
illustrate the fundamental problems facing geo-practitioners, and extract lessons and principles that
can be applied in the industry to improve the quality of geotechnical investigations. The findings of
this chapter form part of the integrated conclusion, where recommendations will be proposed in the
last chapter.
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

The research findings are summarized and combined to formulate concise conclusions. These
conclusions were drawn by integrating the literature review with the findings of the case study review
and analysis of the regulatory framework. Conclusions drawn from each of the case studies under the
various categories of development are elaborated in this chapter.
Furthermore, recommendations for change, which may offer possible solutions to the research
problem stated above, are given. The proposed recommendations form part of an extensive solution
strategy to address the occurrence of foundation and project failures and improve the quality of
geotechnical investigations in South Africa.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
“Unfortunately, soils are made by nature and not by man, and the products of nature are always complex…”
- Karl von Terzaghi, 1936
Introduction
Like many common words, the word soil has several meanings and is defined in accordance with the
field of study, from micro-scale in Soil Biology to macro-scale in Geology. For engineering purposes,
soil is defined as un-cemented or weakly cemented accumulation of mineral particles and/or organic
matter with water and air contained in the void spaces between particles (Knappett & Craig, 2012:3).
Sometimes it is even described as the solid material that can be removed without blasting. However,
it needs to be considered that soil is a natural material that has been derived from the weathering or
disintegration of various types of rock, some of which are about 4 billion years old. Therefore, the
geotechnical materials on each site are the unique products of many influences including geological
origin, age, tectonic environment, past and present climates, topography, vegetation and the influence
of man (Day, 2013). Taking all the above factors into account, there are many risks in the ground
which have been inherited from its past.
As in Clayton, Matthews and Simons (1995:1):
“Because deposition is irregular, soils and rocks are notoriously variable, and often have properties which are
undesirable from the point of view of a proposed structure. Unfortunately, the decision to develop a particular
site cannot often be made on the basis of its complete suitability from the engineering viewpoint; geotechnical
problems therefore occur and require geotechnical parameters for their solution.”
The process of acquiring geological, geotechnical, and all the relevant information needed to
determine the engineering properties and design parameters for construction of a planned
development, is referred to as the geotechnical investigation or site investigation. A geotechnical
investigation is the first step towards a successful project and is a critical part in managing risk, in
terms of safety and cost. Although the need for site investigations is self-evident, the process and
relevance thereof is often not fully appreciated by inexperienced engineering geologists and
geotechnical engineers, nor by members of associated professions such as structural engineers,
quantity surveyors and project managers who are often required to specify and procure geotechnical
investigations. Questions frequently asked regarding geotechnical investigations includes the
following: What is a site investigation, why is it relevant and what does the planning of such
investigations entail? What type of methods are being used? What type and how many samples should
be collected and what type and how many tests should be done?
6
This chapter gives an overview of the evolution of geotechnical engineering and aims to answer most
of these questions and describe the process of conducting a geotechnical investigation. It also aims to
explain how the different components of a site investigation interact and connect. Most sections focus
on, or make use of, scenarios and examples that involve geotechnical engineering in South Africa.
Historical overview of geotechnical engineering

Geotechnical Engineering is a sub-discipline of Civil Engineering which is concerned with the
engineering behaviour of natural materials found on or close to the earth’s surface. It includes,
amongst other, the investigation, analysis, design and construction of various structures and systems
that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Although this discipline, in its present form, is
relatively young, interest in the behaviour of soil and rock for engineering purposes can be traced
back to Roman times (Plommer, 1973), and numerous structures (buildings, roads, bridges), some
still standing today, are proof that some knowledge and understanding of earth’s materials existed
among ancient civilizations. However, Das (2010:1) stated that the record of a person’s first use of
soil as a construction material is lost in antiquity.
“Mathematical solutions to geotechnical problems have been around for centuries” (Day, 2013), and
according to Murthy (2002), geotechnical engineering has passed in succession through two stages;
the empirical stage and the scientific stage. Several notable contributions have been made by French
engineers from as early as 1717, when Henri Gautier studied natural slopes in soils. His original study
was followed up by Bernard Forest de Bélidor who proposed a theory for lateral earth pressure on
retaining walls in a textbook he published in 1729. Francois Gadroy studied the existence of slip
planes in soil at failure and in 1746, he reported test results on the first laboratory model of a retaining
wall that was 76 mm high and built with sand backfill. Around 1769 Jean Rodolphe Perronet, who
studied slope stability, distinguished between intact ground and fills (Das, 2010).
It is, however, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736 - 1806) that was credited for making the first
major contribution with his work done on retaining structures which was published in 1776 by the
French Academy of Sciences. Coulomb’s work showed considerable understanding of soil as an
engineering material. Subsequent papers, principally delivered by the French, did much to refine the
available solutions but little to increase fundamental knowledge (Clayton, Matthews and Simons,
1995 and Das, 2010).
The development of Geotechnical Engineering took a huge turn in the 20th century when Karl von
Terzaghi (1883 – 1963) developed the theory of effective stress which was published in his book
Erdbaumechanik in 1925. Soil had been treated as a single-phase solid in all preceding work.
Terzaghi was the first person who identified saturated soil to be a two-phase material consisting of
7
soil grains and pore water, and partially saturated soil as a three-phase material where the pore spaces
contains both water and air (Donaldson, 1985). Therefore, he became the first to elaborate a
comprehensive mechanics of soils, and became recognized as the leader of the new branch of civil
engineering called soil mechanics. Terzaghi is known today as the “father of modern soil mechanics”.
Geotechnical Development in South Africa

It is no secret that South Africa has some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. Some of these
“wonders” may still be undiscovered. However, exploration of the land started from as early as when
Cape settlers started moving inland. With South Africa’s complex geological history dating back
millions of years, moving could not have been an easy task. These pioneers’ engineering skills were
put to the test by the need to cross mountain ranges and escarpments to reach the interior of the
country (Donaldson, 1985).
The achievements of Scottish born, Andrew Geddes Bain (1979 – 1864) called attention to the ways
in which the skills and science of geology and engineering progressed over the centuries. Bain arrived
in the Cape in 1816 and since then, was a keen explorer. Along with his family, he moved to Graaff-
Reinet, and in 1832 he was awarded a medal for the gratuitous supervision of the construction of the
Van Ryneveld’s Pass near the town (Day, 2013). However, the magnum opus of Andrew Geddes
Bain is the pass that bears his name, the Bainskloof Pass which crosses the Limietberge between
Wellington and Ceres. It is a work of considerable engineering complexity that has become one of
the most scenic routes in the Cape. With no formal training in engineering, Andrew Bain constructed
eight major passes in South Africa.
Bain also developed an intense interest and expertise in geology which led him to produce the first
comprehensive geological map of South Africa. The map was published by the Geological Society
of London. After such meaningful work in this field, he has been hailed as ‘the father of geology’ in
South Africa. His son, Thomas Bain, who served a six-year’ traineeship under him, attained a
reputation as a locator, designer, builder and supervisor of the construction of mountain passes in the
Cape (Ross, 2004). Thomas Bain constructed a further twenty-four passes during his career as a road
builder (Storrar & Komnick, 1984). The impressive dry-stone retaining walls still seen in the
Swartberg Pass in the Western Cape are said to be the trademark of Bain Jnr. The father-son
combination of Andrew and Thomas is broadly known for their major influence on road construction
in the Cape Colony during the 19th century.
Motivated by the need for various infrastructure, soil mechanics developed in South Africa as much
as in other countries. Engineering geology in South Africa received international recognition during
8
the 1930’s and 1940’s (Korf and Haarhoff, 2007), when Jeremiah “Jere” Jennings (1912 – 1979), a
geotechnical engineer, astounded this discipline with his phenomenal achievements.
In the same way as Terzaghi is regarded as the father of modern soil mechanics, Jennings can certainly
claim this title in his native South Africa (Day, 2013). Jennings obtained a BSc degree in civil
engineering from the University of Witwatersrand at the end of 1933. While doing vacation work as
a student, he was introduced to the theories of compaction, which also awakened his interest in soil
mechanics. He wrote his first paper, ‘A few notes on earth dams and the soil mechanics related
thereto’ was published in the Journal of South African Institution of Engineers in October 1935.
According to Donalsdon (1985) this was possibly the first paper ever on this specific subject to be
published in South Africa.
Jennings gained his MSc degree in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
where he studied soil mechanics under Terzaghi. Thereafter, he returned to South Africa and joined
the South African Railways and Harbours as a junior engineer in the research section. He was then
invited to join the National Building Research Institute (NBRI) of the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR) in Pretoria, as head of its engineering department.
Jennings attracted several promising young engineers to join the staff, including Basil Kantey, Keeve
Steyn, Lou Collins, George Donaldson, Ken Knight and Tony Brink (Day, 2013). During this time,
the country was confronted with many geotechnical challenges such as expansive and collapsible
soils which caused cracking of buildings and sinkholes initiated by dewatering of dolomites. This
period saw the greatest advances in South Africa by means of remarkable research by Jennings and
his team that could also apply in other parts of the world. Jennings also inspired the introduction of
engineering geology and soil mechanics in both undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses when
he was appointed as a professor at the University of Witwatersrand.
Another influential pioneer was A.B.A (Tony) Brink (1927 – 2003), an engineering geologist. After
obtaining a BSc (Geology) degree at the University of Pretoria in 1948, Brink’s career took an
important turn when he started working at the NBRI under Jennings (Korf and Haarhoff, 2007).
By sharing the beliefs of Terzaghi, Jennings and Bain, Brink accomplished exceptional achievements
among which the “Brink Books”, a series of four books entitled Engineering Geology of Southern
Africa Volumes 1 to 4, published between 1979 and 1985, was his magnum opus. In short, the first
two books of this four-volume series focus on the engineering characteristics of rocks and their
weathered derivatives that was formed between 4 000 and 300 million years (Ma) ago. The third
volume deals mainly with the engineering properties of rocks from the Karoo Sequence aged 300 Ma
and less, and the final volume focus on transported soils which occur throughout the Southern African
9
region. Day (2013) describes the Brink books as an invaluable guide in the planning of geotechnical
investigations and interpretation of the results, providing a broad overview of the engineering geology
of the region and the type of problems likely to be associated with individual strata. These books also
provide numerous case studies that are of great help with geotechnical investigations.
In addition, it was also Tony Brink who “discovered” the Pebble Marker which is defined by Brink
and Bruin (1990) as the gravelly soil which forms the demarcation between the transported soils
which overlie it, and the country rock or residual soils below. This makes it an important marker
enabling the profiler to define the transition from transported to residual soils (Korf and Haarhoff,
2007). Brink played a pivotal role in developing the “MCCSSO” (moisture, colour, consistency,
structure, soil type and origin) nomenclature for the description of soils which still forms the basis of
modern-day description of soil profiles in South Africa. According to Day (2013), the guide to soil
profiling by (Jennings, Brink &Williams (1973) is probably the most influential geotechnical paper
published in the country to this day.
Recent (practical) Geotechnical Advances in South Africa

One of the more recent major infrastructure developments in South Africa is the approximately 80
kilometre, state-of-the-art, rapid rail link known as the Gautrain. The route includes two links, the
shorter link between OR Tambo International Airport and Sandton, and the longer link from Tshwane
(Pretoria) to Johannesburg. Challenging ground conditions were encountered along several sections
of the route. These included dolomite formations that is prone to sinkhole formation towards the
northern end between Tshwane and Centurion, very hard rock quartzite and shale formations that
slowed down the tunnelling processes substantially and very deeply weathered granite with a
collapsible grain structure around Sandton and Rosebank areas. Geotechnical investigations were
done in detail using different ground investigation methods and suitable solutions were found for all
the challenges making the Gautrain project one of the biggest geotechnical milestones in the country.
Another major successful project was the construction of the new Sasol building in Sandton, Gauteng.
The building spreads over approximately 60 000m3 and comprises 11-storeys with a height of about
47m. To be expected, this project also had some geotechnical challenges. “Of the total excavation of
60 000m³, no less than 20 000m³ was extremely hard, un-weathered granite which required extensive
drilling and blasting” (Franki Africa, 2017). In addition to the hard rock, a dolerite dyke was
encountered on parts of the site that required a change to the proposed piling technique, extending
the construction time. Despite all these challenges, the building was constructed successfully. Both
these projects enhanced the development of various geotechnical techniques including ground
10
improvement and ground anchoring technology. It also developed the field of geotechnical
contracting significantly.
The Geotechnical Investigation

Site investigation involves gathered all relevant information concerning the site of a proposed
development and its surrounding areas (Simons, Menzies & Matthews, 2002). The investigation
process also includes analysing and assessing data that has been gathered to be presented in the form
of a report.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is amongst other to determine the sequence, thickness
and extent of soil and rock types and groundwater conditions, conduct in situ field testing to assess
soil characteristics, and obtain representative samples for laboratory testing. Data obtained during the
investigation is then used to determine the in-situ state of the soil and rock and evaluate the chemical
properties thereof, as well as material parameters such as particle size distribution, strength,
compressibility, moisture content and unit weight of soils. It is important that data obtained from site
investigations essentially identify factors that critically effect the safe performance of structures.
Another important parameter is excavatibility. Materials that cannot be excavated with conventional
excavation equipment require blasting or hydraulic hammers for excavation, which contributes to an
increase in project cost.
There is no doubt that site investigation is no longer a guessing game. Although the objectives of
investigations may be the same, various approaches are being taken to undertake a geotechnical
investigation. Because the geotechnical investigation is such a complex process, it is easy to get
confused with the detail of and technicalities involving the investigation process, therefore, it is
important to have a general approach to undertaking ground investigations. A four-stage-approach
that contain the major component is shown in and described below.
Planning
Procurement
Implementation
Reporting
Figure 2.1: The four-stage-approach to geotechnical

investigations.
11
2.5.1 Planning
Planning is an essential part of the investigation process. Good planning for of a geotechnical site
investigation is the key to obtaining sufficient and correct site information for designing a structure
in a timely manner and with minimum cost for the effort needed. During this stage, all fundamental
and relevant information on both the site and the proposed development need to be gathered. It is the
responsibility of the geotechnical consultant to ensure that the client clearly communicates the scope
and detail of the project to start the planning process of the investigation. With this information, the
appropriate investigation methods can be determined. For test pits, the number and depth of the pits
need to be assessed to determine whether a tractor-loader-backhoe (TLB) will be sufficient or an
excavator will be required. Borehole positions needs to be planned to assess access requirements for
rigs on site. Many sites are underlain by services such as electrical and telecom cables and water pipes
and detailed drawings showing all services should be obtained to assist in positioning test pits and
boreholes. Planning also includes deciding what type of samples to take and the appropriate tests to
be carried out both in the field and the laboratory.
Additionally, Occupation Health and Safety must be considered. Depending on the type of project,
planning needs to be made among other in terms of travelling, working in excavations and protection
of animals in the field.
It is frequently required that the geotechnical engineer provide the client with a schedule showing
time frames in which various tasks will be completed.
2.5.2 Procurement
In the United Kingdom, it has been widely considered that prudent procurement of the investigation
is the key to obtaining a good site investigation at a reasonable price (Clayton, Matthews and Simons,
1995). Project procurement documentation should include information determined during the
planning stage, such as site access, number and depth of test pits and or boreholes and the type and
amount of testing. In most instances, the client will appoint a geotechnical consultant to undertake
the investigation. The appointed consultant will appoint sub-contractors to supply equipment such
as TLB's or excavators, drill boreholes or undertake specialist field testing such as geophysical work,
plate load tests, etc. Laboratory testing is undertaken by commercial laboratories. The appointed
geotechnical consultant takes responsibility for preparing specifications and bills of quantities for
these sub-contractors which may form the basis of a direct appointment or a tender process.
The appointment of a consultant may by a sole-source (direct) appointment, preferred bidder tender
or open tender (SAICE, 2010). In the first two instances, the consultant will normally be responsible
12
for determining the scope of the investigation. In the case of open tenders, the scope of work must
be clearly specified to ensure competitive bidding and the adequacy of the final product.
According to (Ngobeni, 2011), in South Africa, the factors considered in the appointment of a
geotechnical consultant include quality, suitability, price, abilities of the bidder as well as the supply
reputation and financial standing.
The appointment of any consultant should always be in writing. Standard conditions of contract that
clearly define the duties and responsibilities of all parties involved, state liability for each party and
state the means whereby disputes are to be dealt with, are normally used.
The SAICE Site Investigation Code of Practice (SAICE, 2010) lists the most commonly used
conditions of contract for consulting services in South Africa as:
• New Engineering Contract: The Professional Services Contract, Third Edition, June 2005.
Institution of Civil Engineers, London. Thomas Telford Limited, London.
• FIDIC Client - Consultant Model Service Agreement, Fourth Edition, 2006. International
Federation of Consulting Engineers, Paris.
• CIDB Standard Professional Services Contract, Second Edition, September 2005.
Construction Industry Development Board, Pretoria.
• SAACE Form of Agreement for Consulting Engineer Services, July 2003. Consulting
Engineers South Africa (CESA), Johannesburg.
The Construction Industry Development Board (CIBD) further lists the following recommended
forms of contract (CIBD, 2005):
• FIDIC (French acronym for International Federation of Consulting Engineers) 1999.

• General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works (GCC 2004).
• JBCC Series 2000.
• NEC3 family of standard contracts.
“The FIDIC, NEC and GCC can be used on all types of engineering and construction contracts. The
JBCC 2000 is, however, confined to building works. The FIDIC, NEC and JBCC documents contain
short versions of engineering and construction works contracts.” (CIBD, 2005). If the FIDIC or NEC
documents are used, the consultant should be appointed using the professional services contract
included in each suite of documents. The JBCC 2000 and GCC contracts are for construction works
and are generally not suitable for the appointment of a geotechnical consultant.
Geotechnical investigations generally involve the drilling of holes or formation of excavations. As

such, they are classified as construction activities in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
13
1993 (Act No. 85 of 1993). The investigation must therefore be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of the Act and of the Construction Regulations (2014) (Department of Labour, 2014).
The Act places specific obligations on the employer and the employee while the Regulations spell
out the duties of the client, the designer and the contractor. One of the requirements is that all the
people who are working on a construction site or with construction equipment need to have a valid
medical certificate of fitness as proof that they went through a medical assessment and were declared
fit to do the work.
The preparation of a baseline risk assessment and a health and safety specification by the client forms
part of the procurement stage in the four-stage approach described above.
2.5.3 Implementation/Execution
The execution stage focusses largely on the actual site investigation in the field. The responsibility
rests upon the person conducting the field investigation to ensure the quality of the work undertaken
and of the data obtained. It is important for the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to
familiarise themselves with the techniques and objectives of the investigation. As a recommendation,
the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist should do the following while on site:
• Clearly communicate the purpose of the investigation to all parties (drillers, TLB operators,
foremen, etc.) and make sure everyone knows what is expected of them.
• Make sure that the correct techniques are used, and that the equipment complies with the
specifications.
• Closely watch drilling and sampling techniques to make sure disturbance of soil is minimized
and that representative samples are obtained from all soil horizons.
• Frequently check the driller’s borehole records for authenticity and accuracy.
• Liaise with the structural design engineer, so that the investigation can be modified if needs
be.
Take note that the size of the investigation will determine the number of geotechnical engineers and
engineering geologists that will supervise the work on site, since it will be difficult for one person to
supervise multiple activities at the same time.
Another important factor during the execution stage is Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) on site.
All persons (whether on site every day or just visiting for a couple of hours) should, before starting
work go through a site safety induction. The purpose of the induction is site specific, but in general it
aims to ensure that all persons entering the site are fully informed about the activities on site as well
as particular risks and hazards on the site. It focusses on safety aspects and emergency procedures. In
14
case of a geotechnical investigation, there are often services such as electrical cables in the area, and
all persons on site should be aware of the location of such services and should know what to do if one
of these services are struck by a drilling rig or excavator.
By adhering to the above recommendations, results of higher quality field data and safe practice can
be ensured.
2.5.4 Reporting
Reporting is a method of communication; therefore, the findings of the site investigation must be
clearly communicated by the geotechnical report. The report should include a description of the
stratigraphy of the ground, identification of problematic conditions, a prediction of behaviour of the
ground relevant to the proposed works and recommendations to the designer. Therefore, the
geotechnical report should ideally be produced prior to design and construction. Different
companies/clients use different report layouts, however, the presentation of information obtained via
site investigations should always be presented in a logical and orderly manner. The structure of the
report depends largely on the type and size of project as well as the client’s preference, for example,
the focus and structure of a report for linear structures (roads, tunnels and pipelines) will be different
to that of a compact structure (a house or other small structures). Some clients prefer to receive a draft
version of the report which they can review prior to finalisation. Clients may also wish to separate
the factual report from the interpretative report. This gives them the option to issue only the factual
report to the contractor leaving the interpretation of the data to the contractor in an attempt to limit
risk. Notwithstanding, a good geotechnical report should always include (SAICE, 2010):
• Introduction: terms of reference, abbreviations and symbols, purpose and scope, proposed
development and available information,
• Factual information: location and description of site, regional geology, investigation
procedures used and factual data obtained,
• Interpretive information: site stratigraphy, material properties, geotechnical constraints and
design recommendations, and
• Appendices: references, test results and drawings.
Investigation Methods
There are various approaches to conducting a site investigation, depending on, amongst other, the
purpose and extent of the investigation. However, for an investigation to be successful, it is important
that the correct methods are being used and that results are interpreted correctly. Therefore,
substantial knowledge and experience are often required.
15
This section gives a short description of the various methods of investigation. Note that not all
investigation methods are discussed, but only the ones that are in common use.
2.6.1 Non-intrusive Methods

2.6.1.1 Remote Sensing
Remote sensing is an effective investigation method used throughout construction projects. It may
form a critical part of the desk study in the early stages or can be used for monitoring during the
construction and maintenance stages of a project. During the planning stage, this method is essentially
used to collect geotechnical and environmental data by using sensing devices that are not in physical
contact with the earth. However, it is required to understand the underlying geology and geotechnical
characteristics when interpreting remote sensing data. The use of remote sensing can provide the
investigator with an overview of the project area on both small and large scales. With this type of
information, successful planning of the site investigation can commence. As a very simple example,
it can be used to assess the accessibility to drilling, excavating or other necessary plant of the site for
carrying out the investigation. It is also useful to have an idea of the geological and geotechnical
conditions to help with the planning of drilling or sampling.
Examples of remote sensing in common use include GoogleEarth (satellite) imagery, stereo-paired
aerial photos, airborne geophysics, etc.
2.6.1.2 Geophysical Methods
Geophysical methods are an efficient and cost-effective technique used to obtain subsurface
information during geotechnical investigations. These methods hold the advantage of exploring
relatively large areas to obtain data which can then be used for establishing soil and rock stratification,
and for determining geotechnical properties (Massarch, 2000). There are various parameters that can
be measured by geophysical methods and some of the materials that can be detected includes
geological materials, chemical substances, construction material, water and voids. The most
commonly used geophysical methods for site investigations includes Continuous Surface Wave tests,
Ground Penetrating Radar, Magnetic, Electromagnetic, Gravity, Resistivity and Seismic surveys.
Although non-intrusive (surface) geophysical surveys are more commonly used for site
investigations, geophysical tests can also be performed intrusively in the form of downhole/borehole
surveys. Geophysics is a specialised field that requires adequate knowledge and understanding of the
various methods as well as how to apply them. The geophysical surveys should therefore be
conducted by a specialist geophysical contractor that has sufficient experience and judgement to
interpret the results.
16
2.6.2 Intrusive Methods

2.6.2.1 Test holes / Soil Profiling
The excavation, profiling and sampling of test pits, also known as trial pits, is an extremely effective
and commonly used method to obtain subsurface information on a potential construction site to depths
of 3m for tractor-mounted loader/backhoes (TLBs) or 5m – 6m for larger excavators.
Profiling of the hole involves recording a full description of each layer in the profile in terms of the
MCCSSO convention (moisture condition, colour, consistency, structure, soil type and origin). These
parameters are most accurately described from fresh soil, therefore, the observer should where it is
safe to do so try to log the pit immediately after excavation before the soil has dried out. The presence
or absence of groundwater (seepage, perched water table or permanent water table) should always be
recorded and particular caution should be exercised where water seepage into test pits could
destabilise the sidewalls. Additionally, information such as termination depth, the reason for
termination and the material in which the pit was terminated are important when logging test pits.
When taking samples, sufficient quantity of sample of the appropriate type (disturbed or undisturbed)
should be taken for the tests required at the appropriate depths. The sample number, depth, test pit
number and type of sample must be recorded on both the sample label and the pit log.
In South Africa, soil profile logging should be carried out in accordance with Guidelines for Soil and
Rock Logging in South Africa manual (Brink and Bruin, 1990) which is an updated version of the
paper titled ‘Revised guide to soil profiling for civil engineering purpose in South Africa’ (Jennings,
Brink and Williams, 1973).
It is of utmost importance that all inspections carried out in test pits are done in a safe manner and
that great care should be taken in and around excavations. Safety First! Guidelines are given in the
SAICE code of practice for the safety of men working in small diameter shafts and test pits for
geotechnical engineering purposes (SAICE, 2007).
2.6.2.2 Geotechnical Drilling
Geotechnical drilling is an intrusive method that is commonly used to obtain a representative soil and
rock samples at depth below the ground surface to determine site characteristics. Although
geotechnical drilling is commonly used for site investigations, it is also required when ground
stabilization methods such as anchoring, grouting and soil nailing are being applied during the
construction phase of a project. Various drilling methods exists, each has advantages and
disadvantages. It is therefore important that the size, type, purpose and other specific requirements of
the project be considered before deciding which method will be most appropriate. “Inappropriate
17
means and methods may in fact worsen the ground properties or structural conditions the construction
technique is intended to enhance” (Bruce, 2003). Geotechnical drilling requires significant skills,
knowledge and experience. It is thus important that the services be carried out by a specialised drilling
company that can provide the correct equipment and qualified operators.
There are three drilling methods that are commonly used in South Africa.
Auger Drilling for site investigation is the process of drilling large diameter (usually 750mm) holes
into the ground by using a flight auger. Although this method is economical and fast, holes in
cohesionless soils or in soils below the water table are prone to collapse and the auger may not be
able to penetrate cemented soils or hard rock. Auger holes can reach depths 36m or more below NGL
with the larger auger rigs. The hole is profiled and sampled by lowering a qualified and experienced
engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer down the hole in a bosun’s chair. This type of profiling
is being used less in the industry due to safety concerns such as sidewall collapse.
Core Drilling involves rotary drilling using hollow rods attached to a core barrel. Various types and
sizes of core barrels are used, with either diamond or tungsten cutting bits. The most popular size of
core barrel in South Africa is an N-sized barrel (76mm diameter hole, 50mm diameter core – in round
numbers). Core samples are contained in a tube inside the core barrel with the most popular barrel
being the double tube, split inner tube, NWD4 barrel. The aim is to retrieve fully intact cores that are
representative of how the strata is layered. This type of drilling can be used in virtually all soil and
rock types. Rock core samples often shows discontinuities such as joints, cracks and fissures that are
of utmost importance to the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. Temporary casing may
be installed where necessary. SPT tests and other in situ tests can be carried out in the boreholes.
Percussion Drilling is a means of quickly producing a borehole that provides disturbed samples
(chips) to be logged by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. Holes are typically 125 –
225mm in diameter and are drilled using a down-the-hole rotary percussion hammer. As part of
collecting geotechnical data, the drilling parameters such as the penetration rate (seconds per metre),
air loss, sample return, hammer tempo and groundwater strikes recorded as drilling proceeds.
Automated recording systems are available that record additional parameters such as air pressure,
torque, etc. Percussion chips flushed from the hole are collected on surface for each metre drilled.
Percussion drilling is suitable for both consolidated and unconsolidated formations and is perfect to
be used when drilling needs to be done on hard material such as rock. However, the chips produced
may be contaminated from contact with other material in the hole while blown up annulus between
the sidewall of the hole and the drilling rods, lowering the quality of samples. Casing may be installed
as drilling progresses.
18
2.6.3 In-situ Test Methods (Field Testing)
In-situ tests are done in the field. They are a means of testing subsurface material in-place, meaning
the material has not been moved from its original place of deposition. The tests are done using
instruments that can penetrate the ground to measure the nature, behaviour and characteristics of
subsurface strata as well as the ground water conditions. As opposed to trail pits and boreholes, in-
situ tests hold the advantage of being carried out on material that has not undergone sample
disturbance. However, in most cases samples are not obtained, meaning there is nothing to compare
test results to. Thus, in situ testing is generally combined with rotary core drilling or other methods
of investigation. The interpretation of these methods also requires substantial knowledge and
experience.
There are various in-situ test methods that can be used to obtain geotechnical data. The most
commonly used tests include the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT),
Dynamic Probe Super Heavy (DPSH), Plate Load Test (PLT), Field Vane Shear Test (FVST). Table
2.1 provides a summary of the measured parameters, advantages, disadvantages and level of
performance in different types of materials/strata. The level of performance is simplified to only six
types of materials and does thus not distinguish between different types of clays (soft, stiff etc.) and
or mixed materials (gravelly-sand, sandy-silt etc.). The summary therefore intends to provide a quick
way of seeing what type of tests may be appropriate for different types of material.
Table 2.1: Most commonly used field tests.

Gravel
Hard
Rock
Rock
Sand
Clay
Soft
Silt
Test Parameters Measured Advantages Disadvantages
Relative strength,
Provides representative Sample is disturbed. High
relative density,
SPT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  sample. Easy and variability and uncertainty. Test
consistency, stiffness,
economical. only performed in boreholes
compressibility, friction
Minimal surface Only measure stiffness, DCP can
Stiffness (density), in- disturbances, easy and break in very stiff material.
DCP ✓ ✓ ✓   
situ strength cost-effective, identifies Typically, pavement
"soft spots" in strata. applications.
Density, effective Not applicable in hard and stiff
Economical, fast and
CPT strength, permeability, clays or gravel. No sample
✓ ✓ ✓  ✓  continuous profiling.
CPTu Over-consolidation ratio, obtained. Drainage conditions
Not operator-dependent.
various moduli are not known.
Effective angle of Cheaper than drilling
Reliability of data of DPSH
friction, relative density, boreholes. possible to
DPSH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ depends on the quantity of
shear strength reach necessary depth
energy transferred to rods
compressibility for investigations
Results exclude effects of
Ultimate bearing
Applicable for most consolidation, Slow and
PLT capacity, settlement, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
types of material, expensive, Limited depth, gives
Elastic modulus,
mostly immediate settlements
Limited to soft to stiff clays and
Undrained shear Easy and economical,
silts, Slow, time-consuming,
FVST strength, Sensitivity (of ✓ ✓     Boreholes not always
needs empirical correction,
clays) required,
affected by sand lenses.
High Moderate Low Not Applicable
19
2.6.4 Laboratory Test Methods
Laboratory testing forms an essential part of the geotechnical investigation. Representative samples
collected during the field investigation are used to perform various laboratory tests to obtain physical
characteristics, index properties, strength and deformation parameters of soils and rocks. The type of
laboratory tests depends on the nature and scope of the investigation. Disturbed samples are easier to
collect but do not keep the in-situ properties of the material (soil or rock) and is therefore tested in
the laboratory to obtain properties such as soil type, texture and moisture content that are not
dependent on the composition and structure of the material. Samples that are relatively undisturbed
retain the structural integrity and composition of in-situ soils and allow testing for properties such as
permeability, strength and deformation parameters that depends on the structure and composition. It
is however rather difficult to collect a perfectly undisturbed sample as there is always going to be
some degree of disturbance when removing an in-situ sample of soil. Table 2.2 shows the parameters
determined by some of the most commonly used laboratory tests.
Table 2.2: Most commonly used laboratory tests (after Franki Africa, 2008).
Parameters Laboratory Test
Grading analysis
Index Properties Particle size distribution Atterberg Limits (PI, LL, SI)
Moisture content
Falling head permeameter (fine grained
soils)
Permeability Permeability Constant head permeameter (coarse grained
soils)
Rowe cell (fine and coarse-grained soils)
In-situ Density Bulk Density Determination
Physical characteristics Specific Gravity Specific Gravity test
Moisture (water) Content Moisture Content test
Undrained Shear Strength: Undrained triaxial test
Unconfined compressive strength UCS Test (rocks)
Strength Parameters Shear box test
Drained Shear strength:
Drained triaxial test
Cohesion (c) and Friction angle (ɸ')
Undrained triaxial with pore water pressure
Consolidometer test
Consolidation
Rowe Cell test
Compaction Standard or Modified Proctor test
Deformation Parameters Double Oedometer
Collapse
Collapsible potential test
Double Oedometer
Heave
Swell under load test
20
Phases of Investigation
Geotechnical site investigations are rarely straight forward and therefore often carried out in phases.
The number of phases can vary and depends on the scope and objectives of the project. It is important
that the original objectives of the investigation are satisfied during all the phases. Geotechnical
investigations typically comprise a preliminary investigation, detailed investigation and investigation
during construction. These phases are described below.
2.7.1 Preliminary Site Investigation (Phase I – Desk Study)
The preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) comprises a desk study a walk-over survey (visual
inspection) of the site and surrounding areas carried out by a competent geotechnical practitioner.
According to Clayton, Matthews and Simons (1995: 5), a desk study and site walk-over are the
minimum requirement for satisfactory preliminary investigations.
The desk study includes but is not limited to a review of site historical records, a detailed study and
analysis of topographical, geological, aerial maps and ortho-photographs. The investigator should
also, if possible, assess previous geotechnical reports, newspaper reports, geotechnical and civil
engineering journals to learn about possible geotechnical problems, gather information on services
(water pipes, power lines etc.) and climatic data of the area. During the walk-over survey attention
should be paid to physical state of existing buildings, presence of surface water, signs of
contamination and indication of services on the site. It is also wise to talk to the current and/or
previous owners or people who live close to the site to get more information about the site.
The purpose of PSI is to provide an initial conceptual site model. Information including the overall
stability and suitability of the site in comparison with alternative sites, geotechnical limit states
(bearing capacity, slope instability and settlement) that should be designed for, previous land use and
existing services need to be reported on. The PSI should also establish preliminary nature of soil, rock
and ground water to further determine and propose types of investigation methods (test pits,
boreholes, in-situ tests, laboratory tests) to be applied during the detailed site investigation.
By understanding the potential variations in the ground, the likelihood of risk and unforeseen ground
conditions and the use of inappropriate techniques in subsequent investigation phases may be
reduced, therefore leading to economical investigation and minimizing chances of project delays.
2.7.2 Detailed Site Investigation (Phase II – Intrusive)
The requirements for the detailed (Phase II) site investigation and scope thereof usually depend on
the results obtained and recommendations presented in the Preliminary (Phase I) investigation. The
detailed investigation requires more in-depth exploration, sampling, collection and analysis of both
21
surface and subsurface data. This phase of investigation typically relies on intrusive investigation
methods such as test pitting and geotechnical drilling, in-situ testing and laboratory testing (see
section 2.6.2) to collect and provide interpretive information to make recommendations regarding
foundation and structural design. Investigation techniques and procedures chosen for the investigation
usually depend on various factors identified during the PSI that includes the geology, site access,
operational constraints and other potential risk factors.
Given the large amount of information that is gathered during the detailed investigation, it may be
the costliest phase, and at the same time the most cost-effective phase of the investigation process as
it reduces the potential for unforeseen ground conditions. It is therefore essential that geotechnical
site investigations be carried out by and supervised by a competent qualified and experienced
professional. Findings of the investigation should be presented in the form of a comprehensive and
transparent report that may include, depending on the contractual agreement, recommendations for
design and construction as outlined in section 2.5.4.
2.7.3 Investigation during Construction
The objectives of this phase of investigation is mainly to review and extend the findings of the
previous phases of investigation. The investigation is usually done during earthworks, installation of
services and foundation construction when larger parts of the subsurface is exposed, allowing the
geology of the site to be assessed in a broader perspective. Additional testing may be undertaken if
it is apparent that the ground conditions recorded during earlier phases of the investigation vary
significantly across the site. In case of the latter, information obtained from trench inspections and
additional testing may identify the need for further investigation to be conducted.
This type of information is crucial to any project at any stage, as it not only ensures safe and
economical design but also tends to save clients a lot of money by identifying potential issues that
was not picked up during earlier stages of the investigation. The necessity and importance of this part
of the investigation is however often overlooked.
Cost of Investigations
The cost of a geotechnical site investigation depends on several factors which include but are not
limited to access of the site, distance between anticipated data collection points, experience of the
person conducting the investigation (engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer) as well as
contractors (drillers, laboratory personnel), special contractors needed to do in-situ tests, quality and
availability of equipment needed and Occupational Health and Safety. A direct link exists between
the cost and quality of geotechnical investigations. Judging by the factors mentioned above, it can be
concluded that the higher the quality and better the resources used in a site investigation, the better
22
the results of it will be, therefore, possibly decreasing the risk associated with unforeseen ground
conditions. However, the need to increase site investigation cost have been reported and called upon
in numerous published and unpublished opinions (Williams and Mettam, 1971; Rowe, 1972; Clayton,
Matthews and Simons, 1995) and yet, the need persists.
Clayton, Matthews and Simons (1995) reported that there has been a decline in financial provision
made for geotechnical investigations for “fair-sized works” since the 1940’s when expenditure on
investigations was typically about 1% to 2% of the cost of the works. Table 2.3 shows the cost of site
investigations as a percentage of the project cost for different types of work.
Table 2.3: Site investigation costs (Rowe, 1972).
% of capital % of earthworks and

Type of Work
cost of works foundation costs
Bridges 0,12 - 0,50 0,26 - 1,30

Buildings 0,05 - 0,22 0,50 - 2,00
Docks 0,23 - 0,50 0,42 - 1,67
Earth dams 0,89 - 3,30 1,14 - 5,20
Embankments 0,12 - 0,19 0,16 – 0.20
Roads 0,20 - 1,55 1,60 - 5,67
Railways 0,60 - 2,00 3,5
Overall mean 0,7 1,5
Figure 2.2 shows the financial risk related to inadequate site investigation costs from data obtained
from a survey done on UK highway projects (Mott MacDonald & Soil Mechanics Ltd. 1994).
Figure 2.2: The impact of expenditure on cost overruns for UK highway

projects (Mott MacDonald & Soil Mechanics Ltd. 1994).
23
There are two important observations that can be made from this graph.
• Expenditure of less than 1% exposes the client to up to 100% of cost over-run;
• When expenditure on ground investigation is 5% or more of the tender price, cost over-runs
are typically less than 25% of tender price.
Conclusion
Since ancient times, many people have been devoted to practicing geotechnical engineering. The
profession has come a long way and is now an established branch of civil engineering. The
geotechnical site investigation intends to identify and characterise the ground conditions in sufficient
detail to allow safe and economic design of structures. Although the risk inherent in the ground cannot
be eliminated, the investigation aims to reduce the occurrence and impact of unforeseen ground
conditions as far as possible.
Various approaches to conducting site investigations exists. It is important that the investigation
proceed in a logical order of which desk studies and planning is usually the first step. There are
numerous methods of investigating subsurface conditions and not all of these will be used in one site
investigation. Proper planning is thus required to specify the most applicable investigation methods
and field and laboratory tests required to adequately characterise ground conditions of a site.
Notwithstanding the fact that the geotechnical site investigation is nowadays widely considered as
part of the contractual obligation, the importance of allowing adequate funding and time for
investigation is still being overlooked and many parties including the client, designer, project manager
and contractor fail who often fail to understand that, in the long term, it is their interests to do an
adequate investigation.
24
Chapter 3: The Regulatory Framework for Geo-Professionals

in South Africa
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Introduction
The regulatory framework in South Africa contains legally binding requirements established by
various Acts, Regulations as well as national standards and codes of practice which regulate the
engineering and construction industries. In addition, the various professional councils (such as the
Engineering Council of South Africa, the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
and the South African Council for Project and Construction Management Professions) have codes of
conduct which regulate professional conduct and ensure adherence to the norms of the profession.
This chapter provides an overview of the regulatory framework that relates to the geotechnical
environment by introducing the fundamental regulatory documents that contain sections relating to
geotechnical investigations in South Africa. There are also numerous codes, standards and guidance
documents that set specific requirements for geotechnical investigations for various types of
development. These requirements are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Information in this chapter was mostly derived from the lecture on Codes and Standards presented by
Professor Peter Day to the SAICE Geotechnical Division (Day, 2016) and an Advisory Note for the
public by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA, 2012), also available from their website
(www.ecsa.co.za).
Legislative Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations

There are three main Acts that set out requirements that specifically apply to geotechnical
investigations in South Africa.
3.2.1 National Building Regulation and Building Standards Act
The National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act (No. 103 of 1977) including the
National Building Regulations (or NRBs) provide requirements to ensure that all buildings in South
Africa are designed and constructed such that people can live and work in a safe and healthy
environment (Foreword to SANS10400A:2010). The introduction to the Act states the purpose of the
act to be “to provide for the promotion of uniformity in the law relating to the erection of buildings
in the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities; for the prescribing of building standards; and for
25
matters connected therewith”. The Act itself deals mainly with administrative procedures. The
functional requirements for buildings are set out in the National Building Regulations. The means
whereby these functional requirements are to be satisfied are set out in SANS 10400 – The application
of the National Building Regulations. The methods of compliance include “deemed-to-satisfy”
provisions (SANS 10400 Parts C – X) and rational design (SANS 10400 Part B). These parts of SANS
10400 correspond to the various parts of the National Building Regulations.
Regulations A19 requires any person applying for permission to erect a building to appoint a
competent person by means of an A19 form (Form 2, SANS 10400-A:2010), to undertake a
geotechnical investigation in terms of Regulation F3, when the applicant and or local authorities have
reason to believe that the site is situated on contaminated land and problem soils are present.
Regulation F3 further states that geotechnical investigations will be deemed appropriate is conducted
in accordance with the requirements of SANS 10400-B:2012 in the case of dolomite land and SANS
10400-H:2012 for foundations. Sections 1 and 2 of the A19 form clearly set out the responsibilities
of the owner and the competent person respectively. The Act also states that when the competent
person fails to fulfil their duties, the owner/applicant must appoint another competent person to take
responsibility and fulfil remaining duties to complete the project.
3.2.2 Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act
The Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act (95 of 1998) provides protection for housing
consumers. The Act also established the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) as
a regulatory body of the home building industry. The NHBRC protects housing consumers by
requiring all home builders to be enrolled with them so as to be covered by their warranty scheme.
The warranty provides protection and assistance against major structural defects caused by
substandard design, bad quality building materials or poor workmanship.
The Home Building Manual published by the NHBRC (NHBRC, 2015) requires that site specific
geotechnical investigations be undertaken by a listed competent person. For the development of
dolomite land, the NHBRC requires compliance with SANS 1936 and, for establishment of new
townships, compliance with SANS 634:2012 is required. As part of the enrolment process, the
Competent Person must provide a soil classification of the site relating to the nature and severity of
any anticipated geotechnical problems on the site.
3.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Act
There are numerous hazards and risks associated with construction work. These are regulated by the
Occupational Health and Safety Act (95 of 1998) and the Construction Regulations promulgated
26
under the act. The Regulations aim to create a safe working environment for all parties involved in
the construction of any structure, and also provide protection to people that are indirectly involved in
terms of hazards to health and safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at
work. The Regulations set out the role and responsibilities of the various parties involved in
construction work. In terms of these Regulations:
• The Client must ensure that the designer’s work is in accordance with the health and safety
specifications (Regulation 5(1)).
• The Designer is required to provide the client with a report on the “geotechnical-science”
aspects where appropriate and inform the client of any known or anticipated hazards related
to the construction work (Regulation 6(1)).
• Regulation 13 sets out requirements for the assessment of the stability of excavations and of
surrounding structures and services. It also requires all excavations be carried out under the
supervision of a competent person.
Codes and Standards

Codes and standards are widely used in the engineering field. They aim to establish norms within the
profession and provide standard requirements for engineering projects. Codes and standards fall into
two categories namely industry standards published by the profession and national standards
published by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). In South Africa, codes and standards
are not mandatory unless referenced in legislation or required by contract. They are generally
regarded as a statement of acceptable practice.
This section gives a short description of some of the codes and standards that are applicable to
geotechnical investigations.
3.3.1 SAICE Code of Practice for Site Investigations
The SAICE Site Investigation Code of Practice (SAICE, 2010) is an industry standard written by the
Geotechnical Division of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE). It serves as a
guide to the South African civil engineering industry and provides recommendations on a systematic
way of carrying out site investigations for various types of projects. The document intends to assist
all parties involved in engineering projects (clients, consultants, contractors etc.), in understanding
all the aspects of site investigation. It is divided into six parts and covers the planning, procurement,
execution, reporting and verification during construction.
27
3.3.2 The Application of the National Building Regulations
SANS 10400: The Application of the National Building Regulations establishes general requirements
and deemed-to-satisfy provisions for satisfying the National Building Regulations by providing
various possible ways of demonstrating compliance with functional regulations. The standard is
divided into various sections each of which corresponds with the respective parts of the National
Building Regulations. A geotechnical investigation is defined in SANS 10400 Part A: General
Principles and Requirements, Part B: Structural Design and Part H: Foundations as the process of
evaluating the geotechnical character of the site in the context of existing or proposed land usage.
3.3.3 Investigations for Houses, Townships and Developments on Dolomite Land
Investigation requirements for housing development, township development and on dolomite land is
set out in the following standards:
• Generic Specification GFSH-2:2002 Geotechnical site investigations for housing

developments (largely superseded by SANS 634:2012)
• SANS 634:2012 Geotechnical investigations for township development
• SANS 1936-2:2012 Development of dolomite land – Geotechnical investigations and

determinations
These standards set out a phased approach to geotechnical investigations including preliminary
assessment of site conditions, detailed investigation and further investigation during construction.
Local authorities and the NHBRC generally require adherence to these standards as a condition of
approval of any development.
3.3.4 Design Standards
SANS 10160: Basis for Structural Design and Actions for Buildings and Industrial Structures consists
of eight parts that forms part of the design standards used in South Africa. The standard focus on
providing the basis for structural design in terms of design procedures to be applied, actions to be
considered and associated levels of reliability amongst other factors.
SANS 10160-5:2010 Basis for geotechnical design and actions forms part of SANS 10160:2011
Basis for structural design and actions for building and industrial structures. Although the focus is
primarily to set out the basis for geotechnical design, Clause 6 sets out requirements for the
geotechnical investigation and refers to Annex A (as part of the document) which defines four
geotechnical categories of structures ranging from straightforward to very complex. Category 4 is not
covered in the table provided in the standard but some of the aspects are described in the text. Table
28
3.1 (after Day, 2015) provides a summary of the basic requirements for structures falling into each of
these categories.
Table 3.1: General requirements for various geotechnical categories (after Day, 2015).
Geotechnical Categories
State and Actions
Required Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Relatively
Ground Very Complex /
straightforward (above Not Problematic Complex
Conditions Unstable
water table)
Very Large or Unusual

small and relatively Conventional
Structure Complex Design (lie outside of category
simple Design
1-3)
Moderate (Not
Risk Negligible Low High (Abnormal)
Exceptional)
Geotechnical
Qualitative Quantitative Specialised Specialised
Investigation
Systematic Detailed Additional or alternative

Supervision Routine inspections
inspections inspections rules required.
Planned
Monitoring only if Additional or alternative
Monitoring Monitoring only reactive Monitoring
appropriate rules required.
programme
Table 3.2 is an extract from Table A.1 in SANS 10160-5 which sets out the geotechnical investigation
requirements in more detail.
Table 3.2: Geotechnical requirements for each category (Table A.1, SANS 10160-5:2010).
Activity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Qualitative geotechnical
investigations including a systematic
As in category 1, supplemented As in category 2 but
description of the soil profile andby routine field and laboratory including specialised field
Geotechnical groundwater conditions and tests producing quantitative and laboratory tests as
investigation identification of problem soils geotechnical data for design specified by the
May be supplemented by basic field purposes geotechnical engineer
and laboratory tests
SANS 10161:1980 Design of foundations for buildings aims to ensure that design for building
foundations are carried out in a systematic manner by setting out the minimum requirements for the
design of building foundations. Clause 3 of the standard deals with site investigation and inspections,
documents and approval. The standard places the responsibility on the designer to ensure that a site
investigation is carried out prior to the commencement of any design work (clause 3.1). It also set
29
requirements for a detailed site investigation (clause 3.1.2) and confirmation of site conditions (clause
3.1.3). SANS 10161 pronounces on the responsibility of individual parties, which is considered
overstepping the line between a standard and a contract document and is therefore being considered
for withdrawal by the SA Bureau of Standards (Day and Kirsten, n.d.).
Professional Conduct, Statutory and ethical Obligations

Any engineering project comprises principal role players that include clients, consultants, contractors
and sub-contractors each of whom have certain responsibilities in terms of legislation. In general
practice and in terms of the norms of the profession, geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists assume a series of generic responsibilities that relate to the scope of their work. It is
required by most of the national standards and codes of practice that the geotechnical investigation
be conducted by a competent person i.e. a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that is
registered as a professional.
Professional registration provides confirmation and recognition of the qualifications, knowledge,

experience, competence and commitment to maintaining professional standards. Engineers, including
geotechnical engineers, are registered with Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) while
engineering geologists are registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific
Professions (SACNASP).
Professionals are bound to abide by the codes of conduct set out by these organisations (See Appendix
A1 and A2 for the ECSA code of conduct and the SACNASP code of conduct respectively). The
rules of conduct for professional engineers require registered professionals to adhere to the norms of
the profession. These codes regulate the conduct of registered professional and failure to comply
constitutes improper conduct for which professionals may be disciplined. Extracts from the ECSA
and SACNASP Codes as well as the ECSA Guideline Scope of Services and Tariff of Fees that
highlight the responsibilities of geo-professions are given below:
ECSA Code of Conduct (2013):

The ECSA Code of Conduct states in Clause 3(1) that persons registered with ECSA:
(a) must discharge their duties to their employers, clients, associates and the public effectively
with skill, efficiency, professionalism, knowledge, competence, due care and diligence.
(b) …..
(c) must when carrying out work, engage in and adhere to acceptable practices.
SACNASP Code of Conduct:

The Code of Conduct for Natural Scientists states that Registered Persons must:
(3) discharge their duties to their respective employers or clients efficiently and with integrity.
30
ECSA Guideline Scope of Services and Tariff of Fees

Clause 3 (1) of the Guideline published in …… sets out the services normally provided by the
engineer:
(1) Consultation with the client or client's authorized representative.

(2) Inspection of the site of the project
(3) Preliminary investigation, route location, planning and a level of design appropriate to allow
decisions on feasibility.
(4) Consultation with authorities having rights or powers of sanction as well as consultation with
the public and stakeholder groups.
(5) Advice to the client as to regulatory and statutory requirements, including environmental
management and the need for surveys, analyses, tests and site or other investigations, as well
as approvals, where such are required for the completion of the report, and arranging for these
to be carried out at the client's expense.
(6) Searching for, obtaining, investigating and collating available data, drawings and plans
relating to the works.
Note that the numbering of this specific clause in the ECSA Guideline Scope of Services and Tariff
of Fees is different in versions of the document issued after 2006. Where the clause is referred to, the
latest version at the time of the incident would have been applicable.
Standard forms of Contracts used in the Engineering Industry

Like any other contract, engineering and construction contracts create legally enforceable obligations
for all the role players involved in a construction project. Although ad hoc oral or written agreements
can also be used, professionals are typically appointed using industry standard agreements. The most
common standard forms of agreement for the appointment of registered persons providing
professional services includes the following (ECSA, 2012):
i. PROCSA – Client / Consultant Professional Services Agreement
ii. The Short Form of Agreement for Consulting Engineering Services
iii. FIDIC – Client / Consultant Model Services Agreement
iv. NEC – Professional Services Contract
v. CIDB – Standard Professional Services Contract
Other forms of agreement that are commonly used in the construction industry are listed below. These
agreements do not necessarily focus on professional services.
i. GCC – General Conditions of Contract for Construction
ii. JBCC – Principal Building Agreement and Minor Works Agreement
31
Dissatisfaction with Professional Services

A registered professional who provide a professional service involving specialised knowledge or
expertise can be held liable for their actions and be held responsible for payment of damages arising
from a breach of their professional duties. In the engineering and construction industry, these
professionals include geo-professionals, designers, contractors, project managers or construction
managers. Geo-professionals who fail to adequately conduct geotechnical site investigations may be
faced with three types of professional liability discussed below.
3.6.1 Professional Misconduct
Registered persons must adhere to a code of conduct established by the relevant Professions Act.
These codes typically require adherence to the norms of the profession and the exercise of skill, care
and diligence in the execution of their professional duties. Failure to adhere to these requirements
may result in a disciplinary hearing. If found guilty, the professional may face various sanctions such
as having to pay a fine, receiving a warning or having their professional registration temporally
suspended or cancelled.
3.6.2 Civil Liability
Civil liability typically arises from claims by the client and/or a third party (members of the public)
for damage suffered as a result of a breach of contractual obligations or negligence. Third party
claims, where no contract exists between the parties, are governed by the laws of delict. Most
professionals include appropriate clauses in the contract agreement placing a limit on the
compensation payable in the event of a contractual claim.
3.6.3 Criminal Liability
Criminal liability usually arises from violation of statutory duties established by an Act or Regulations
associated with an Act. The most common occurrences of criminal liability arise from contraventions
of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, particularly where these result in loss of life or
injury. In case of assessing construction accidents and fatalities, it needs to be established whether
the cause originated from failure to comply with OHS regulations. This type of investigation is
usually done by the Department of Labour. Where there is evidence of contravention of the Act, for
example the death of a worker due to collapse of a trench, the matter is handed over to the Public
Prosecutor. If found guilty of an offence, the professional may be required to pay a fine or could face
imprisonment.
32
Determination of Professional Liability

The assessment of professional liability is based largely on whether the professional acted with skill,
care and diligence in accordance with the norms of the profession or whether there was a breach of
contractual requirements.
The norms of the profession are set out in standards, codes of practice and codes of conduct. The
ECSA code of conduct relates to competency, integrity, public interest, environment and dignity of
the profession (ECSA, 2012). Contractual requirements are established by professional services
agreements such as the NEC Professional Service Contract of the FIDIC Client-Consultant
Agreement. The former requires the professional to use the skill and care normally used by
professionals whereas the latter requires the exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence.
Day and Kirsten (n.d.) stated that the norms of the profession are established (roughly in order of
increasing importance) by:
• standard forms of agreement where no formal contract exists,
• scope of services and schedules of tariffs as published by the professional councils,
• relevant requirements of codes and standards,
• rules of professional conduct, and
• expert testimony.
It is therefore irrelevant whether a particular code or standard is mandatory or voluntary. Where such
codes represent accepted norms, they will be used in the assessment of professional liability whether
mandatory or not.
Professional Indemnity Insurance

Uncertainty within the ground is one of the most common reasons why geo-professionals will always
be exposed to risk. A simple error of judgement or omission is all it takes to trigger a claim, especially
with clients and third parties becoming increasingly aware of their rights to hold professionals
accountable for their losses. Where such claims arise, it may be covered by professional indemnity
(PI) insurance. PI insurance provides protection to professionals in the event of a claim made as a
result a breach of their professional obligations. The protection includes legal and other costs. It is
however important to note that neither professional misconduct nor criminal liability are covered by
professional indemnity insurance, and there is no limit of liability in a delictual claim. Claims made
33
as a result of breach of contract involve the principles of contract law and are typically resolved in
accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the contract.
Conclusion
There is, without a doubt, a lot of risk associated with work relating to geoscience, engineering and
construction. The importance of having a coordinated framework that regulates the responsibilities
of different role players cannot be overemphasized. With respect to geotechnical work, the
responsibility mainly rests upon registered professionals to promote the quality of the profession. The
fact that construction incidents and foundation failures still occur on a regular basis suggests that the
profession is not fully aware of these requirements or the importance of complying with these
requirements. It is therefore recommended that these rules be consulted at an early stage of a project,
for example as part of the planning phase, before starting an investigation to make sure all involved
parties know exactly what is legally expected from them.
34
Chapter 4: Specific requirements for various categories of

development
“Truth has nothing to do with the conclusion, and everything to do with the methodology.”
- Stefan Molyneux
Introduction
In addition to legally binding documents (Acts, Regulations and Contractual Agreements) that
enforce compliance of minimum requirements for site investigations, various standards and codes of
practice set out investigation requirements for different types of development. This chapter
summarises the minimum investigation requirements that specifically apply to particular types of
developments. These are township development, housing development, and development on dolomite
land, investigations for piled foundations, excavations and lateral support and investigations for linear
structures. The minimum geotechnical investigation requirements extracted from the codes and
standards that are most relevant to a particular type of development are grouped together for ease of
reference.
Geotechnical Investigations for Township Development

4.2.1 Applicable Standards
The standards that are most relevant to township development are:

• SANS 634:2012 Geotechnical investigations for township development,
• SANS 10400-H:2012 The application of the National Building Regulations - Part H:
Foundations, and
• SAICE (2010) Site investigation Code of Practice.
Standards applicable to dolomite land are dealt with in section 4.4.
4.2.2 Objectives of Investigation
The main objectives of the three-phased investigation approach advocated in SANS 634:2012 for
township investigations are to establish whether a parcel of land is suitable for township development
(Clause 4.2.1); to determine the foundation characteristics of the near-surface horizons (Clause 4.3.1);
and to confirm the site class designations during installation of services (Clause 4.4.1).
35
4.2.3 Specific Requirements
SANS 634:2012 requires the investigation to be carried out by a competent person who has suitable
experience in geotechnical site investigations and is registered as a Professional Engineer,
Professional Engineering Technologist or a Professional Natural Scientist. This is one of the few
codes that requires professional registration of the competent person. This probably reflects the view
that it is better and more cost effective to recognise and adequately investigate geotechnical
constraints at township proclamation stage than to expect individual home builders to deal with these
on a stand-by-stand basis.
Three phases of investigation are required, namely a Preliminary Investigation, a Phase 1 Detailed
Investigation and a Phase 2 Detailed Investigation.
The Preliminary Investigation (clause 4.2) requires a desk study and a site walk-over, possibly with
limited fieldwork such as test-pitting. Its aim is to identify geotechnical constraints which are then
categorised into three classes namely, (1) most favourable, (2) intermediate and (3) least favourable.
These constraints are:
A. Collapsible soils – soils which settle due to wetting

B. Seepage – presence of shallow ground water
C. Active soils – soils which shrink and swell with changes in moisture content
D. Highly compressible soils – soils that settle under load
E. Erodible soils – includes dispersive soils
F. Difficulty of excavation above 1,5m depth
G. Undermined ground – assessed in terms of depth and age of mining
H. Stability of dolomite land – dealt with in section on dolomites
I. Slope of land – surface gradient
J. Unstable natural slopes – risk of slope instability or landslides
K. Seismic activity – deals with natural and mining induced seismic activity
L. Risk of flooding – proximity to drainage channels and flood lines.
Requirements are also laid down for the contents of the report on the Preliminary Investigation (clause
4.2.6).
The Phase 1 Detailed Investigation (clause 4.3) deals with the stability of the land (e.g. dolomite
subsidence, undermining and slopes) and the founding characteristics of the near surface soil
horizons. Amongst the requirements for this phase of the investigation (clause 4.3.1) are:
• Definition of ground conditions within the zone of influence of foundations,
36
• Broad classification of the land in terms of site class designations as defined in SANS 10400-
H:2012 (see below), and
• Factual data relating to the construction of houses and installation of services.
Table 3 of SANS 634:2012 specifies the minimum frequency of test pits which ranges from 4 pits per
hectare for small areas to 0.3 pits per hectare for large areas. The minimum number of laboratory
tests (foundation indicator, consolidometer and chemical tests) to be carried out is specified in Table
4, and the method of classifying the excavatibility of material is given in Table 5 of SANS 634:2012.
As with the Preliminary Investigation, the format and contents of the report are specified in clause
4.3.2.4).
The Phase 2 Detailed Investigation requires the inspection of trenches during installation of services
to confirm the findings of the Phase 1 investigation and confirm / refine the site class designations
for individual stands in the township in accordance with Table 1 of SANS 10400-H:2012, as given
in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1: Site class designations for Township development from Table 1 of SANS 10400-H.
Expected
Assumed
Nature of range
differential Site class
Typical founding material founding of total soil
movement designation
material movements
% of total
mm
Rock (excluding mud rocks which
Stable Negligible – R
might exhibit swelling to some depth)
< 7,5 50 H
Fine-grained soils with moderate to
Expansive 7,5 to 15 50 H1
very high plasticity (clays, silty clays,
soils 15 to 30 50 H2
clayey silts and sandy clays)
> 30 50 H3
Compressible
<5 75 C
Silty sands, clayey sands, sands, sandy and potentially
5 to 10 75 C1
and gravelly soils collapsible
> 10 75 C2
soils
Fine-grained soils (clayey silts and < 10 50 S
Compressible
clayey sands of low plasticity), sands, 10 to 20 50 S1
soils
sandy and gravelly soils > 20 50 S2
Contaminated soils, controlled fill,
dolomite land, landslip, landfill, marshy
areas, mine waste fill, mining
Variable Variable – P
subsidence reclaimed areas,
uncontrolled fill, very soft silts/silty
clays
The SAICE Site Investigation Code of Practice (SAICE, 2010) deals in greater detail with various
methods of investigation for all types of development. It advocates a similar three-phase approach
namely preliminary investigation, detailed investigation and investigation during construction.
37
Geotechnical Investigations for Houses

The standards most relevant to housing development are:

• NHBRC (2015) Home Building Manual,
• SANS 10400-H:2012 The application of the National Building Regulations - Part H:
Foundations, and
• SAICE (2010) Site investigation code of practice.
The objectives of the investigation are to classify the founding conditions on the site (typically a stand
for an individual house or cluster of houses) to enable the appropriate selection and design of the
foundations in order to limit damage to the building to acceptable levels.
The NHBRC Home Building Manual (NHBRC, 2015) lays down requirements for the construction
of homes, including all types of residential development. Unlike the earlier version of the Home
Building Manual, the 2015 version does not provide detailed requirements but refers instead to the
relevant SABS standards including SANS 10400-H:2012.
Geotechnical investigations are to be carried out by a listed competent person or an approved

certification body, registered with the NHBRC.
Part 2 of the manual specifies performance requirements for houses. In particular, damage to houses
is to be limited to Category 1 damage (very slight) in terms of damage categories defined for walls,
concrete surface beds and floors in Tables 5 to 7 of the NHBRC (2015) Home Building Manual.
Part 4 of the Manual requires classification of residential sites on a stand-for-stand basis in accordance
with the site class designations given in Table 4.1, as per Table 1 of SANS 10400-H:2012.
Housing on dolomite land is dealt with in Parts 5 and 13. The requirements of SANS 1936:2012
Development on dolomite land apply, but are modified in certain respects including:
• A change to the definition of a competent person given in SANS 1936:2012,

• Changes to the classification of residential structures, and
• Prohibition of all housing development on areas where there is a medium or high risk of very
large sinkholes and high-density development on areas with a high risk of large sinkholes
(Tables 5.5 ad 5.6 of the guide to the Manual).
38
Part 6 of the Manual deals with Greenfield site development, i.e. new townships. It relies on the
requirements of SANS 643:2012 as discussed above. Certain modifications given in Part 12 of the
Manual in respect of dolomite land and the definition of a competent person, both as indicated above.
Geotechnical Investigations on Dolomite Land

The standards most relevant to development on dolomite land are:

• SANS 1936-2:2012 Development of dolomite land (Geotechnical investigations and
determinations) in conjunction with SANS 1936-1:2012 (General principals and
requirements),
• NHBRC (2015) Home Building Manual, and
• SANS 633:2012 Soil profiling and percussion borehole logging on dolomite land in Southern
Africa for engineering purposes.
The objective of geotechnical investigations as given in SANS 1936-2:2012 is to set requirements for
the development of dolomite land mainly by providing the information needed for identification and
quantification of hazards (clause 4.1.1 a); determination of inherent hazard classes (IHC) of the site
(clause 4.1.1 b); and determination of dolomite area designations which dictate the precautional
measures required in development on such land (clause 4.1.1 c). These requirements are intended to
ensure a safe environment, tolerable hazard and sustainable land usage.
SANS 1936-2:2012 requires three phases of investigation namely Feasibility-level geotechnical

investigations, Design-level investigations and Investigations during installation of services.
All the phases of geotechnical investigations are required to be carried out by a competent person i.e.
a geo-professional who is qualified by virtue of experience, qualifications, training and in-depth
contextual knowledge of development on dolomite land.
The Feasibility-level investigations (clause 4.2) requires a gravity survey, borehole drilling, near-
surface investigations (test pits and exploratory trenches) and geo-hydrological investigations (level
of ground water and original water table level). Table 1 of SANS 1936-2:2012 specifies the minimum
frequency of boreholes in dolomite areas which ranges from 3 holes per hectare for small areas to
0.15 holes per hectare for large areas.
39
It is required that the site be broadly delineated into inherent hazard zones which are considered
suitable or unsuitable for development and that determination of inherent hazard classes (IHC) be
done in accordance with Tables 2, 3 and 4 of SANS 1936-2:2012. Table 2 of SANS 1936:2012
describes the likely size of sinkholes as small, medium, large and very large (refer to Table 4.2 below).
Table 4.2: Description of sinkhole sizes, as per Table 2 of SANS 1936-2:2012.
Maximum diameter of surface

manifestation Descriptor
(m)
<2 Small sinkhole
2 to 5 Medium-size sinkhole
5 to 15 Large sinkhole
> 15 Very large sinkhole
Table 3 of SANS 1936-2:2012 specifies the inherent hazard in three categories (low, medium and
high) in terms of the number of events per hectares per 20 years, as given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Inherent hazard categories, as per Table 3 from SANS 1936-2:2012.
Inherent hazard
Anticipated events per hectare per 20 years
category
Less than 0.1 events, but occurrence of events cannot be excluded.

Low Return period of an event occurring in an area of 1 ha is greater than 200
years.
Between 0.1 and 1.0 events.
Medium Return period of an event occurring in an area of 1 ha is between 200 and
20 years.
Greater than 1.0 events.
High Return period of an event occurring in an area of 1 ha is less than 20
years.
After the sinkhole size and inherent hazard has been determined, the site is characterised in terms of
eight standard inherent hazard classes (IHC) as given in Table 4.4. These classes indicate the chance
of a sinkhole occurring as well as its likely size (diameter). The potential damage to development
increase with an increase in the inherent hazard class number.
40
Table 4.4: Inherent hazard classification, as per Table 4 from SANS 1936-2:2012.
Statistical occurrences of sinkholes and subsidences

Inherent
Medium Very large
hazard Small sinkhole Large sinkhole
sinkhole sinkhole
class Subsidence
<2m 2 m to 5 m 5 m to 15 m > 15 m
Class 1 Low Low Low Low Low
Class 2 Medium Low Low Low Medium
Class 3 Medium Medium Low Low Medium
Class 4 Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
Class 5 High Low Low Low High
Class 6 High High Low Low High
Class 7 High High High Low High
Class 8 High High High High High

NOTE The statistical occurrence of the event/hectare over a 20-year period is in the following ranges:
– low: 0 < 0,1 (return period is greater than 200 years)
– medium: > 0,1 < 1,0 (return period is between 200 and 20 years)
– high: > 1,0 (return period is less than 20 years)
The inherent hazard classes and the intended land use are used in conjunction with the requirements
specified in SANS 1936-1:2012 to determine the dolomite area designation of the site, D1 – D4, using
Table 2 of SANS 1936-1. The dolomite area designation determines the precautionary measures
required to support development as reflected in Table 1 of SANS 1936-1 as reproduced below.
Table 4.5: Dolomite area designations, as per Table 1 from SANS 1936-1:2012
Dolomite area
designation Description
D1 No precautionary measures are required.
General precautionary measures, in accordance with the requirements of SANS 1936-3, that are
D2
intended to prevent the concentrated ingress of water into the ground, are required.
Precautionary measures in addition to those pertaining to the prevention of concentrated ingress of

D3
water into the ground, in accordance with the relevant requirements of SANS 1936-3, are required.
D4 Additional site-specific precautionary measures are required.
The Design-level Investigations (clause 4.3) are carried out when there is a need for additional
information or confirmation of the findings of the feasibility-level investigation. Amongst the
requirements for this phase of the investigation (clause 4.3.2) are:
41
• Investigations for specific types of development in accordance with the requirements of annex
A (see below), and
• Footprint investigations to confirm, refine or amend the inherent hazard class below the
footprint of the structure and the associated dolomite area designations.
The format and contents of the report on the Feasibility-level investigations is specified (clause 4.2.6).
These reporting requirements also apply to the Design-level investigation.
Annex A of SANS 1936-2:2012 sets additional requirements for specific types of development
including:
• Township developments
• Infill development on residential stands
• Rezoning and multiple dwelling rights on residential stands
• Major roads, railway lines and runways
• Bulk pipelines
• Pump stations and water care works
• Attenuation dams, retention dams, reservoirs and public swimming pools
Parts 5 and 13 of the NHBRC Home Building Manual require compliance with SANS 1936:2012 for
housing on dolomite land, but modifies these requirements in certain respects as discussed in section
4.3.3 above.
SANS 633: 2012 (Soil profiling and percussion borehole logging on dolomite) land lays down the
methods, procedures and nomenclature required to accurately describe the ground profile in dolomite
areas. Additional soil profiling requirements on dolomite land (clause 4.2.4) include among other that
any features that could influence inherent hazard classification of the profile in terms of SANS
1936:2012 to be noted.
All soil profiling and percussion borehole logging on dolomite land must be done in accordance with
SANS 633:2012.
Geotechnical Investigations for Pile Foundations

Although there is currently no formal document that focuses specifically on investigations for pile
foundations in South Africa, the documents most relevant to investigations for pile foundations are:
• A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern Africa (Franki Africa, 2008)
(referred to as the “Frankipile book”),
42
• SAICE (2010) Site investigation code of practice, and

• SANS 10160:2010 Basis of structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
structures – Part 5: Basis for geotechnical design and actions
The main objective for geotechnical investigations for pile foundations are to provide the geotechnical
information required by the designer for selection of pile types the design of piles and information
required by the contractor for determination of construction methods to be used and pricing of the
work. The design of piles requires quantitative information on the shear strength and the
compressibility of the surrounding ground and the depth of the water table.
Section 2.4 of the “Frankipile book” (Franki Africa, 2008) specifies the minimum site investigation
requirements for piling to include:
• Establishment of competent founding material and engineering properties thereof,

• Presence or absence of obstructions, including depth of fill or builders’ rubble,
• Presence of water/seepage and the risk of hole collapse or the necessity of casing over all, or
part of the hole depth,
• Presence of cavities,
• Presence of aggressive soil/water, and
• Consistency of the soil profile, including penetrometer data.
The SAICE Site Investigation Code of Practice (clause 2.8) requires the depth to which the
investigation for piles (deep foundations) be carried out as:
• Pile length + foundation width (to the width of the pile group below the founding depth of
the group) for pile groups in soils,
• Pile length + 5.0 m (to at least 5m into bedrock with a consistency of soft rock or better) for
pile groups bearing on rock, and
• Pile length + 3 x pile base diameter (three diameters below the pile tip) for individual piles.
The same requirements are specified in the “Eurocode” BS EN 1997-2:2007 Ground Investigation
and Testing (clause B.3).
The SAICE Code also requires the investigator to extend borehole depths if they cannot confidently
tell that investigations are stopped in a competent horizon, i.e. one which is not underlain by
incompetent bedrock or soft soils.
43
In SANS 10160-5:2011, Annex A classifies geotechnical works into four categories (see Table 3.1).
Investigation for pile foundations to fall into Category 2 and are therefore required to provide
quantitative geotechnical data for use in design of the piles and pile groups (clause A.2.2).
Geotechnical Investigations - Excavations and Lateral Support

The standards most relevant to investigations for excavations and lateral support are:
• SAICE (1989) Lateral Support in Surface Excavations code of practice (SAICE, 1989),
• SAICE (2010) Site investigation code of practice (SAICE, 2010),
• A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern Africa (Franki Afrcia, 2008),
• SANS 10160-5:2011 Basis for geotechnical design and actions,
• SANS 634:2012 Geotechnical investigations for township development, and
• SABS 1200D:1988 Earthworks.
Investigations for excavations and lateral support aim to provide the geotechnical information
required for assessment of excavatibility of materials, safe side slopes, selection of methods of
support and quantitative information for design of any lateral support or shoring systems.
Clause 2.2 of the Lateral Support Code (SAICE, 1989) requires investigations for excavations and
lateral support to provide the information required to assess the overall stability of the proposed work,
the most appropriate support system both temporary and permanent, the magnitude of expected
ground movements, the influence of groundwater, and the effect (potential damage) on adjacent
development. Further requirements set out in clause 2.4 are:
• Extent of investigation to include the surrounding retained material and the material below
the base of the excavation.
• Lateral extend of a distance twice the depth of the excavation beyond the excavation perimeter
(excavation depth x 2).
• Vertical extend to a stable geological formation, or to a depth below which no underlying
strata will affect the design (typically, excavation depth + excavation width).
• Investigation to continue 3 m into rock.
• A minimum of 3 holes for minor excavations on small sites.
44
• A minimum of 5 holes for a uniform site of 1000 m2.

• A minimum of 9 holes for a uniform site of 4000 m2.
• 1.5 m vertical spacing between undisturbed samples and 0.75 m spacing between disturbed
samples.
Clause 4.3.3 of the Site investigation code (SAICE, 2010) deals with monitoring during construction,
active design (using the Observational Method) and further investigations during construction, both
of which are particularly relevant to lateral support works.
Section 2.5 of the Frankipile book (Franki Africa, 2008) lays down the minimum requirements for
site investigations for lateral support projects as:
• Establishment of shear strength parameters of the material in front of, and behind the wall.
• Establishment of the soil stiffness in front of, and behind the wall (penetrometer data is a
minimum requirement).
• Presence of water table / seepage.
• Likelihood of anchor/nail hole collapse (casing requirement).
• Presence of obstructions to piles/anchors, including services and adjacent
structures/basements etc.
In SANS 10160-5:2011, Annex A classifies geotechnical works into four categories (as in Table 3.1
of Chapter 3). Investigation that involves excavations fall into Category 2 and therefore requires the
geotechnical investigation to provide quantitative data for the design of lateral support (clause A.2.2).
SANS 1200D:1988 (Earthworks) establishes a method of classifying the excavatibility of materials

into five classes, namely soft materials, intermediate materials, hard rock, boulder excavation class
A and boulder excavation class B materials (clause 3.1). SANS 634:2012 requires the same
classification of materials. This classification is given in Table 4.6 as per Table 5 of SANS 634:2012.
45
Table 4.6: Classification of excavation material (as in Table 5 of SANS 634:2012).
Classification of
Excavation Description
material
Material which can be efficiently removed by a back-acting excavator of

Soft
flywheel power > 0.10 kW for each millimeter of tined bucket width.
Material which can be removed by a back-acting excavator of flywheel power

> 0,10 kW for each millimeter of tined bucket width,
Restricted Intermediate
or with the use of pneumatic tools, before removal by a machine capable of
removing soft material.
Hard Rock Material that cannot be removed without blasting or wedging and splitting.
Material which can be efficiently removed or loaded, without prior ripping,

by any of the following:
a) a bulldozer or a track-type front-end loader with an approximate mass of
Soft 22 tonnes and 145 kW flywheel power.
b) a tractor-scraper unit with an approximate mass of 28 tonnes and 245 kW
flywheel power, pushed during loading by a bulldozer equivalent to that
described in (a) above.
Material that can be efficiently ripped by a bulldozer with an approximate

Intermediate
mass of 35 tonnes and 220 kW flywheel power.
Non-restricted
Material that cannot be efficiently ripped by a bulldozer with an approximate
Hard Rock
mass of 35 tonnes and 220 kW flywheel power.
Material containing more than a volume fraction of 40 % of boulders of size

Boulder class A
between 0,03 m3 and 20 m3, in a matrix of soft material or smaller boulders
Material containing a volume fraction of 40 % or less of boulders of size

Boulder class B
between 0.03 m3 and 20 m3, in a matrix of soft material or smaller boulders.
Linear Structures: Roads, Railway Lines and Pipelines

The codes and standards most relevant to investigations for linear structures are:
• SAICE (2010) Site investigation code of practice,
• SABS 1200D:1988 Earthworks,
• SABS 1200DB:1989 Earthworks (Pipe Trenches)
• SABS 1200LB:1983 Bedding (Pipes)
• SABS 1200M:1996 Roads (General)
• S410:2006 Spoornet Technical Specification for Railway Earthworks,
• TRH 4:1996 Structural Design of Flexible Pavements for Interurban and Rural Roads,
• Colto:1998 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Works for State Roads Authorities.
46
The main objectives of geotechnical investigations for roads and railways are to provide information
for the assessment of subgrade conditions (soil and groundwater), excavatibility and stability of
cuttings, and construction materials. Similarly, investigations for pipelines aim to assess the
excavatibility and stability of pipe trenches, presence of groundwater and suitability of materials for
pipe bedding and backfill.
Table 1 of the SAICE (2010) Code of Practice (clause 2.6) specifies the minimum number of data
points required for investigations for linear structures. Note that data points do not refer to a specific
investigation method (can be test pits or boreholes). This is shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Minimum number of data points required for linear structures
(extracted from SAICE (2010) Table 1).
Development Phase No. of data points
Feasibility 1 per km
Pipeline
Design 4 per km
Road/Rail/Conveyor
Design 5 per km
Canal
Design 4 per km
Power Transmission
Design 4 per km
Tunnels
Design 5 per km
SANS 1200D:1988 Earthworks specifies classification of excavation characteristics (clause 3.1) by

describing the behaviour of the machine (excavator) in different types of materials. See section 4.6.3
and Table 4.6. Further requirements for the excavation for general earthworks and structures are set
in clause 5.2.2.
Road building materials in South Africa are classified as G1 – G10 materials. This classification
requires grading and indicator tests, mod AASHTO maximum dry density (MDD) tests and
Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) determinations. The classification of materials using this system is
given in the following:
• Table 3402/1 and 3402/2 of COLTO (1998), and

• Table 3A and 3B of SABS 1200M:1996.
These classifications are given in Appendix B1 and B3 respectively.
47
The classification is based on grading (including grading modulus and maximum size); Atterberg
limits; strength (CBR or unconfined compressive strength (UCS)); CBR swell; durability; presence
of soluble salts; type of parent material; flakiness index; number of fractured faces and compaction
requirements.
Classification of road and rail subgrades requires grading and indicator tests, mod AASHTO MDD
and CBR determinations plus determination of in situ CBR using DCP tests. These requirements are
given in Sections 6.5 and 6.6 of TRH 4:1996.
Section 6.5 gives the “material depth” over which the CBR of the material will influence the
performance of the road pavement. This depth ranges from 1.2 m for road category A to 0.7 m for
road category D as specified by Table 15 of TRH 4:1996 (see Table 4.8).
Table 4.8: Material depths for design CBR of in-situ subgrade,

as per Table 15 of TRH4: 1996.
Road Category Material Depth (mm)
A 1000 - 1200
B 800 - 1000
C 800
D 700
Section 6.6 deals with the design of in-situ subgrade and Table 16 of TRH 4: 1996 set requirement
for subgrade classification, as shown below.
Table 4.9: Subgrade CBR of classification, as per Table 16 of TRH4: 1996.

Class Subgrade CBR (%)
SG 1 > 15
SG 2 7 to 15
SG 3 3 to 7
SG 4 <3
It is also required that special measures such as stabilization (modification of in-situ material) or
removal and replacement be implemented where the subgrade classifies as SG 4, following which the
subgrade is then re-classified as SG 1, SG 2 or SG 3.
Similar to COLTO (1998) and SABS 1200M:1996, Table 13 of TRH 4: 1996 specifies characteristics
for different types of materials including among other, granular material, modified materials and
stabilised (cemented) materials. In addition, TRH14:1985 specifies the characteristics for granular
48
material, gravels and soils. A summary of the TRH 14 classification system is given in Appendix B2
(SAPEM, 2013).
The S410:2006 Specification for Railway Earthworks lays down the requirements for railway
formations. Clause 6 deals with the properties and classification of materials for placing purposes.
Table 1 of S410:2006 specifies material properties for earthwork construction as shown in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Specification of material properties for earthwork as per Table 1 of S4140:2006.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES Minimum
Minimum
compaction
LAYER
% By Mass Passing Sieve (sieve strength

Min. size in mm) Max. % of
SAR after
Grading PI CBR modified
Index compaction
Modulus 75 13.2 2.0 0.425 0.075 Swell AASHTO
CBR
Density
60- 20- 10- 3- 60 (0) (1.5-3
SSB <50 2.0 100 5-15 0.5 98
LAYERS
85 50 30 10 MPa)
SUB
70- 20- 10- 3- 30 (0) (1.5-3

SB <80 1.8 100 5-20 0.5 95
100 60 40 10 MPa)
95
A <110 1.0 <40 <12 20
100*
93
B <155 0.5 <70 <17 10
98*
Bulk
90
earth <25 2 5
95*5
works
SABS 1200 LB: 1983 Bedding (Pipes) lays down specifications for different types of materials
including selected granular material (clause 3.1), selected fill material (clause 3.2) and bedding
(clause 3.3) to be used during construction of pipelines. These specifications are summarised below:
Table 4.11: Material classification for bedding (pipes) as in clause 3.1 to 3.3 in SABS1200LB:1983.
Material Type Specification
Granular, non-cohesive material. Singularly graded between 0.6 mm and 19 mm.
Granular material
Free-draining with a compatibility factor of ≤ 0.4
Material with PI ≤ 6. No vegetation, lumps and/or stones of diameter > 30 mm
Fill material
present.
For ridged pipes, material of Class A, B, C or D. in accordance with clause 5.2
Bedding
For flexible pipes, selected granular material and selected fill material.
In clause 3.5 of SABS 1200 DB: 1989 Earthworks (Pipe Trenches) requirements for backfill material
in areas subject to loads from traffic is given as:
49
Table 4.12: Specification for backfill material as given in clause 3.5 of SABS 1200 DB:1989.
Backfill Material Specification
- PI ≤ 12
Areas subject to
- Minimum CBR of 15% in the upper 150 mm of subgrade
loads from traffic
- Minimum CBR of 7% if placed lower in subgrade
Little or no organic material
Exclude stone particles > 150 mm
All other areas Material must be placed without voids and compacted to avoid settlement
Unstable material includes materials containing > 10% rock and material containing
large clay lumps that do not break up during compaction
The standard requires the selection of granular and fill materials to comply with the requirements set
out in clause 3.1 and 3.2 of SABS 1200 LB: 1983 as shown in Table 4.11 above.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to set out specific requirements for site investigations of various
types of geotechnical works. In the chapter which follows, examples will be given of problems that
can occur if these requirements are not followed.
50
Chapter 5: Case Histories
“Ask of the steel, each strut and wire, what gave it force and power.”
- Joseph B Strauss
Introduction
Despite the geotechnical investigation requirements set out in the previous chapters for different types
of development, geotechnical failures caused by inadequate investigation still occur on a regular
basis. This chapter illustrates deficiencies in current investigation trends that appear to be occurring
in practice. Deviations from geotechnical investigation requirements for four of the development
types (townships, houses, piled foundations and excavations) discussed in the previous chapter are
evaluated by means of case studies of real projects. The case studies are summarised to extract the
most significant information, to provide the reader with the background knowledge and a general
understanding of each instance. The focus is however placed on factors that directly contributed to
geotechnical failures. The causes of failures will be further elaborated in the final chapter.
Although the cases presented illustrate the inadequacy of site investigations in practice, it is not the
intention to imply fault on the part of any geo-professionals. It is simply to identify the factors that
contributed to these problems. Therefore, no reference is made to any of the parties involved in these
investigations and only general terms such as contractor, client, developer, engineer or investigator
are used. In some instances, the details are not in the public domain or are sub-judice which limits
the amount of detail that can be provided.
No case studies were analysed for development on dolomite land and linear structures. It was however
deemed part of this chapter because it provides the reader with an overview of the progress that has
been made in terms of continuous improvements to better the quality of geotechnical investigations
for these types of developments.
Township and Housing Development

Geotechnical investigations requirements for township development and housing development are
fairly similar and interrelated and can therefore be grouped together for the purpose of this chapter.
Four case studies are presented relating to investigations for houses and townships:
• Slope Instability – Cape Peninsular

• Landslide – Southern Cape coast
• Golf Estate – Gauteng Province
51
• Mass Housing Project – Free State Province
5.2.1 Cape Peninsular – Slope Instability
Information relevant to this case were primarily obtained from a geotechnical investigation conducted
by engineering consultants in October 2015, to establish the reasons for slope instability on a number
of erven (Jones & Wagener, 2015).
5.2.1.1 Site Description
The concerned site is located along the Atlantic seaboard, at the foot of the Twelve Apostles mountain
range, adjacent to Table Mountain. Figure 5.1 shows an overall view of area and its proximity to
Table Mountain, and an enlarged detail showing the site where the respective properties can be seen
in plan-view.
Figure 5.1: Site locality and respective properties (after Jones & Wagener, 2015).
5.2.1.2 Background
Between March and July 2008, excavations took place simultaneously on Erven A and B. Heavy
rainfall occurred between the end of July and early August and slope movement took place on Erven
A and B, on the adjacent property (Erf C) and the two properties situated upslope of the excavations
(Erven D and E). Figure 5.2 shows the positions and approximate layout of the properties involved
in this case study.
52
Figure 5.2: Erven location and layout oblique view (Google Earth, 2017).
5.2.1.3 Sequence of events relating to slope instability
The events that took place on the five erven are summarised below in terms of periods of excavation
and slope movement.
1980’s
Excavations were formed on Erven B and C around 1982 and a house with a retaining wall on the
upslope side was built on Erf B. Cracking on both structures was noted. Slope movements caused by
these excavations affected Erven D and E situated above the stands where excavations and
development were taking place. Erf E was occupied by an old house with no pool. Erven A and D
were undeveloped.
1990’s
Further excavation was undertaken on Erf C resulting in renewed movement of the slope. A house
and pool was built on Erf D around 1994. Erf E underwent extensive alterations, including the
building of a pool and a pool terrace around 1998. Erf A was still undeveloped.
2000’s
Erven A, B, C and D were occupied. Erf A was in the process of being developed and excavation for
and construction of retaining walls started in 2008. At the same time, excavation for a new garage
took place on Erf B, exposing pre-existing damage to the lower storey of the structure. No
53
geotechnical investigation was undertaken for either excavation. During July 2008, a mound of earth
and the stone retaining wall between Erf A and Erf B was removed. The major movement occurred
during a period of heavy rainfall between 28 July and 01 August 2008.
5.2.1.4 Description of Failure
According to data from survey points installed on erven A, B, D and E just days before the major
movement occurred and monitored between 2008 and 2011, the bulk of the recorded slope movement
on Erf A took place between the 28 July and 6 August 2008. The movement vectors indicated a
rotational slip failure with downward movement over the upper portions of the slope and heave at the
toe. This is distinct from a translational slide which occurs along a planar failure surface parallel to
the slope (Turner and Schuster, 1996).
The occurrence of this slip caused distress to adjacent structures as shown in Figure 5.3. The extent
of cracking and pattern of ground movement is indicative of a deep-seated landslip.
Figure 5.3: Step in ground level and cracks in adjacent properties (Jones &Wagener, 2015).
As stated in the timeline of events, all the properties have undergone excavations in the last forty
years. The effect of removal of the ground is illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 5.4.
Note that for a slope to remain stable, the net effect of the resisting forces must be greater than the
net effect of the disturbing forces. If development is to take place on the slope, it is good practice to
54
ensure that the net effect of the resisting forces is at least 1,3 times the net effect of the disturbing
forces, i.e. the slope has a factor of safety of at least 1,3. A slope that has a factor of safety of less
than 1.3 may stand but is regarded as unsuitable for development due to the inadequacy of the safety
margin. The closer the factor of safety is to 1.0 the more sensitive the slope is to disturbance and the
more prone it is to creep movements.
Slope in natural ground

On sloping ground, the weight of the soil at the top
of the slope (A) acts as a de-stabilising force
encouraging the soil to move down the slope in the
direction indicated by the curved arrow, along a
potential failure plane in the ground.
Equilibrium of forces acting on slope

This tendency for the soil to move down the slope
is resisted by the weight of the soil at the toe of the
slope (B) and by the shearing resistance of the soil
(C). The slope is in equilibrium if (B) and (C) is
sufficient to counteract the destabilising effect of
(A)
Effect of excavation
Excavation of soil near the toe reduces the weight
of soil at the toe (B) and the frictional component
of the shear strength below the excavated area.
Depending on the initial state of the slope and the
extent of the reduction, if both (B) and (C) are
reduced, the slope may become unstable.
Figure 5.4: Forces acting on a natural slope
The formation of an excavation at the toe of the slope has two effects. Firstly, it reduces the weight
of the soil at the toe (B). Secondly, in the case of a soil that derives part of its strength from friction,
it reduces the shearing resistance of the soil (C) over the part of the failure plane below the excavated
area. If the stability of the slope prior to excavation was already marginal, the formation of the
excavation could cause failure of the slope. Note that it is not the excavation itself that fails, but the
slope in which the excavation has been formed.
It is concluded that the cause of ground movement and damage to properties slope failure.
Furthermore, although the failure occurred during the reduction in load occasioned by the excavation
on the last developing property (Erf A), the movement was essentially caused by the cumulative effect
of numerous excavations along the eastern side of Barbra Road dating back to the 1980’s.
55
5.2.2 Landslip – Cape South Coast
This particular incident was investigated by a consulting engineering company and published as a
case study by South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) in April 2017. Information
were obtained from this publication (Beales & Paton, 2017).
5.2.2.1 Background
Two group residential complexes in Mossel Bay on the Southern Cape coast have been declared
disaster areas and residents of approximately twenty-nine houses were ordered to evacuate the area
due to significant vertical and lateral displacement of the ground. These two complexes are situated
in an old quarry that had been rezoned for residential development in 1999. Refer to Figure 5.5 for
an aerial view and zoomed-in image showing the affected area.
Figure 5.5: Site locality and oblique view of residential area (Beales & Paton, 2017).
Ground movement was initially noted towards the end of 2015 when cracking and structural distress
as well as damage to municipal infrastructure was observed at several residential properties in this
area. Figure 5.6 shows the effect of ground movement on several buildings.
56
Figure 5.6: Cracks observed in structures around residential area (Beales & Paton, 2017).
Findings of a preliminary geotechnical investigation commissioned by the Home Owners

Associations of the two affected complexes indicated the development of a deep-seated landslip
between the two complexes (Beales and Paton, 2017). The Mossel Bay Municipality commissioned
a detailed geotechnical investigation to determine the trigger mechanism and depth of failure for
recommendations and solutions to be proposed.
5.2.2.2 Geology
Given that the failure appeared to have happened deep below ground level, the geology of the site
was a fundamental aspect in understanding the origin and mechanism of this landslip. As reported by
Beales and Paton (2017), the affected area is underlain by a thick sequence of sediments of the
Uitenhage Group, which consists of the older Kirkwood Formation overlain by the younger
Buffelskloof Formation.
The Kirkwood Formation which is exposed on the lower part of the site, consists mainly of mudstone
and fine sandstone that was deposited in a low-energy fluvial environment and the Buffelskloof
Formation, which consists of thick sequences of alluvial sand, gravel and cobbles (conglomerate), is
exposed on the upper part. The contact between the two formations dips towards the base of the slope
and is exposed along the steep embankment between the two residential complexes (Beales & Paton,
2017).
57
5.2.2.3 Detailed Investigation Outcomes
Investigation methods used to further investigate the problem included excavation of test pits and
rotary core borehole drilling across the site, samples collected for laboratory tests to determine shear
strength parameters of Kirkwood clay, continuous Surface Wave (CSW) tests for assessment of
ground stiffness and slope stability analysis using computer software.
Beales and Paton (2017) reported that the results of the investigation include the following:
• Borehole data was used to construct a geological model that indicates a sloping palaeo-channel
in the Kirkwood clay, which is now filled with Buffelskloof Formation conglomerate.
• The CSW test results clearly indicate that the upper Kirkwood Formation was of a very low
stiffness / soft consistency (Refer to Figure 5.7, left image).
• Consolidated, undrained shear strength test results demonstrated very low cohesion and friction
angles that varied between 10° and 21°.
• Microscopic assessment on undisturbed upper Kirkwood material show striations (slickensides)
at particle level. This can be seen in Figure 5.7 (right image). It further demonstrates that the
upper Kirkwood composed of 88% to 92% clay/silt, has been sheared along distinct failure
planes.
• Conceptual 2D slope modelling of failure planes (Figure 5.8, bottom image) illustrate very low
safety factors along semi-circular planes in the upper 10m of the Kirkwood clay.
Figure 5.7: CSW test results (left) and striations on microscopic level (right) (Beales & Paton).
58
Figure 5.8: 2- Dimensional slope model (after Beales & Paton, 2017)
5.2.2.4 Conclusion
The detailed investigation established that a deep-seated landslip that is undergoing continuous
movement in the upper part of the Kirkwood Formation. Findings of the investigation also indicated
that the landslip is susceptible to moisture and needs only a slight increase in moisture content to
trigger slope movement. Figure 5.9 shows a major tension crack in the ground with a zoomed in
image showing the vertical displacement of the crack.
The landslip has already caused severe damage to approximately 45 houses to date. It is noted that it
is common for a landslip of such magnitude to result in secondary slips, further increasing the
geotechnical risk of the area. Even if a solution to this problem exists, the cost will be extremely high
which obviously complicates the possibility of rehabilitating the affected area. It is therefore
important that developers and local authority take note of this problem and realize the possibility of
potential geotechnical problems in this area.
Figure 5.9: Size and displacement of tension crack in the ground (Beales & Paton, 2017).
59
“This case study highlights one of the most significant geological disasters in recent South African
history, and it not only demonstrates the role and responsibility of civil engineers in our society, but
also the potential scale of emotional distress caused to society when geotechnical uncertainty is not
defined and interpreted.” (Beales & Paton, 2017)
5.2.3 Golf Estate - Gauteng

5.2.3.1 Site Description
The golf estate concerned is situated on Gauteng’s East Rand. The mater is sub judice and, as a result,
the location, details and sources of information cannot be disclosed.
5.2.3.2 Background
Before the development of the estate in 2007, extensive quarrying operations were carried out in the
area. According to the geological map series (1:250 000 Geological Map, Sheet No.2628 East Rand,)
the site geology predominantly consists of recent deposits, comprising alluvium sands, clays and
gravels as well as Aeolian sands overlying weathered granites and granite gneiss. Mining operations
primarily comprised the extraction of sands from the granites.
Construction of a double storey house and swimming pool on a particular stand within the estate was
completed in late 2011. Since completion of the structure which covers an extensive portion of the
site, significant cracking has occurred both to the house and the adjacent swimming pool. Photographs
showing some of the cracks are given in Figure 5.10 below.
Figure 5.10: Cracks observed in the walls of the house.
60
5.2.3.3 Historical Overview of the Developed Area
Prior to 2000, extensive quarrying operations were carried out in several pits for the extraction of
sand for commercial purposes. The granitic sands removed from the quarry contained significant
quantities of kaolinite (clay) which was washed from the sand as a waste product and stored in various
dumps / lagoons, mainly over the southern portion of the area where the concerned property is now
situated.
GoogleEarth imagery of the area, over the period of 2002 to 2013 illustrates the condition of the site
development at various stages during this period. For confidentiality reasons, these images cannot be
reproduced. The following can be concluded from these images:
• Rehabilitation of the site, mainly in the form of flattening the steep western sidewall of the
main pit, started in the latter half 2000. The 2002 image however shows the disturbed
condition of the area after mining/quarrying operations had been abandoned
• In the 2006 image, a tailings impoundment (what appears to be a silt dam) can be seen in the
vicinity of the property.
• By June 2007, most of the undulations on the site had been filled and township development
(roads and services) was in progress.
• Most of the estate was developed by 2013, including the concerned property.
5.2.3.4 Geotechnical Investigations
Three geotechnical investigations were done on the site, the first in 2003, then in 2007 and the last in
2013.
The Phase II Investigation was done in 2003 prior to rehabilitation of the site. In the vicinity of the
stand in question, it showed 900mm of sandy mine residue overlying dense to very dense residual
granite towards north-north-east of the stand.
The 2007 Phase II Investigation was conducted after engineering fill has been placed across the
developed site. Various investigation methods were used during the investigation. Test pits were
excavated to an average depth of 1.8m in the engineered fill material. DPSH penetration tests were
carried out adjacent to the test pits.
The 2007 investigation classified the township in terms of the NHBRC classification system. Portions
of the site were designated S1 (10-20mm total settlement) and portions of the site S2 (>20mm total
settlement). The stand concerned was classified as S1. It was further recommended that detailed
foundation investigations be considered for all types of foundations to be constructed in the area.
61
Prior to commencement of construction, test pits were excavated on the erf in question which
confirmed presence of fill material, as expected from the 2007 investigation. The site classification
form produced on conclusion of the 2007 investigation was submitted to the NHBRC in support of
application for enrolment.
In 2013, after cracking of the structure occurred, an independent geotechnical site investigation was
conducted to determine the cause cracking on the concerned property. The investigation comprised
test pits, the collection of soil samples for laboratory testing and carrying DCP tests adjacent to and
inside the test pits. Findings of the investigation include the following:
• Engineered fill between depths of 1.0 m and 2.6 m was encountered in all four test pits.
• The material below the engineering fill to the north of the property, describes as “very moist,
yellow, soft, laminated, clayey silt” corresponds to the old mining tailings.
• Laboratory tests classified this material predominantly as “silty sands” and “clayey silts”. The
clayey silt layer was found to be 86% dispersive.
• DCP tests results showed lower consistency than described in the field, but no significant
difference in the penetration resistance of the tailings and the overlying fill.
The investigation concluded that cracking of the house is an effect of ongoing settlement of the
foundations due to consolidation settlement of both the fill and natural soil underlying the site, and
possible shrinkage of a layer of tailings sandwiched between the engineered fill and the underlying
natural soil. It further concludes that the settlement could have been foreseen if the recommendations
made by the Phase II Investigation in 2003 had been followed.
5.2.3.5 Description of the problem
It is evident from the chronological selection of GoogleEarth images that the area was significantly
disturbed by previous mining/quarrying operations. When township development commenced,
material from elsewhere (imported fill) were placed on the soft tailings material and compacted in
layers.
The Phase 2 township development investigation done in 2007 classified the site according to the
NHBRC site classification designations, only in terms of settlement as either S1 or S2 zones.
Although the entire area is covered with engineering fill of various thicknesses, the investigation did
not classify any portion of the site as P according to the NHBRC’s site classification designations
(contaminated soils, controlled fill, mining subsidence, etc.).
62
It is the candidate’s opinion that the site was incorrectly classified (S1 instead of P/S1, S2 instead of
P/S2). Structures and foundations were therefore designed according to the site classification
provided without taking cognisance of the possibility of incompetent layers underneath the
engineering fill material.
5.2.4 Free State Province – Mass (RDP) Housing Failures

5.2.4.1 Background
This case study is not focussed on a particular incident, but is intended to illustrate that effective
geotechnical investigations in areas where deep expansive soil horizons occur is challenging and
rarely carried out to the depth and extent required under such conditions.
During 2011/2012 a lot of attention was drawn to low cost RDP (Reconstruction and Development
Programme) houses in several Provinces in South Africa. Numerous complaints were made by
residents of these houses, relating to planning, procurement, and allocation and, above all, structural
defects such as severe cracking. Figure 5.11 depicts cracks in various houses experienced in a number
of areas. Appendix C contains more photographs showing the extent of cracking in various houses.
Figure 5.11: Cracks observed in houses located in various areas (Professor Peter Day).
63
5.2.4.2 Geology
Many of the areas that experienced cracking of structures is situated on the Karoo Supergroup. This
geological sequence cover the majority of South Africa including of Lesotho, almost the whole
of Free State, and large parts of the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal
Provinces (See Figure 5.12 below).
Figure 5.12: Simplified geological map of Karoo Formations in South Africa (Wikipedia, 2014).
The Karoo Supergroup comprise mostly sedimentary deposits that include sandstones, shales,
siltstones, mudstones and clays. Depending on the nature of the parent rock, climatic environment
and type of weathering, the fine-grained sedimentary rocks undergo continuous decomposition and
produce profiles of expansive soils. The distribution of expansive soils in South Africa is illustrated
in Figure 5.13. These soils undergo volumetric change (swell or shrinkage) as a result of variations
in moisture content. In arid or semi-arid areas, the most likely change in moisture content is due to
wetting of the soil causing heaving to occur. In the more humid areas, drying out will cause the clays
to shrink.
64
Figure 5.13: Distribution of expansive and collapsible soils in South Africa (Williams, Pidgeon and
Day, 1985).
5.2.4.3 Discussion
Structural defects in the form of cracking are a result of repeated swelling and shrinking of the soil
profile below the structure due to seasonal moisture content changes. In most cases, the structures
assume a “corners down” mode of deformation known as central doming.
The problem with the expansive soil profiles of the Karoo Formations is that these often occur to
depths of 10m or more (Day, 2013). Despite numerous publications (Van der Merwe (1964);
Williams et al (1985); NHBRC (1999); Department of Public Works (2007); Day (2013)) providing
guidance on the identification of expansive soils and prediction of heave, the problems persist.
The question that needs to be asked is whether extent of the geotechnical investigations currently
being carried out for township development are adequate in terms of depth of investigation and
laboratory testing. All too often, these investigations are done using a tractor-mounted loader /
backhoe with a maximum reach of 3,5m (compared to the 10m plus thickness of clay) and only limited
soil testing is undertaken.
Investigations for Piled Foundations

5.3.1 Plettenberg Bay Commercial Building
The information on this site is not in the public domain. As a result, certain details and the source of
the information are not disclosed.
65
5.3.1.1 Background
The construction of the new commercial building, comprising a four storey concrete framed structure
with a glazed curtain wall envelope, worth R300-million has been underway since 2015 (Knysna-
Plett Herald, 2017). Figure 5.14 shows the site of the proposed structure in 2016, with a zoomed-in
image of progress to date.
Figure 5.14: Site location (GoogleEarth).
5.3.1.2 Geology
The 1:250 000 scale geological map (3322 Oudtshoorn) indicates that the site is underlain by
quartzitic sandstone of the Peninsula Formation. A section of the geological map also showing the
surrounding geological sequences is given in Figure 5.15.
66
Figure 5.15: Geological map of the area (extracted from the1:250 000 scale geological map 3322
Oudtshoorn).
5.3.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation Findings
A geotechnical investigation of the site was done in 2009. It was stated that the development will
comprise maximum column loadings (working loads) ranging between 2000 and 4000 kN and a semi-
basement with maximum depth of 3.0 m. The initial investigation comprised excavation of four TLB-
dug test pit to a depth of approximately 3.0 m, DCP test carried out adjacent to and at the base of each
test pit and disturbed soil samples were collected for laboratory testing to determine the soil
characteristics, swelling and foundation suitability. Although a shallow rockhead was expected on
the quarzitic sandstones of the Peninsular Formation, no rock was encountered. Two of the test pits
were subsequently deepened to 5.9 m during a follow-up investigation with a larger excavator in an
attempt to establish the depth of the underlying bedrock.
Findings of the investigation include the following:
• The site was underlain by colluvial soils to the investigation depth of 5.9 m. Neither residual
material nor bedrock was encountered in any of the test pits.
67
• The colluvium generally contains clayey soils (26% – 66%) of high plasticity which occur as
stiff to very stiff material between depths of 0.8 m to 1.4 m.
• Soil moisture generally ranged from slightly moist to very moist. No groundwater was
encountered.
• In terms of the standard specification TRH 14, both the near surface soils and deeper
colluvium classify as a G10 material and will therefore not be suitable for re-use.
• The maximum permissible bearing pressure of the colluvium is estimated to be 200 to 250
kPa, and 300 kPa for deeper-seated material.
The report stated that there will be a significant increase in moisture content during periods of high
rainfall and the high clay content will render the colluvium soils susceptible to volumetric change
(swell) and alternatively shrink during dry periods. It is therefore important that effective drainage is
achieved.
The investigation concluded that piled foundations will be required to transfer foundation loads that
exceeds 250 kPa into more competent material. A pile depth of 12m below ground level was
suggested for tender purposes. Furthermore, it was recommended that, prior to commencement of
piling, exploratory boreholes be drilled to confirm the pile foundation levels as well as an attempt to
establish bedrock depth.
5.3.1.4 Description of Problem
No additional geotechnical investigation was undertaken as recommended in the geotechnical report.
It is understood that during construction, pile length considerably exceeded the initial estimate with
some of the piled foundations penetrating approximately 25 m into the ground below basement
excavation level. Investigation carried out after the problem became apparent indicated that, although
the geological map showed the area to be underlain by quarzitic sandstones from the Peninsula
Formation, the investigation found more deeply weathered mudstones and siltstones from the
Uitenhage Formation instead.
The final cost of the piling was significantly higher than the original tender price. It is noted that the
increase in the piling cost was is substantially more than what a proper geotechnical for piled
foundations would have cost in the first place.
68
Investigation for Excavations and Lateral Support

Due to the ongoing demand for commercial space in Sandton with the associated need for
underground parking, numerous basement excavations are being undertaken typically ranging in
depth from 10m to 32m. Figure 5.16 below shows a number of such excavations in progress during
2015.
BASEMENT 2
2
BASEMENT 1
Figure 5.16: Aerial view of excavations in progress during 2015 (Source: GoogleEarth).
Two of these excavations are described below. Once again, the information on which these case
histories are based is not in the public domain and certain details and sources have been withheld.
5.4.1 Basement 1
5.4.1.1 Description of development
This 32m deep basement is in the heart of the Sandton CBD adjacent to two major arterial roads.
The original geotechnical investigation was conducted in June 2007, for the development of a multi
storey office block, with basement levels of approximately 9.0 m to 12.0 m deep. The area of
investigation covered approximately 9000 m2. The investigation comprised eight hand excavated test
69
pits to a depth of 1.0 m, six auger holes drilled to refusal or termination due to seepage and the
collection of disturbed samples for laboratory testing.
The general soil profile comprised existing fill (0.1 - 1.7m), transported hillwash (1.0 - 1.7m),
reworked residual granite (1.5 – 3.2m), residual granite (8.0 – 11.0m) and soft rock granite (12.5 –
16.5m). In terms of excavatibility, the site was classified in accordance with SABS 1200DA and DB
to be soft excavation to an average depth of 13.5 m, Boulder Class A excavation in large hard rock
granite corestones and blasting on very large granite corestones.
It was recommended that stabilization of the cut faces be provided in the long and short term and
proposed that soil nails and gunite or perimeter piles with temporary tie-back anchors be implemented
as lateral support systems. In addition, it was recommended that the soil nails and/or anchors placed
along the boundaries of the site extend into the road reserves. The investigation suggested that piled
foundations be used for the proposed structure.
In the interim, the depth of the excavation was changed to a maximum of 32m but no further
investigation was undertaken.
The second geotechnical investigation was conducted in August 2014 by the geotechnical contractor
appointed for the design and installation of lateral support systems at a time when the excavation was
already well advanced. This investigation was motivated by evidence of residual soils to greater
depths than originally envisaged, extending in places to virtually the full depth of the excavation. As
a result, the depth of soil to be supported was greater than the depth for which the lateral support had
been designed and the soldier piles were not founded on rock as originally intended. This second
investigation comprised washboring through the soils overlying the rock followed by rotary core
drilling at twelve specifically selected pile positions around the perimeter of the site inside the
basement excavation. In places, wash boring in soils was possible to depths of up to 14.35m below
the current excavation level. In addition to the granites of the Halfway House Formation found during
the initial geotechnical investigation, the 2014 geotechnical investigation revealed the presence of
diabase dykes and sills.
5.4.1.3 Description of Problems Encountered
During the design of the excavation, the depth of the bedrock around the perimeter of the excavation
was extrapolated from the widely spaced auger holes of the 2007 investigation, some of which did
not encounter bedrock. This information appeared to indicate that the bedrock was at an average depth
of about 15m below natural ground level. The soldier piles and lateral support were installed
accordingly. As the excavation progressed to the 15m mark, it became apparent that the rockhead
was highly variable and that, over large portions of the perimeter of the excavation, the residual soils
70
extended well below the base of the soldier piles. The second investigation done by the geotechnical
contractor from inside the excavation showed that these soils extended to virtually the full 32m depth
of the planned excavation in places. As a result, the lateral support had to be re-designed and the
excavation had to be partially backfilled around the perimeter to allow for the installation of
additional, longer anchors. Figure 5.17 show the backfill around the perimeter of the excavation.
Figure 5.17: Backfill around the perimeter of the excavation.

The movements associated with the deeper excavation resulted in distress to adjacent buildings,
which fortunately belonged to the same owner, and to the adjacent streets. The increased cost to the
project including programme delays far exceeded the cost of conducting a competent geotechnical
investigation from the outset, in accordance with the requirements of the codes.
5.4.2 Basement 2
5.4.2.1 Description of Development
This was a smaller excavation than Basement 1 and extended to a depth of between 14m and 22m
below ground level. The buildings within the basement were to be founded on spread footings placed
on rock. The intention was to excavate in bulk to the level of the underside of the foundations,
71
construct the footings and then backfill between the footings rather than forming individual
foundation excavations in the rock.
The first geotechnical investigation was conducted by a consultant in October 2007, for the
development of a multi storey office block, with a triple basement. The investigation comprised
twenty-three auger holes drilled to refusal of the rig and the collection of disturbed and undisturbed
samples for laboratory testing.
According to the 1:250 000 geological map series of East Rand, the site is underlain by granite of the
Halfway House Granite inlier. The investigation found that the granite has been intruded by diabase
across the southern end and central portions of the site.
The general soil profile comprised existing fill (0.2 - 1.5m), transported hillwash (0.3 – 3.0m),
reworked residual granite (2.0 – 6.4m), residual granite with hard rock granite corestones between
3.7m and 5.4m within the reworked and residual granite layer in two of the test pits and soft rock
granite (9.6 – 16.0m). Where diabase was present, the residual soils extended to 13.3m followed by
soft rock diabase to 14.5m.
In terms of excitability, the site was classified in accordance with SABS 1200DA and DB to have
soft excavation to an average depth of 13.0 m, Boulder Class A / intermediate excavation on hard
rock granite corestones, hard rock excavation and blasting on granite, localised diabase bedrock and
larger corestones that were encountered in four of the twenty-three test pits.
It was recommended that stabilization to the cut faces be provided in the long and short term and
proposed that soil nails, gunite, perimeter piles with temporary tie-back anchors or steel solider with
temporary tie-back anchors be implemented as lateral support systems. In addition, it was suggested
that piled foundations be used for the proposed structure.
The second geotechnical was conducted by the same geotechnical consultant in November 2013. The
ownership and nature of the development had changed to a multi-storey structure with nine basement
levels excavated to approximately 27 m deep. The investigation comprised drilling of six rotary core
boreholes to a depth deemed suitable for the scope of the investigation.
Like the initial geotechnical investigation, the same granite with diabase intrusions was found across
the southern end and central portions of the site. The general soil profile comprised the same layers
at approximately the same depths as in the initial investigation and the excavation classification of
the site also remained more or less the same. The positions and depths of boreholes and test pits from
the 2007 investigation that was used to assist with this investigation are shown in Figure 5.18 below.
72
Figure 5.18: Positions and associated depths of test pits and boreholes.
It was stated that all cut slopes on the site pose an inherent stability risk and therefore recommended
that a suitably designed lateral support system be implemented for the 27m deep basement excavation.
Furthermore, the investigation predicted that granite or diabase bedrock, with an allowable bearing
pressure of 2000kPa will be intersected across the majority of the site during the basement cut
excavations. Therefore, conventional and / or deeper than normal strip / spread foundations were
recommended for the proposed structure.
This was followed by an investigation conducted by the lateral support contractor around 2014. This
investigation found the following:
• A diabase dyke in the south-west corner of the site and Halfway House granite over the
remaining site footprint.
• Granitic rock on the north-west corner was detected at 8m below natural ground level, where
the basement excavation extends to its deepest point of a total of 22m.
5.4.2.3 Problems Encountered
During construction, portions of the site were found to be on rock as expected. However, over much
of the south-eastern portion of the site, no rock was encountered or the rock was not capable of
73
supporting the design bearing pressures. In places, decomposed diabase was found to underlie
weathered granite as shown in the photo below.
Figure 5.19: Exposed test pit showing material found on site.
When the problems were observed, further investigation was carried out from the base of the
excavation by specialist geotechnical consultants. This investigation comprised drilling of eighteen
rotary core boreholes, Continuous Surface Wave (CSW) testing and Dynamic Probe Super Heavy
(DPSH) penetration tests carried out from the level of the base of the excavation.
Because of the presence of incompetent founding materials over this portion of the site, foundations
sizes were increased and foundation excavations deepened. Every base in the affected area of the site
had to be inspected individually. The foundations were either redesigned to found at greater depth or
the deepened excavations were backfilled with mass concrete to original founding level.
The result was significant delays and cost increases to the project. The cost of the mass concrete
alone would have paid for a competent geotechnical investigation many times over.
74
Development on Dolomite Land

According to Potgieter (2012), approximately 5 – 10% of South Africa is underlain by dolomite. This
include areas in Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Northern Cape and North-West Province (see
Figure 5.20).
Figure 5.20: Distribution of dolomite in South Africa (Oosthuizen & Richardson, 2011).
Although the formation and weathering of dolomite rock is a natural process, the meta-stable state of
these environments is commonly disturbed by urban development. Such disturbance is accompanied
by the risk of sinkhole formation which often leads to large-scale disasters and even loss of life. The
occurrence of numerous sinkhole in the late 1950’s alerted provincial authorities of the possibility
that this phenomenon might occur elsewhere (Oosthuizen and Heath, 2008). According to Kirsten et
al. (2009), risk evaluation for development on dolomite emerged in the early 1970s.
Several studies relating to dolomite land have since been conducted, but first attempts at classifying
and zoning land into areas of similar risk was proposed by Buttrick et al., (2001). This method for
dolomite land hazard assessment evolved into a generally accepted standard which is currently being
75
used in South Africa and has been incorporated into SANS 1936. Dolomite risk management and
mitigation strategies are employed to reduce the likelihood of sinkholes occurring on dolomite land.
Currently, the SANS 1936 (2012) standards forms the basis for the requirements for the sustainable
management and development of dolomite land in South Africa. In addition, requirements and
guidelines for development on dolomite land are set out by various other regulatory bodies such as
the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), Council for Geoscience (CGS) and
Department of Public Works, amongst others. Furthermore, any proposal for development on
dolomite land is referred by the Local Authority (for example the City of Tshwane) to the Council
for Geoscience prior to being approved.
According to (Buttrick et al., 2011), the implementation of risk management strategies has had a
significant impact on the occurrence of ground instability events, reducing ground movement events
from 50 events per year in the early 2000s to 5 per year (90% reduction in events). This demonstrates
the effectiveness of regulatory measures pertaining to geotechnical investigations in instances where
compliance is enforced.
Linear Structures: Roads, Railway Lines and Pipelines

No case studies have been analysed for the development of linear structures for two reasons. Firstly,
it is difficult to find cases that is specifically related to geotechnical failures in South Africa over
recent years. Secondly, it is in the opinion of the author that linear structures such as roads, railways
and tunnels all form part of the transportation system that is a much bigger industry than
geotechniques. An overview of the development and compliance of regulations are however given.
The transportation industry in South Africa is a major industry that has been around for many years.
Geotechnical investigations are a very important aspect in the provision of roads and have been
incorporated into the various pieces of legislation that regulate linear structures (section 4.7.1).
Specifications for roads date back prior to the 1980’s when the National Department of Transportation
(DOT) and Provinces managed most of South African roads. During the 1980’s there was a combined
effort to develop one set of specifications for road construction in South Africa that is the CASRA
Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Work. Subsequently, the CASRA committee was
replaced by the Committee of Land Transport Officials (COLTO) during the 1990’s. The first
publication of the COLTO specification was in 1998. The South African National Roads Agency
(SANRAL) has taken the responsibility to maintain and formalise adjustments to the COLTO
document and an update to the document was initiated in 2014.
The roads industry still experiences premature failures in terms of road cracks and potholes, but it has
come a long way by improving on lessons learned over many years. It was established during an
76
informal interview with Professor Kim Jenkins of who occupies the SANRAL Chair at Stellenbosch
University that improvements to the COLTO specification could fit into a couple of areas in terms of
the material classifications and its usage for roads. One area relates to the types of tests being done,
for example, CBR testing has been done for a long time, but currently triaxial testing is being initiated
to get more fundamental parameters that can be linked directly to performance of mix designs for
pavement materials. With granular materials that are 95% of the pavement, CBR is still used, test
results don’t link directly to performance.
As with roads, developments for railways comprise a comprehensive set of requirements that is
undergoing continuous improvements to minimize project failures.
Conclusion
The various case studies are an illustration that there are still many pitfalls in the geotechnical
industry. Most of these failures relates to the inadequate investigation of subsurface conditions despite
the existence of comprehensive standards and guidelines. The cost of these failures is significant, in
most instances far outweighing that of an adequate investigation.
The problem is not a lack of knowledge on the procedures to be followed when undertaking
geotechnical investigations, it is a failure to apply these standardised procedures.
An overall assessment of these cases are given in the following chapter.
77
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
“If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”
- Louis D. Brandeis
Introduction
The case studies in the previous chapter illustrate the various aspects which contribute to geotechnical
failures. These include inadequate investigations, varying geological conditions and non-compliance
with regulations amongst others. It will be suggested that we may need to look beyond these factors
to find a lasting solution to the problem.
This chapter provides an overall assessment of the proximate cause/s of failure in each of the cases
presented in Chapter 5. Where relevant, non-compliance with standards is demonstrated by referring
to specific clauses in the applicable regulations, standards and codes of practice. Some of these
documents may have been updated to more recent versions, but in fairness to those involved, the
codes and standards referred to are those that were applicable at the time of the incidents.
Taking into account the research objectives set out in Chapter 1, this chapter essentially focus on the
general trends that are currently being followed by the geotechnical engineering profession as well
as the consequences thereof. As a result, recommendations arising from the comprehensive
discussions in the previous chapter are formulated concisely in this chapter.
It is important to note that the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of any of the bodies that supplied data.
Township and Housing Development

6.2.1 Cape Peninsular – Slope Instability
Failure of the slope was due to the cumulative effect of excavations on a number of adjacent stands
over a period of years. From the outset, the hillslope was not suitable for township development of
the type that has taken place. This is the sort of problem that an investigation in terms of SANS
634:2012 Geotechnical Investigations for Township Development is intended to pick up. However,
there is no evidence that such an investigation was undertaken when development in the area first
commenced in the 1960s’. To compound matters, it appears that no site-specific investigation was
conducted prior to development. As indicated above, advising the client of the need for such
investigations is part of the normal to be provided by the engineer. Furthermore, the local authority
78
failed to advise the home owner of the potential for unstable conditions as it was obliged to do in
terms of the National Building Regulations F3 (1).
With regards to geotechnical investigations, the following requirements appear to have been
breached. The person / authority to whom responsibility for adhering to the requirement in terms of
the referenced documents is given in brackets.
• Clause 11(2)(e) of the 2003 Construction Regulations (the latest version at the time of failure),
in terms of preventing instability of adjacent development (contractor).
• Clause 3 (1) of the ECSA Code of Conduct (see section 3.4) regarding exercise of skill care
and diligence (registered person).
• Section 2.1.1 (5) of the 2005 ECSA Guidelines Scope of Services and Tariff of Fees (section
3.4Error! Reference source not found.) regarding informing the client of the need for site o
r other investigations (engineer).
• National Building Regulation F3 (1)(b) requiring notification to the applicant of potentially
unstable land (local authority).
An important question relating to this failure is, if a site-specific investigation had been done, would
it have found the problem given that it appears that the failure occurred 15 m below the ground? A
second question is whether the standards that are now in place could potentially prevent reoccurrence
of similar problems (a) in the same area or (b) in areas of new development? A case will be made
that investigations for new townships in terms of SANS 634:2012 should be sufficiently
comprehensive to identify potential problems with slope instability. This task should not be left to
the developer of an individual stand.
6.2.2 Southern Cape - Landslip
It is apparent that the failure took place on a particularly weak, adversely dipping layer deeper in the
soil profile and that is was possibly triggered by erosion. Certain elements of the problem, such as
poor soil conditions, groundwater seepage and steep slopes definitely point towards a potential slope
failure. Again, an investigation carried out in accordance with SANS 634:2012 should certainly have
identified these elements. However, development of the area commenced prior to the inception of
this Standard.
The problem lies directly with the failure of the original township development investigation to detect
the potential for slope instability, probably because of inadequate depth of investigation. There was
no problem with the foundations of individual structures. This problem, like that with the Cape
Peninsular case, would not have been picked up by a foundation investigation for individual stands.
79
The same breaches identified in for the Cape Peninsular case presented above apply and the same
questions may be asked.
6.2.3 Gauteng Golf Estate – Structural damage to houses
The site was essentially a mining area which was rehabilitated by placement of engineered fill and
then developed as a township. It is apparent that a number of geotechnical investigations were carried
out prior to the construction of the development. Despite numerous geotechnical investigations
conducted for the development of the estate, structural and foundation failures still occurred.
The root cause of the problem on this site was a failure to recognise the effect of settlement of
remaining mine spoils at depth below the engineered fill. This caused the stands to be classified as
S1 and S2 in terms of the NHBRC requirements (see chapter 5.3) instead of “P” (controlled fill, mine
waste fill, etc).
There are several factors that contributed to the foundation failure in this case:
• Incorrect classification of the site at township development stage in accordance with the
NHBRC requirements (competent person).
• Failure on the part of the developers to fully disclose the available geotechnical information
and history of the development of the site to the developers of individual stands. This is not
a statutory requirement but may have assisted in alerting the home owners and their appointed
competent person in avoiding the problems.
• The issue of partially completed but signed site classification certificates to home owners by
the developer. This reduced the responsibility of the competent person appointed by the home
owner to investigate and classify the stands.
• The requirement for additional geotechnical investigation for double storey structures was not
adequately adhered to, partly to being poorly communicated and partly due to the issue of site
classification certificates.
The problem with this case essentially lies in the method of rehabilitation of this site in preparation
for residential development and the way the requirements for precautionary measures were then
communicated to owners and designers. Settlement of the foundation is due to factors that could not
have reasonably been foreseen in the absence of the information given in the body of the township
investigation report which was not made available to developers.
80
6.2.4 Mass Housing (RDP) on Karoo Formations (Free State)
Cracking of houses / structures is a common occurrence in areas underlain by expansive layers the
Karoo Formations. This is often the result of seasonal heaving and shrinkage of the soil profile below
the structure. The most likely cause of failure is that the NHBRC’s classification of individual stands
was incorrect and the foundation designs were inappropriate for the site conditions. The nature of the
damage (as discussed in Chapter 5.2.4), suggests that the classification of the stands should have been
H3 which would have required different foundations to be used and a rational design of the
foundations to be undertaken. Such designs require quantitative geotechnical data on soil properties
including potential expansiveness, stiffness and (in the case of piled foundations) shear strength over
the full depth of the soil profile.
The problem with development on Karoo Formations is that the depth of the expansive material tends
to be deep, in some areas greater than 10m. It is unreasonable to expect that the information required
for the design of foundations should be determined on a stand-by-stand basis. The cost of such an
investigation to the full potential depth of the expansive strata could conceivably be more that the
cost of house itself. This information should have been determined during the township investigation
stage of the development according to the requirements of SANS 634.
6.2.5 Summary for Housing developments
Two key issues emerge from the above case studies which are specific to housing developments:
1. Although SANS 634 requires the identification of geotechnical constraints on development

such as problem soils, slope instability, etc., it does not go far enough in quantifying the nature
of such problems.
2. It is unreasonable, particularly in the context of sub-economic housing, to perform detailed
investigations on individual stands.
The identification of geotechnical constraints and determination of design parameters should be

undertaken at township development stage, even if this means amending the requirements of SANS
634.
Plettenberg Bay Piled Foundations

The Site Investigation Code of Practice (SAICE, 2010) and the Franki book (Franki Africa, 2008)
clearly identify the requirements of the depth of investigation for piles foundations. The problem on
this site was that, as a result of incorrect expectations created by large scale geological maps, and
investigation was carried out for spread footings rather than piles. Once the changed geological
conditions were recognised, the depth of investigation was increased but was still inadequate.
81
In recognition of the inadequacy of the investigation for piled foundations, a recommendation was
made that further investigation should be carried out by the geotechnical contractor at the start of the
contract. In addition, a suggestion was made for the depth of piles to be included in the piling tender.
These are both pragmatic actions.
The real problem is that the recommendation for additional investigation made by the geo-
professional was not followed at the time of construction. This is classical case of failure in the
management of the project and is a stark reminder that members of the professional team other than
the geo-professional and the client also have a responsibility to behave in a professional manner.
Unfortunately, there are no statutory obligations that compel clients / developers to adhere to the
minimum requirements for geotechnical investigations or the recommendations made in their best
interest by geo-professionals. Project managers and principal agents are, however, bound by the rules
of conduct of their professional registering bodies (ECSA, SACPCMP, etc.).
Investigations for Excavations and Lateral Support

The geotechnical investigations for both the developments in the case studies were conducted using
primarily auger drilling rather than rotary core drilling. The investigations did not conform to the
requirements set out for investigations for excavations and lateral support as stated in Chapter 4.6.
Particularly, failure to comply to the requirements of the SAICE Lateral Support Code (clause 2.2) in
terms of depth and extent of the investigation.
The real question to be asked is how such breaches of norms are permitted to occur in the first place.
In both these instances, the investigation was carried out well in advance of the commencement of
construction, probably with a different type of development in mind. Neither investigation was
tailored to the specific project that was finally constructed. Thus, the blame cannot be placed solely
on the geo-professional for failure to adhere to the norms for lateral support projects. An equal
responsibility rests with the client and the project management team to ensure that the geotechnical
information remains adequate for the project that is finally constructed.
The unfortunate reality is that the feasibility of most commercial developments is dictated by the
rental earnings potential of the development and the date on which it can be occupied. This has the
undesirable result that there is never enough time or budget for a proper geotechnical investigation.
The approach seems to be one of providing the bear minimum of information and then dealing with
claims as they arise. The liability for the losses suffered is frequently deflected from where it rightly
belongs, namely with the persons who elected to proceed on the basis of inadequate geotechnical data
in the first place.
82
Recommendations – Changes Needed (Potential Solutions)

6.5.1 Township and Housing Development
Problems encountered with township and housing development stem from the township development
phase. In all the cases presented above, the problems would not necessarily have been identified by
the type of foundation investigation required for an NHBRC site classification. These problems
should however have been picked up at the township development stage in the SANS 634
investigations. The most likely shortfall in a number of cases was that the SANS 634 investigation
either did not correctly classify the sites, failed to identify critical geotechnical constraints or failed
to provide the information required for foundation design. Note that the latter is not currently a
requirement in SANS 634.
It is therefore recommended that the geotechnical investigation requirements for the township
development (SANS 634:2012) investigation be widened. As a minimum, investigations
requirements for townships and houses should ensure that the full depth of any problem soil horizon
is investigated even if this requires some form of deep investigation like rotary core or auger drilling
in areas underlain by deep clays or situated on slopes with potential for deep-seated movement. This
will require a more comprehensive and detailed desktop study to identify and interpret geological
strata and boundaries more accurately and include extensive historical and recent data from the
surrounding areas of a proposed development. Given that it is not feasible to drill boreholes on the
individual stands / properties, the information yielded by the township investigation must be
sufficient, together with information from shallow test pits on the stand in question, to allow informed
decisions to be taken on the design of foundation for individual homes. This can be achieved in one
of two ways.
1. Revising SANS 634 to ensure adequate depth of investigation and that quantitative design
data is provided over the full depth of any problem soil horizon.
2. Compile a standardised specification setting minimum requirements for geotechnical

investigations for township development and housing which contain these requirements.
The way the regulations, standards and codes are written at present, the competent person appointed
by the individual home owners would be required to undertake additional investigation to provide
information not available from the township investigation report. This in not affordable in instances
where problem conditions exist at depth. If the above recommendations were to be implemented, all
that individual home owners would be required to do is assess the foundation conditions within the
upper metre or two of the profile to confirm the validity of the site zoning given in the township
investigation report. The exception to this is for sites on dolomite where conditions vary so greatly
83
that additional deep investigation may be required for individual developments, particularly on D4
dolomite sites.
It is also recommended that the NHBRC increase its control over township development. As is the
case with dolomite investigations, these investigations require thorough evaluation and should not
only be simply be rubber-stamped. Money needs to spend on investigations rather than damage
control and the NHBRC should therefore send the message to investigators and developers that if
they want their townships approved, they need to do the work, and do it properly.
6.5.2 Investigations for Piles and Lateral Support
Although the geotechnical investigation requirements established for piled foundations and lateral
support are satisfactory, failures relating to such investigations still occur due to non-compliance with
these requirements. The presented case study clearly demonstrates non-compliance with existing
requirements, not only by the geotechnical profession, but by the client and the project management
team as well.
The engineering profession is regulated by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) that
primarily provides accreditation for professionalism and controls the practice of registered persons
thereby, enforcing compliance with established norms. However, as a result of recent rulings by the
Competitions Commission, the Engineering Council is unable to enforce Section 26 (3) of the Act
which prohibits persons who are not registered with the Council from undertaking engineering work.
The Council is powerless to act against such persons. The solution to this problem lies in the hands
of the client who can specify that geotechnical investigations must be carried out by registered persons
and in accordance with specified standards. This is a “demand side” requirement imposed by the
client / developer as opposed to a “supply-side” requirement imposed by the Engineering Council.
However, two particular concerns arise from the aforementioned. Firstly, this assumes that
developers, clients and project managers have sufficient knowledge and understanding of site
investigation practices to correctly specify the geotechnical investigation requirements. This is sadly
not the case. The profession therefore need provide developers, clients and project managers with the
necessary specifications (technical knowledge) to adequately specify the scope of geotechnical
investigations to be provided. Although there are no regulatory requirements which can force
developers and clients to comply, making it easier to adequately specify minimum requirements for
various categories of development could go a long way to addressing the problem.
84
6.5.3 General recommendations
In the introduction to this chapter, it was stated that we may need to look beyond compliance with
geotechnical investigation requirements to find a lasting solution to the problem. The general
recommendations below are therefore not aimed at enforcing compliance but at making it easier to
achieve compliance by modifying procurement practices.
The entire approach to procuring geotechnical investigations has changed. Typically, such
procurement is undertaken by the by the client, the structural engineer, the quantity surveyor or the
project manager who do not necessarily have the technical knowledge to specify the scope of the
investigation or adjudicate the adequacy of tenders received for site investigation contracts.
In the past, procurement of geotechnical investigations was normally the responsibility of the lead
designer or the client’s engineering team, who usually contacted respected/trusted geotechnical
engineers and invited them to submit proposals. The scope of the work was therefore decided by the
geotechnical specialist.
These days, corporate governance requires that such services go out to tender. Often this is done
without any specification of the scope of the investigation, the professional status of the investigator
or the standards to be followed. Thus, anybody who has some sort of equipment and considers
themselves eligible can put in a tender for investigations. The person adjudicating the tender is in
most instances, a government official or project manager, who does not necessarily have the technical
knowledge to be able to judge the technical merits of the tenders received and the decision is often
based on price alone. The result is that people who are not technically equipped to do site
investigations are submitting cost proposals for non-compliant investigations to people who don’t
have the required knowledge to adjudicate these proposals.
This raise the question of whether other fields of engineering are faced with the same problems and
have they found a solution? If we look to the civil engineering profession in general, this indeed so.
For most other fields of engineering, the relevant requirements are laid down in standardised
specification such as SANS 1200 for civil engineering works in general or the COLTO Specification
for road and bridge construction. With these documents at their disposal, it is not necessary for the
person compiling the specification and tender document to have detailed knowledge of civil
engineering works or the construction of roads and bridges. They can, and in most cases, do, simply
include these standardised specifications by reference in the contract document. This goes a long
way towards insuring comparable bids are received and that the work is correctly undertaken.
85
Unfortunately, there are currently no standardised specifications similar to SABS 1200 for
geotechnical investigations. The requirements exist as set out in Chapters 3 and 4 but are not
presented in the form that makes it simple for non-geotechnical professionals to easily specify
geotechnical investigations. It is therefore recommended that the geotechnical profession should
compile a set of standardised specifications similar to SABS 1200 for various types of structures and
developments.
Given that the above proposal may take time to implement, short-term mitigation measures are:
✓ Ensure that all relevant information, including township investigation reports are made
available the developer of individual stands and their appointed competent person.
✓ Publish geotechnical failures. The greater the data available, the more aware investigators,
clients and developers will be. Also, the geotechnical profession will then be able to get to a
stage where they know where problem areas (“red-zones”) are and the nature of the problems
that can potentially arise.
✓ Geo-professionals should be asked to report on pitfalls in requirements and make suggestions

for change. Codes and Standards needs to be revised at least every 5 years to incorporate such
recommendations. These are, after all, the people who are involved in site investigations every
day.
✓ Once all the standardised specifications for various types of developments have been compiled
and accepted by the geotechnical profession, a concerted effort should be made to publicise
these standards, demonstrate the benefits of their application and encourage their use.
✓ Continue to develop sinkhole database on dolomites.
✓ Compile a standard or code of practice for slope investigations, specifically dealing with
investigations on slopes along coastal areas (see section 6.8 for future research suggestions).
A summary of the recommendations to improve the success and quality of, and minimize geotechnical
failures are given in Figure 6.1.
86
Figure 6.1: A summary of the recommendations presented in the research.
Example of Standardised Specifications

In addition to the specific objective set out in section 1.4 (iv), the compilation of standardised
specifications for geotechnical investigations for various types of development was also
recommended in section 6.5.3 above. To illustrate the form such documents could take, a draft of
standardised specifications for investigation of residential townships and housing, investigation of
excavations and lateral support and investigations for pile foundations has been developed. These
draft specifications are presented in Appendix D1, Appendix D2 and Appendix D3 respectively.
It should be noted that this draft is aimed at remedying the observed inadequacies in such
investigations as set out in Chapter 5. For township and housing development in particular, this
document seeks to ensure, following the township investigation report, the additional investigation to
undertaken on each individual stand is affordable.
These standardised specifications does not replace existing standards. However, it requires
compliance with such standards which would otherwise have been voluntary.
87
Part 2 of the specification contains the essential project data that is to be provided to make the
specification relevant to a particular development. This is similar to the approach adopted in SABS
1200.
Overall Conclusion
Adequate geotechnical investigations form the basis for successful construction projects. Uncertainty
of geological and ground conditions below earth’s surface leaves no construction project free of risk.
The intention is that such risks should be identified and mitigated by way of geotechnical
investigations carried out in accordance with relevant legislation and the norms of the industry.
Although various innovative approaches have been adopted over the years, the geotechnical
regulatory framework still lack efficiency, coherence, enforceability and control.
This research has explored factors leading to geotechnical failures on small and large civil
engineering projects due to inadequate investigation and suggests that more control be exercised over
the geotechnical investigations to ensure compliance with the existing regulatory framework. In most
instances, the available regulations, standards and codes of practice are adequate, but are not
followed. It is a case of knowing what is required but not doing it.
Case studies presented in the research show that the responsibility for the adequacy of the
investigation rests not only with the geo-professional but is shared with clients, contractors, regulatory
bodies and local authorities. Geotechnical failures are not always due to non-compliance of geo-
professionals and they are therefore not the only group of people that should be held responsible for
these failures. The industry focuses on the responsibilities of geo-professionals, but fails to notice and
act upon non-compliance by developers, clients, regulators and local authorities.
Two of the factors that contribute to the inadequacy geotechnical investigations are cost and
programme. These factors often override the norms established for responsible geotechnical
investigations. Developers and their project teams often fail to realise that savings on the time and
cost of an investigation are insignificant when compared to the claims and programme extensions that
can result during construction if the geotechnical conditions are not adequately investigated. The
responsibility needs to be shifted back to the persons that are gaining financially from these
developments.
The traditional procurement process for geotechnical investigations based on invited proposals from
geotechnical specialists has been replaced by tendering for geotechnical work, often on the basis of
no or inadequate specifications. Such tenders are difficult to adjudicate by persons who lack a
fundamental understanding of geotechnical investigations and the award is often based on price rather
88
than the adequacy of the scope of work offered. Thorough understanding of requirements and
preparation of an adequate contract are vital steps in minimising this risk as well as cost and schedule
overruns.
This study therefore expresses the need for changes that support efficient and successful
implementation of the regulatory framework for geotechnical investigations.
Future Research
Future research may include the development of further standardised specifications for various types
of development. Consideration may also be given to developing codes of practice for geotechnical
investigations of expansive soils and of slopes, both of which are seen to be problematic. The
motivation for such codes is the widespread distribution of expansive soils in South Africa and the
observation that development on slopes is a general occurrence particularly in coastal areas. The fact
that the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) recently started monitoring of
slopes along the national roads in most provinces will assist greatly in gathering valuable data for
slope stability analysis. The study can therefore identify problem areas and similar to that used in the
development of dolomite areas by assigning inherent hazard ratings to sloping ground.
89
References
Beales, P. & Paton, I. (2017). Southern Cape Landslip, Mossel Bay. South African Institute of Civil
Engineering (SAICE), [online] Vol 25(No 3), pp.14-19. Available at: http://saice.org.za/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/April2017.pdf [Accessed 16 Aug. 2017].
Brink, A.B.A. & Bruin, R.M.H. (eds) (1990). Guidelines for soil and rock logging in South Africa,
2nd impression, 2002. Proceedings of the Geoterminology Workshop. AEG - SAIEG - SAICE, 1990.
Bruce, D.A. (2003). The Basics of Drilling for Specialty Geotechnical Construction Processes.
In Grouting and Ground Treatment (pp. 752-771).
Buttrick, D., Trollip, N., Watermeyer, R., Pieterse, N. & Gerber, A. (2011). A performance based
approach to dolomite risk management. Environmental Earth Sciences, 64(4), p.1127-1138.
Buttrick, D.B., Van Schalkwyk, A., Kleywegt, R.J. & Watermeyer, R.B. (2001). Proposed method
for dolomite land hazard and risk assessment in South Africa. South African Institution Civil
Engineering, 43(2), p.27-36
Clayton, C., Matthews, M. & Simons, N. (1995). Site investigation. 2nd Ed. Oxford: England
Blackwell Science.
COLTO (1998). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Works for State Road Authorities.
Published by the South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE), Pretoria.
Committee of State Road Authorities. (1985). TRH14:1985. Guidelines for Road Construction
Materials. Technical Recommendations for Highways, 1985. ISBN 0 7988 3311 4. Pretoria:
Department of Transport.
Committee of State Road Authorities. (1996). TRH4:1996. Structural design of flexible pavements
for interurban and rural roads. Technical Recommendations for Highways, 1996. Draft. ISBN 1-
86844-218-7. Pretoria: Department of Transport.
Construction Industry Development Board. (2005). Construction Procurement Best Practice
Guideline C2: Choosing an appropriate form of contract for engineering and construction works.
Edition 2 of document 1010, September. Available from:
http://www.cidb.org.za/publications/Documents/
Das, B.M. (2010). Principles of geotechnical engineering. Stamford: Connecticut Cengage Learning.
Day, P. (2013). A Contribution to the Advancement of Geotechnical Engineeing in South Africa
(Doctoral thesis). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. Available from:
http://hdl.handle.net/10019/79868
Day, P. (2015). Foundation Design 811: A practical perspective. [lecture notes]. Stellenbosch:
University of Stellenbosch.
Day, P. (2016). Site Investigation Short Course: Codes and Standards. [lecture notes]. Stellenbosch:
University of Stellenbosch.
Day, P.W. and Kirsten, H. (n.d.). Geotechnical investigations: Legal and professional obligations.
Draft CESA Practice Note, unpublished.
Department of Labour (2014). Construction Regulations, 2014. South Africa: Government Gazette.
90
Department of Public Works. (2007). Identification of Problematic Soils in Southern Africa:

Technical Notes for Civil and Structural Engineers (PW 2006/1). Pretoria: Department of Public
Works.
Donaldson G.W. (1985). Geotechnical Engineering in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South
Africa, 27, p. 341‒345.
ECSA (2012). Advisory Note for the Public: The role, responsibility and conduct of persons
registered with ECSA appointed for small building works. Engineering Council of South Africa.
Available from:
https://www.ecsa.co.za/regulation/RegulationDocs/030512AdvNt_Role_Respons_Conduct.pdf
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design, (2004). Part 1 General Rules, Part 2 Design assisted by laboratory
testing and Part 3 Design assisted by field testing. European Committee for Standardization. CEN,
November 2004.
Franki Africa (2008). A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern Africa. 4th Ed.
December 2008. Johannesburg: Franki Africa.
Franki Africa. (2017). Franki Africa supports the new Webber Wentzel building. [Online] Available
from: http://www.franki.co.za/franki-africa-supports-the-new-webber-wentzel-building/ [Accessed:
18 June 2017].
Hoek, E. & Palmieri, A. (1998). Geotechnical risks on large civil engineering projects. Proceedings
of the 8th International Congress, Canada, 21-25 September 1998. International Association of
Engineering Geology, vol.1. p. 79-88.
Institution of Civil Engineers. (1991). Inadequate Site Investigation. London: Thomas Telford. p. 26.
Jenkins, K. (2017). Pavement Materials: Informal interview [recording]. Stellenbosch: University of

Stellenbosch. 03 October, 2017.
Jennings J.E., Brink A.B.A. & Williams A.A.B. (1973). Revised Guide to Soil Profiling for Civil
Engineering Purposes in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in
South Africa, January 1973.
Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants (2015). Reasons for Opinions on Slope
Instability. Report No.: JW109/15/D246 – Rev 0. October 2015.
Kirsten, H.A.D., Heath, G.J, Venter, I.S, Trollip., N.Y.G., & Oosthuizen, A.C. (2009). The issue of
personal safety on dolomite: a probability-based evaluation with respect to single-storey residential
houses. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 51(1), p. 26-36. Available from
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1021-
20192009000100004&lng=en&tlng=en [Accessed October 28, 2017].
Knappett, J. & Craig, R. (2012). Craig's soil mechanics. 8th Ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Spon Press, p.3.
Knysna-Plett Herald. (2017). New R300 million court planned for Plett. [online] Available at:
https://www.knysnaplettherald.com/news/News/General/166866/New-R300-million-court-planned-
for-Plett [Accessed 29 Oct. 2017].
Korf, L. & Haarhoff, J. (2007). A.B.A. Brink - baanbreker van Suid-Afrikaanse ingenieursgeologie:
pioneer. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 26 (2), p. 139‒150.
91
Littlejohn, G.S., Cole, K.W. & Mellors, T.W. (1994). Without Site Investigation Ground is a Hazard.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering. 102(2), p. 72–78.
Massarsch, K.R. (2000). Application of Geophysical Methods for Geotechnical-, Geo Environmental
and Geodynamic Applications: An Overview. Proceedings, 3rd International Workshop on the
Application of Geophysics to Rock and Soil Engineering, 18 November 2000, Melbourne. p. 1-5.
Mott MacDonald & Soil Mechanics Ltd. (1994). Study of the efficiency of site investigation practices.
Transport Research Laboratory Project Report, PR60. p. 1-55.
Murthy, V.N.S. (2002). Geotechnical engineering: Principles and practices of soil mechanics and
foundation engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker
National Department of Housing (2002). Geotechnical Site Investigations for Housing
Developments: Generic Specification GFSH-2. Republic of South Africa. (GFSH-2:2002).
National Home Builder’s Registration Council. (1999). Home Building Manual, Parts 1, 2 and 3.
NHBRC, Randburg.
National Home Builder’s Registration Council. (2015). Home Building Manual. Pretoria: NHBRC.
National Research Council. (1984). Geotechnical site investigations for underground projects. US
National Committee on Tunnelling Technology, vol. 1. Washington: National Academy Press.
Ngobeni, S.A. (2011). An analysis of the tender process in national government in South Africa
(Masters dissertation). North-West University.
Occupational Health and Safety Act. (Act 85 of 1993). as amended, including Regulations. Republic
of South Africa.
Oosthuizen, A.C. & Richardson, S. (2011). Sinkholes and subsidence in South Africa. Council for
Geoscience Report (number 2011-0010): 1–31.
Oosthuizen, T. & Heath, G. (2008). A preliminary overview of the sinkhole record of South Africa.
In: Problem Soils Seminar. [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289532686_A_preliminary_overview_of_the_sinkhole_re
cord_of_South_Africa [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Osterberg, J.O. (1979). Failures in exploration programs. Site characterization and exploration, Ed,
C.H. Dowding, ASCE, New York, p. 3-9.
Plommer, H. (1973). Vitruvius and Later Roman Building Manuals. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Potgieter, A.S. (2012). The development of a Dolomite Risk Management Strategy for the Tlokwe City
Council. (Dissertation. M.Sc.). Potchefstroom: Noord-Wes University.
Ross, G. (2004). The romance of Cape Mountain passes. Cape Town: David Philip.
Rowe, P.W. (1972). The relevance of soil fabric to site investigation practice. 12th Rankine Lecture.
Geotechnique. 22(2) p. 195–300. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1972.22.2.195
[Accessed: 12 January 2017].
Simons, N., Menzies, B. & Matthews, M. (2002). A short course in geotechnical site investigation.
London: Thomas Telford.
92
South African Institution of Civil Engineering (1989) Lateral Support in Surface Excavations - Code
of Practice, 1989. SAICE Geotechnical Division.
South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2007). The safety of persons working in small
diameter shafts and test pits for geotechnical engineering purposes – Code of Practice. SAICE
Geotechnical Division, Midrand.
South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2010). Site Investigation Code of Practice. 1st Ed.
SAICE Geotechnical Division, Midrand.
South African National Standard. (2010). SANS 10160-5:2010. Basis of structural design and actions
for buildings and industrial structures. Part 5. Basis for geotechnical design and actions. Pretoria:
SABS.
South African National Standard. (2010). SANS 10400-A:2010. The application of the National
Building Regulations. Part A. General principles and requirements. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2011). SANS 10160-1:2011. Basis of structural design and actions
for buildings and industrial structures. Part 1. Basis of structural design. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 10400-B:2012. The application of the National
Building Regulations. Part B. Structural design. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 10400-H:2012. The application of the National
Building Regulations. Part H. Foundations. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 1936-1:2012. Development of dolomite land. Part
1. General principals and requirements. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 1936-2:2012. Development of dolomite land. Part
2. Geotechnical investigations and determinations. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 633:2012. Soil profiling and rotary percussion
borehole logging on dolomite land in Southern Africa for engineering purposes. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standard. (2012). SANS 634:2012. Geotechnical Investigations for Township
Development. Pretoria: SABS.
South African National Standards (2005). SANS 10400:2005. Code of Practice for the construction
of dwelling houses in accordance with the National Building Regulations, 2005. Pretoria. SABS.
South African Pavement Manual (2013). South African Pavement Engineering Manual. Chapter 4:
Standards. Pretoria: SARAL.
South African Standard (1980). SABS 0161:1980. The design of foundations for buildings – Code of
Practice. Pretoria: SABS.
Spoornet. (2006). S410:2006. Specification for railway earthworks S410: Technical Specification.
March, 2006.
Standards South Africa. (1983). SABS 1200-LB:1983. Standardized specification for civil
engineering construction. Part LB. Bedding (Pipes). Pretoria: Standards South Africa.
Standards South Africa. (1988). SABS 1200-D:1988. Standardized specification for civil engineering
construction. Part D. Earthworks. Pretoria: Standards South Africa.
93
Standards South Africa. (1989). SABS 1200-DB:1989. Standardized specification for civil
engineering construction. Part DB. Earthworks (Pipe Trenches). Pretoria: Standards South Africa.
Standards South Africa. (1996). SABS 1200-M:1996. Standardized specification for civil
engineering construction. Part M. Roads (General). Pretoria: Standards South Africa.
Storrar, P. & Komnick, G. (1984). A Colossus of Roads. Murray & Roberts / Concor.
Temple, M.W.B. & Stukhart, G. (1987). Cost Effectiveness of Geotechnical Investigations, Journal
of Management in Engineering. 3(1), p 8–19.
The Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act (95 of 1998). Republic of South Africa, 1998. Cape
Town: Government Gazette.
The National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act (No. 103 of 1977). Republic of South
Africa, 1977. Cape Town: Government Gazette.
Turner A.K. & Schuster K.L. (ed) (1996). Landslides – Investigation and Mitigation. Special Report
247. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences,
USA.
Van der Merwe, D.H. (1964). The Prediction of Heave from the Plasticity Index and Percentage Clay
Fraction of Soils. Transactions SAICE, 6(6), June 1964.
Whyte, L.L. (1995). The Financial Benefit from Site Investigation Strategy. Ground Engineering.
October. p 33–36.
Wikipedia. (2014). Schematic geological map of the Karoo Supergroup outcrops in South Africa.
[image] Available at:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Geology_of_Karoo_Supergroup.png
[Accessed 3 Nov. 2017].
Williams, A.A.B., Pidgeon, J.T. & Day, P.W. (1985). Expansive Soils: State of the Art. Civil
Engineering in South Africa, July 1985, p367-377 & 407.
Williams, J. T. & Mettam, J. D. (1971). National Ports Council-port structures report. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers. 48(3). p. 475. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1971.6423 [Accessed: 12 January 2017].
94
Appendices
95
Appendix A
Geo-professional’s Conduct
96
Appendix A1
ECSA Code of Conduct
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
Appendix A2
SACNASP Code of Conduct
104
105
Appendix B
Classification of Road Materials
106
Appendix B1
COLTO:1998 Specification
Relevant tables extracted from COLTO:1998 Specification and compiled

as given, by Matrolab Group (Pty) Ltd South Africa.
Obtained from https://www.matrolab.co.za/files/content/docs/colto-

specifications_2009.pdf
107
COLTO SPECIFICATIONS - MARCH 1998

Review 27 November 2017
PROPERTY G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
Sound rock from an Natural gravel, or Natural gravel, or

Natural gravel, or
approved quarry, or natural gravel & natural gravel &
DESRIPTION OF Sound rock, boulders or natural gravel & Natural material (soil, Natural material (soil, Natural material
clean, sound mine rock boulders which may boulders which may
MATERIAL coarse gravel boulders which may sand or gravel) sand or gravel) (soil, sand or
from mine dumps, or need crushing or need crushing or
need crushing gravel)
clean sound boulders crushed rock crushed rock
Only fines crushed from May contain up to 10% May contain up to 15% May contain approved
the same sound parent by mass of approved by mass of approved additional fines not
rock may be added for natural fines not natural fines not obtained from parent May contain approved May contain approved
ADDITIONAL grading correction necessarily obtained obtained from parent rock. Added fines shall natural fines not natural fines not
- - -
FINES provided that added from parent rock. Added rock. Added fines shall have a liquid limit not obtained from parent obtained from parent
fines shall have a LL not fines shall have a LL have a LL not exceeding exceeding 25 and a rock. rock.
exceeding 25 and PI not not exceeding 25 and PI 25 and PI not exceeding plasticity index not
exceeding 4 not exceeding 6 6 exceeding 6
Uncrushed : 2/3 Uncrushed : 2/3

Uncrushed 53mm : Uncrushed 63mm :
NOMINAL compacted layer : compacted layer
37.5mm 37.5mm 37.5mm / 26.5mm crushed 37.5 or crushed 53mm before 2/3 compacted layer 2/3 compacted
MAXIMUM SIZE crushed 63mm before crushed material: layer
26.5mm compaction
compaction 75mm
As per TMH1 B3 shall
Flakiness Index, determined in accordance with TMH1 method B3, shall not exceed 35 on each
FLAKINESS
not exceed 35 on each of the -26.5+19mm fraction and the -19+13.2mm of the -26.5+19mm - - - - -
INDEX fraction fraction and -
19+13.2mm fraction
Alluvial & colluvial

Alluvial & colluvial
gravels shall be crushed
material shall be
For crushed materials at least 50% by mass of so that at least 50% by
crushed so that at least
FRACTURED All faces shall be the fractions retained on each standard sieve mass of the fractions
50% by mass of the - - - -
FACES fractured faces 4.75mm and larger shall have at least one retained on each
fractions retained on
fractured face. standard sieve 4.75mm
4.75mm shall have at
and larger shall have at
least on fractured face
least one fractured face
GRADING * see reverse * see reverse * see reverse * see reverse * see reverse - - - -
GRADING
- - - - 2.5 ≥ GM ≥ 1.5 2.6 ≥ GM ≥ 1.2 2.7 ≥ GM ≥ 0.75 2.7 ≥ GM ≥ 0.75 2.7 ≥ GM ≥ 0.75
MODULUS
PI shall not exceed 12
a) All materials except The PI shall not exceed
a) All materials except or a value equal to 2
calcrete 12 or a value equal to 3 The PI shall not exceed The PI shall not
LL shall not exceed 25 LL shall not exceed 25 calcrete times the GM plus 10,
LL shall not exceed 25 LL shall not exceed 30 times the GM plus 10, 12 or a value equal to 3 exceed 12 or a
PI shall not exceed 6 LS PI shall not exceed 6 LS LL shall not exceed 25 whichever is the higher
ATTERBERG PI shall not exceed 5
shall not exceed 3% In shall not exceed 3% In PI shall not exceed 6 LS
PI shall not exceed 10
value. LS shall not
whichever is the higher times the GM plus 10, value equal to 3
LS shall not exceed 2% LS shall not exceed 5% value. In the case of whichever is the higher times the GM plus
LIMTS addition the arithmetic the case of calcrete the shall not exceed 3% exceed 5%. In the case
In addition the arithmetic b) Calcrete LL ≤ calcrete the PI shall not value. In the case of 10, whichever is
(-0.425mm mean of the PI's for a PI shall not exceed 8. b) Calcrete LL ≤ of calcrete the PI shall
mean of the PI's for a lot 30 PI ≤ 15 LS ≤ exceed 17 provided that calcrete the PI shall not the higher value. In
lot (min 6 tests) shall (% passing 0.425mm 25 PI ≤ 8 not exceed 15 provided
FRACTION) (min 6 tests) shall not 6 the LS does not exceed exceed 17 provided that the case of calcrete
not exceed 4.5 sieve) LS ≤ 170 (% passing 0.425mm the LS does not exceed
exceed 4 (% passing 0.425mm 7% and (% passing the LS does not exceed the PI shall not
sieve ) LS ≤ 170 6% and (% passing
sieve ) LS ≤ 320 0.425mm sieve) LS ≤ 7% exceed 17 provided
0.425mm sieve) LS ≤
320 that the LS does
320
not exceed 7%
ATTERBERG The PI shall not exceed 12. If the PI exceeds 12

If chemical modification
is required, the PI of the
LIMTS the material shall be chemically modified. After
0.075mm fraction after - - - - - -
(-0.075mm chemical modification the PI of the minus
modification shall not
0.075mm fraction shall not exceed 8.
FRACTION) exceed 10
Mudrock shall have a Mudrock shall have a Mudrock shall have a Mudrock shall have a Mudrock shall have
The material shall
wet 10% FACT value of wet 10% FACT value of wet 10% FACT value of wet 10% FACT value of a wet 10% FACT
The material shall comply with the requirements in columns 3, 4 and 5 of comply with the
DURABILITY table 3602/2 (COLTO) requirements in table
not less than 90 kN, and not less than 80 kN, and not less than 60 kN, and not less than 60 kN, and value of not less
a wet/dry Venter test a wet/dry Venter test a wet/dry Venter test a wet/dry Venter test than 60 kN, and a
3402/3 (COLTO)
class of I or II class of I or II class of I , II or III class of I , II or III wet/dry Venter test
class of I , II or III
SOLUBLE SALTS See additional requirements (COLTO) The material shall comply with the requirements in clause 3602 (COLTO)
CBR at 98% of modified CBR at 95% of modified CBR at 95% of modified CBR at 93% of modified CBR at 93% of modified CBR at 93% of
STRENGTH
- - - AASHTO denisty shall AASHTO density shall AASHTO denisty shall AASHTO density shall AASHTO density shall modified AASHTO
(CBR) not be less than 80% not be less than 45% not be less than 25% be at least 15% be at least 10% density shall be at
least 7%
Swell at 100% modified
AASHTO density shall
not exceed 0.2% for all Swell at 100% modified Swell at 100% modified Swell at 100% modified Swell at 100% modified Swell at 100%
SWELL
- - - materials except AASHTO density shall AASHTO density shall AASHTO density shall AASHTO density shall modified AASHTO
(MAXIMUM) calcrete for which the not exceed 0.5% not exceed 1.0% not exceed 1.5% not exceed 1.5% density shall not
swell shall not exceed exceed 1.5%
0.5%
98% or 100% (as
Minimum 0f 88% of 98% or 100% of
COMPACTION Minimum of 85% of specified) of modified The density requirements of the layer in which the material is used, shall be applicable. (See subclause
apparent relative modified AASHTO
REQUIREMENTS bulk relative denity AASHTO density for 3402(b)(COLTO) In restricted areas the in situ dry density of gravel material shall comply wuth the requirements in the
density density (as specified)
natural materials project specifications.
10% fines aggregate crushing value (10% FACT), determined in

accordance with TMH1 method B2, shall be not less than the appropriate
Strength value in table 3602/2, column 3. The Aggregate Crushed Value (ACV),
determined in accordance with TMH1 method B1, shall not exceed the
appropriate value in table 3602/3.
COARSE SAND
RATIO (SEE Shall not be less than Shall not be less than Shall not be less than
35% and shall not 35% and shall not 35% and shall not
DEFINITION IN exceed 50% in respect exceed 50% in respect exceed 50% in respect
SUBCLAUSE of the target grading of the target grading of the target grading
3602( c)(i)(5))
108
109
Appendix B2
COLTO:1998 Specification
A summary of TRH14 classification system for granular materials, gravels

and soils as given in the South African Pavement Engineering Manual,
Chapter 4 (SAPEM, 2013).
Obtained from
http://www.nra.co.za/content/SAPEM_Chapter_4_Jan2013.pdf
110
Summary of TRH14 Classification System for Granular Materials, Gravels and Soils
Notes
Groups G1, G2, G3: Graded Crushed Stone G4, G5, G6: Natural Gravels G7, G8, G9, G10: Gravel Soil
G1 Crushed Natural gravel; may be mixed with crushed rock
G2, G3 Crushed rock, boulders
Description unweathered such as boulders. May be cementitiously or Categorised in terms of properties below.
or coarse gravel
rock mechanically modified.
Material Class G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
GRADING
Nominal max size Nominal max size
Sieve Size (mm)
37.5 mm1 28 (26.5) mm1
50 / 53 100 100 Max size, in
37.5 100 85 – 100 place, after
compaction,
28 / 26.5 84 – 94 100 – Max size 64 mm or two-thirds
shall not be
20 / 19 71 – 84 85 – 95 60 – 90 of compacted layer thickness, No grading requirements
greater than
14 / 13.2 59 – 75 71 – 84 – whichever is smaller.
two-thirds of
5 / 4.75 36 – 53 42 – 60 30 – 65 the layer
2 23 – 40 27 – 45 20 – 50 thickness.
0.425 11 – 24 13 – 27 10 – 30
0.075 4 – 12 5 – 12 5 – 15
Grading Modulus (min) n/a n/a 1.5 1.2 n/a
Max 35% on weighted average
Flakiness Index of -28 (26.5) and n/a n/a n/a
-20 (19) mm fractions
10% FACT (min) 110 kN or
Crushing Strength n/a n/a n/a
ACV (max) 29%
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Liquid Limit (max)
25 25 25 30 n/a n/a
12 or 12 or
Plasticity Index, PI (max) 4 6 6 10
3 GM2 + 10 3 GM2 + 10 No Atterberg Limit requirements
Linear shrinkage, % (max) 4 3 3 5 n/a n/a
Linear shrinkage x
n/a 170 170 n/a n/a
-0.425 mm sieve (max)3
BEARING STRENGTH AND SWELL
CBR, % (min) at MDD4 n/a 80 at 98% 80 at 98% 45 at 95%5 25 at 93% 15 at 93% 10 at in situ 7 at in situ 3 at in situ
Swell, % (max) at MDD n/a 0.2 at 100% 0.2 at 100% 0.5 at 100% 1.0% 1.5%
Material Class G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
Notes:
1. G1 adjustments to the grading can only be made using crusher dust or other fractions from the parent rock. Only in exceptional cases can a maximum 10% non-plastic fines be added. G2
and G3 materials may be a blend of crushed stone and other fine aggregate to adjust the grading.
2. GM is the grading modulus (see Chapter 3, Section 2.3.2)
3. Only applicable to nodular calcretes
4. MDD is the maximum dry density determined by the modified AASHTO method.
5. In dry areas (Weinert N > 10) and AADT < 300 vpd CBR can be reduced to 25% @ 95% MDD if subbase cover is at least 150 mm.
111
Appendix B3
SABS 1200M:1996 Classification
112
Stellenbosch
TABLE University
3A AND 3B OF https://scholar.sun.ac.za
SANS 1200M:1996
CRITERIA G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
Sound rock from Natural gravel or natural
an approved Natural gravel or Natural gravel or natural
Sound rock, Sound rock, gravel
quarry, or clean, natural gravel and gravel and boulders which
boulders or boulders or coarse and boulders which may Natural material
PARENT sound mine rock boulders which may may require crushing, or
coarse gravel gravel require
MATERIAL from mine dumps, require crushing crushed rock
crushing, or crushed rock
or clean sound
boulders
Only fines crushed May contain up to May contain up to
from the same 10% (by mass) of 15 % (by mass) of May contain
sound parent rock approved natural approved natural approved
may be added for fines not obtained fines not obtained natural fines not May contain approved
grading correction, from parent rock, from parent rock, obtained from natural May contain approved natural
provided that where required to where required to parent fines not obtained from fines not obtained from parent nrp
ADDITIONAL added fines have improve grading. improve grading or rock. Added fines parent rock
FINES an LL not Added fines shall Atterberg limits or shall have an LL not rock
exceeding 25 and have an LL not both. Added fines exceeding 25 and a
a PI not exceeding exceeding 25 and shall have an LL not PI not exceeding 6
4 a Pl not exceeding exceeding 25
6 and a Pl not
CBR at 98 % Mod. CBR at 95 % of Mod. CBR at 93 % of Mod.
10 % fines aggregate crushing value (10 % FACT),
AASHTO max. AASHTO CBR at 95 % of Mod. AASHTO max.
determined in accordance with BABS method 842 (TMH 1
density shall be at max. density shall be at AASHTO max. density shall density shall
method B2), shall be at least the appropriate value in
least 80 %. Swell at least be at least 25 %. be at least 15 %.
column 3 of table 4.
STRENGHT 100 % Mod. 45 %. Swell at 100 % of Swell at 100 %. of Mod. Swell at 100 % of
The aggregate crushing value (ACV), determined in
AASHTO max. Mod. AASHTO max. AASHTO max. density shall Mod. AASHTO max.
accordance with SABS method 841 (TMH 1 method B1),
density shall not density shall not exceed not exceed 1,0%. density shall
shall not exceed the appropriate value in table 5.
exceed 0.2% for all 0,5 %. not exceed 1,5 %.
materials except
Mudrocks shall have a
Mudrocks shall have a wet
Mudrocks shall have a wet 10 wet 10 % FACT value
10 % FACT value of at
% FACT value of at least 80 of at least 60 kN and a
least 90 kN and
See columns 3, 4 and 5 of table 4 See table 5 kN and a wet/dry Venter wet/dry Venter
DURABILITY a wet/dry Venter test
test class7) of I or II. test class7) of I, II or
class7) of I or II.
Ill.
The flakiness index, determined in accordance with BABS Alluvial and colluvial All alluvial or colluvial
847 (TMH 1 method B3T), shall not exceed 35 on each of gravels shall be material
the -26,5 mm +19 mm fraction and the -19 mm +13,2 mm crushed shall be so crushed that at
fraction least
(50 % by mass) of the
nrp5)
SHAPE fraction
For crushed materials, at least 50 o/. (by mass) of the fractions
All faces shall be retained on the 4,75mm
retained on each standard sieve of 4,75 mm and larger shall
fractured faces sieve
have at least one fractured face
has at least one fractured
face.
LL shall not exceed 30. Pl Pl shall not exceed 12
LL shall not shall not exceed 10,
LL shall not LL shall not exceed or the value equal to 3
exceed 25. Except except that for materials
exceed 25. Except 25. PI shall not Pl shall not exceed 12 or the times the grading
that the
that the exceed 6, except in other than mudrocks, the value equal to twice the modulus plus 10,
arithmetic mean of LL shall not exceed Pl shall not exceed 12 if
arithmetic mean of the case of grading modulus plus 10, whichever is the
the results for a lot 25. Pl shall not less than 30 % of the
the results for a lot calcretes, in which whichever is the higher value. higher value.
(min. 6 tests) shall exceed 6, except in sample passes the
(min. 6 tests) shall case it shall not LS shall not exceed 5 %. In In the case of
not exceed 4,5, the case of
not exceed exceed 8. LS shall 2,00mm sieve. LS shall not the case of calcretes, the Pl calcretes, the Pl shall
the Pl shall not calcretes, in which
ATTERBERG
4, the PI shall not not exceed 3 %. For exceed 5 %. In the case of shalt not exceed 15, provided not exceed 17,
exceed 6. LS shall case it shall not
LIMTS exceed 5. LS shall calcretes the product calcretes, the Pl shall not that the LS does not exceed 6 provided that the LS
not exceed 3%. exceed 8. LS shall exceed 15, provided that
not exceed 2 %. If of LS and the % and the product of the LS does not exceed 7 %
If the Pl of the not exceed the LS does not exceed 6
the Pl of the minus percentage and the percentage passing and the product of the
minus 3 %.
0,075 mm fraction passing a 0,425mm % and the product of the the 0,425mm sieve does not LS and the
0,075 mm fraction LS and the percentage
exceeds 12, see sieve shall not exceed 320. percentage passing
exceeds 12, see passing the 0,425mm
3.3.6. exceed 170. the 0,425mm sieve
3.3.6. sieve does not exceed does not exceed 320.
320.
The maximum size of

The maximum size of crushed
The maximum size of crushed. material shall
material shall be 63 mm
crushed material shall be be 75 mm before
before compaction. The
53 mm before compaction. compaction.
maximum size of uncrushed
SIZE - The maximum size The maximum size of
material shall be two-thirds of
uncrushed material shall uncrushed material
the compacted layer
be 63 mm. shall be two-thirds of
thickness.
the compacted
layer thickness.
See 3.3.5(a). See 3.3.5(a) nrp nrp
SOLUBLE
SALTS
The percentage (by mass)
passing the 2,00mm sieve Grading modulus shall be not Grading modulus shall
shall be not less than 20 % less than 1,2 and not more be not less than 0,75
GRADING
See Table 8.
and not more than 70%. than 2,6. and not more than 2,7.
Grading modulus shall be
not las than 1,5 and not
113
TABLE 3A AND 3B OF SANS 1200M:1996 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
114
Appendix C
Structural Defects of Houses in
Various Areas
115
Free State Province
116
117
118
Gauteng Province
119
120
Appendix D
Example of Standardised
Specifications
121
Appendix D1
Standardised Specification for
Townships and Housing
Drafted by Professor Peter Day and Keshia Myburgh (candidate)
122
SAICE GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION
PART 1: STANDARDISED SPECIFICATION
for
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
A: HOUSING AND TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE

This specification covers geotechnical investigations for township development and house
foundations. It lists the minimum requirements for such investigations within the framework
of existing national and industry standards.
The purpose of this specification is to provide a standardised means of incorporating the
requirements for geotechnical investigations into tenders and contract documentation.
2. INTERPRETATIONS
2.1 NORMATIVE REFERENCES

2.1.1 The latest edition of the following standards shall form part of the contract document:
a) SANS 634: Geotechnical investigation for Township Development
b) SANS 10160-5: Basis of structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
structures, Part 5: Basis for geotechnical design and actions.
c) SANS 10400-H: Application of the National Building Regulations, Part H: Foundations.
d) SAICE (2007) Code of Practice: The safety of men working in small diameter shafts and test
pits for geotechnical engineering purposes. SAICE Geotechnical Division, 2007.
e) NHBRC Home building manual. National Home Builders Registration Council,
Johannesburg.
2.1.2 On dolomite land, the latest edition of the following additional standards shall form part of the
contract document:
a) SANS 633: Soil profiling and rotary percussion borehole logging on dolomite land in
Southern Africa for engineering purposes.
b) SANS 1936-1: Development of dolomite land, Part 1: General principles and requirements.
c) SANS 1936-2: Development of dolomite land, Part 2: Geotechnical investigations and
determinations.
2.1.3 Soil profiling and rock logging shall be carried out in accordance with one or more of the
following standardised procedures:
a) Jennings J.E., Brink A.B.A. and Williams A.A.B. (1973) Revised Guide to Soil Profiling for
Civil Engineering Purposes in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, January 1973.
b) S.A. Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists. (1976) A Guide to Core Logging
for Rock Engineering. Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg,
November 1976.
c) Brink A.B.A. and Bruin R.M.H. (eds) (1990) Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South
Africa, 2nd Impression 2002. Proc. Geoterminology Workshop. SAIEG - AEG - SAICE 1990.
2.2 APPLICATION
2.2.1 This specification is applicable to geotechnical investigations for township development and
housing. Particular requirements for the application of this specification are given in Part 2:
Project Specification.
2.3 DEFINITIONS
The definitions given in the normative references (see 2.1) and the following additional
references shall apply:
Atterberg Limits: transition points between various states of soil consistency, namely the
liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit.
Collapse potential test: Standard oedometer test in which a sample of potentially collapsible
soil is loaded initially at natural moisture content to 200kPa and then saturated under load
followed by one further load increment prior to unloading the sample.
Collapsible soil: soil with a high void ratio and low density that, when subjected to a
combination of additional loading and an increase in moisture content, experiences sudden or
rapid settlement.
Compressible soil: soil that, when subject to loading, undergoes gradual settlement as volume
changes occur.
Double oedometer test: Standard oedometer tests carried out on two specimens of soil from a
single undisturbed sample at natural moisture content and soaked conditions respectively.
Expansive soil (heaving soil): fine grained soil the clay mineralogy is such that it changes
volume to varying degrees in response to changes in moisture content, i.e. the soil increased
on volume (heaves or swells) upon wetting and decreases in volume (shrinks) upon drying out.
Modified oedometer test: Standard oedometer test in which a sample of expansive soil is
loaded initially at natural moisture content to a predetermined pressure and then saturated
under load followed by completion of the normal loading cycle.
Oedometer test: Laboratory test for investigating the one-dimensional consolidation of soils.
Problem soils: soils are volumetrically unstable or prone to subsidence or erosion including
collapsible soils, compressible soils, heaving soils, dispersive soils, soft clays and dolomite land.
Soil classification tests: Determination of the particle size distribution of soils by means of
sieve analysis and hydrometer testing combined with the determination of Atterberg limits.
2.4 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

2.4.1 The following additional references are recommended for guidance but do not form part of this
specification unless specifically referenced:
a) SAICE (2010). Site Investigation Code of Practice. Geotechnical Division, SAICE.
b) NHBRC: A guide to the Home Building Manual, National Home Builders Registration
Council, Johannesburg.
3. GEOTECHNICAL CATEGORY OF DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The requirements for geotechnical investigations, design of geotechnical works, supervision of
construction and monitoring shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in Section
A.3 of SANS 10160-5 for the appropriate category of development.
3.2 Unless otherwise stated in the Project Specification, the following geotechnical categories shall
apply:
a) Geotechnical Category 1: Detached or attached homes not exceeding three stories on site
class designations R, H, H1, C, C1, S and S1 as defined in SANS 10400-H.
b) Geotechnical Category 2: All township investigations and attached or detached homes not
exceeding three stories on any site class designation with the exception site class
designation P (SANS 10400-H) or dolomite area designations D3 and D4 in accordance with
SANS 1936-1.
c) Geotechnical Category 3: Developments exceeding ten stories high or developments
situated on site class designation P (SANS 10400-H) or dolomite area designations D3 and
D4 (SANS 1936-1).
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR TOWNSHIP

DEVELOPMENT
4.1 General
4.1.1 Geotechnical investigations for township developments shall be carried out in accordance with
the requirements of SANS 634.
4.1.2 On dolomite land, additional investigations shall be carried out in accordance with SANS 1936-
2.
4.1.3 The nature and extent of any geotechnical constraints (see SANS 634, Table 1) shall be
quantified during the township investigation such that:
a) the investigation required for individual housing units for the purposes of NHBRC site
classification is limited to confirmation of the geotechnical conditions over the upper 2m
of the soil profile; and
b) the quantitative information in the form of laboratory or field test results provided by the
township investigation, together with information from the investigation of the soil
conditions over the upper 2m on the site of the individual housing unit, is sufficient for the
design of the foundations for the unit.
4.2 Additional Requirements

In addition to the above, the following requirements shall apply:
4.2.1 The depth of investigation shall be such that the ground properties below the depth of
investigation will have no influence of the performance of the foundations. In particular, on
sites underlain by expansive clays, the full thickness of the expansive layer shall be investigated
at sufficient locations to define the extent of the expansive material in both depth and area.
The base of the expansive layer shall be taken as the bottom of the clay layer or the depth to
the permanent water table.
4.2.2 The volume change potential of heaving and collapsible shall be determined using tests that
directly measure the volume change of the soil on wetting such as the collapse potential test,
modified oedometer test or the double oedometer test. These tests shall be supplemented by
soil classification tests.
4.2.3 On sloping ground where there is potential for slope instability, the depth of investigation shall
be such that any potential zones along which shear fail may occur in the soil or rock profile are
identified and mapped.
5. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOUSING UNITS
5.1 In townships investigated in accordance with SANS 634

The following requirements apply in areas investigated in accordance with SANS 634 including
the requirements of 4.1:
5.1.1 The competent person responsible for the classification of soil conditions on the site of
individual housing units shall:
a) obtain a copy of the township geotechnical investigation report and asses the adequacy of
its contents and applicability to the development site,
b) investigate by means of one or more test pits the soil conditions over the upper 2 m of the
soil profile, or until stable material is reached,
c) ensure that the profile observed in the test pits accords with the findings of the township
investigation report,
d) take such samples and carry out such testing as may be required from the upper 2m of the
profile to determine the founding characteristics of the near-surface soil profile, and
e) classify the site the soil conditions on the site in accordance with the findings of the test
pits and the information from the township development report.
5.1.2 In the case of Geotechnical Category 3 developments (see 3.2) or in cases where the profile
observed in the test pits does not accord with the findings of the township geotechnical
investigation report, further investigations shall be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of 4.1.3 and 4.2.
5.2 In townships not previously investigated

5.2.1 In the case of areas not previously investigated in accordance with SANS 634 including the
requirements of 4.1, further investigations shall be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of 4.1.3 and 4.2.
5.3 Infill development and rezoning or subdivision of existing stands

5.3.1 In the case of infill development and rezoning or subdivision of existing stands, the competent
person responsible for the classification of soil conditions on the site of individual housing
units shall comply with the procedures set out in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2.
6. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENT PERSONS
6.1 Competent persons shall conform to the following requirements:

a) the requirements of 3.6 of SANS 634 in the case of township geotechnical investigations,
b) the requirements of the NHBRC home building manual in the case of individual housing
units, and
c) the requirements of 3.2 of SANS 1936-2 for infrastructure development on dolomite land.
6.2 For Geotechnical Category 3 developments (see 3.2), the appointed competent person shall be:
a) registered as a Professional Engineer or a Professional Engineering Technologist with the
Engineering Council of South Africa, or
b) registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with the South African Council for Natural
Scientific Professions, and
c) have suitable experience in geotechnical site investigations.
PART 2:
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
for
A: HOUSING AND TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application of the Standardised Specification given in Part 1 requires additional project
specific information to be provided (see 2.2.1 of Part 1).
1.2 The purpose of Part 2 is to provide guidance to the person responsible for compiling the tender
of contract documentation on essential data to be provided in the Project Specification. It also
provides guidance on additional clauses which may be required for specific projects.
2. ESSENTIAL DATA
2.1 Site data

2.1.1 Township investigations
The following essential site data should be provided for township geotechnical investigations:
a) Registered property name, e.g. farm number, portion number and district.
b) Location, extent and property boundaries including details of any servitudes.
c) Contour plans of the site, unless site survey is to form part of the investigation. This data
should preferably be provided in AutoCad or similar electronic format.
d) Existing development and services.
e) Details of previous land use.
f) Restricted areas of the site such as environmentally sensitive zones, heritage areas and
graveyards.
g) Any previous geotechnical investigations or knowledge of problem soil conditions.
h) Any specific requirements imposed by local (or other) authorities regarding the
investigation of the site.
i) Access restrictions.
2.1.2 Housing unit investigations
The following essential site data should be provided for the investigation of individual housing
units:
a) Registered property name, e.g. erf number, township and if applicable, street address.
b) Location, extent and property boundaries including details of any servitures.
c) Contour plans of the site, unless site survey is to form part of the investigation.
d) Details of existing development and services.
f) Any previous geotechnical investigations including township geotechnical investigation
report or knowledge of problem soil conditions.
g) Any specific requirements imposed by local (or other) authorities with regard to the
investigation of the stand.
2.2 Proposed development

2.2.1 The nature of the proposed development affects the Geotechnical Category of the site and land
use category required for the application of SANS 1936-1 or the NHBRC Home Building Manual.
It also determines any specific requirements associated with the proposed development such
as movement tolerance of foundations, foundation loading, etc.
2.2.2 The following essential site data should be provided on the proposed development:
a) For township geotechnical investigations:
 Proposed density of development in terms of units per hectare of average size of
individual stands.
 Intended land use, e.g. low-cost housing, mixed use development, lifestyle estate, etc.
 Nature of structures including attached / detached, number of stories, unconventional
construction materials, etc.
 Preliminary township layout plans (if available).
b) For township geotechnical investigations:
 Layout / architectural plans of proposed development.
 Any special requirements from the structural designer, e.g. settlement tolerances,
bearing pressures below large bases, etc.
Note: The NHBRC requirement is damage to the structure should be no more than Damage Category 1
(very slight). If a different damage category is required, this must be specified.
3. ADDITIONAL CLAUSES AND AMENDMENTS
3.1 Additional clauses

3.1.1 Where the standardised specification does not adequately define the investigation
requirements, additional clauses may be added. These clauses should preferably be numbered
in to follow the last sub-clause in each section of Part 1.
3.1.2 Additional clauses may include:
a) Responsibility for detection, location protection of existing services.
b) Responsibility for provision of services for investigation, e.g. water for drilling.
c) Specific requirements for rehabilitation of test positions.
d) Responsibility for notifications to the Department of Labour.
e) Employer’s safety specification in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Note: Commercial terms such as method or measurement and payment, limitations of liability,
indemnities, etc. are best included in the professional services agreement under which the professional
responsible for the investigation is appointed rather than in the project specification.
3.2 Amendments
3.2.1 Amendments to the standardised specification are best given in tabular form in which the
clause number and the proposed amendment are listed.
Appendix D2
Excavations and Lateral Support
Drafted by Mrs Nanine Fouché, Keshia Myburgh (candidate) and

Professor Peter Day
130
for
B: EXCAVATIONS AND LATERAL SUPPORT

This specification covers geotechnical investigations for excavations and lateral support. It
lists the minimum requirements for such investigations within the framework of existing
national and industry standards.
2. INTERPRETATIONS
2.1 Normative References

a) SANS 10160-5: Basis of structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
b) SABS 1200-D: Standardized specification for civil engineering construction, Part D:
Earthworks.
c) SAICE (1989) -Code of Practice: Lateral support in surface excavations. SAICE
Geotechnical Division, 1989.
Civil Engineering Purposes in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, January
1973.
November 1976.
2.2 Application
2.2.1 This specification is applicable to geotechnical investigations for excavations and lateral
support. Particular requirements for the application of this specification are given in Part 2:
Project Specification.
2.3 Definitions
definitions shall apply:
Atterberg Limits: Transition points between various states of soil consistency, namely the
Dolomite Residuum: Residual soils, including chert and dolomite gravel and boulders, derived
from the decomposition of dolomite.
DPSH: Dynamic probe super heavy.
Investigation Point: A point on the site where the soil and rock profile, and the properties of
the ground are determined to at least the depth of the rockhead including boreholes, auger
holes, static or dynamic soil probing or trial pits.
Permanent Excavation or Permanent Lateral Support: Excavations and lateral support
required to ensure stability and satisfactory service performance of the permanent structure
or excavation.
Temporary Excavation or Temporary Lateral Support: Excavations and lateral support
required during the construction phase of a project for a period not exceeding 2 years.
Unstable Ground: Ground that is not capable of supporting itself over an unsupported height
of 1,5m and dolomite residuum.
2.4 Additional References

a) SAICE (2010). Site investigation Code of Practice. Geotechnical Division, SAICE.
b) Byrne, G and Berry, A.D. 2008. A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern
Africa. 4th Ed. Johannesburg: Franki Africa.
3.1 The requirements for geotechnical investigations, design of geotechnical works, supervision of
construction and monitoring shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in Section
A.3 of SANS 10160-5 for the appropriate category of development.
3.2 Unless otherwise stated in the Project Specification, the following geotechnical categories shall
apply:
a) Geotechnical Category 1: Temporary excavations less than 2m deep in stable ground above
water table or which are battered to a stable angle. No lateral support required.
b) Geotechnical Category 2: Temporary or permanent excavations less than 10m deep in
ground above the water table, the sides of which are battered to a stable angle or require
lateral support.
c) Geotechnical Category 3: Temporary or permanent excavations deeper than 10m,

excavations in unstable ground or ground below the water table.
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR EXCAVATIONS AND

LATERAL SUPPORT
4.1 General
4.1.1 Geotechnical investigations for excavations and lateral support shall be carried out in
accordance with the requirements of SAICE (1989) and the requirements of this standardised
specification.
2.
4.1.3 Quantitative data for design of excavations and lateral support is required for all categories of
excavations except Geotechnical Category 1 excavations.
4.1.4 Classification of the excavatibility of material shall be in accordance with SABS 1200-D.
4.2 Extent of Investigation

investigation will have no influence on the design of the lateral support system.
4.2.2 In soft soils where overall instability of the sides of the excavation or heave of the excavation
floor could occur, the depth of investigation shall be sufficient to determine the properties of
the soils to the depth required for the assessment of these potential failure mechanisms. This
depth may be as much as one excavation width below the proposed excavation depth.
4.2.3 Irrespective of the nature of the ground, the depth of investigation shall not be less than the
proposed depth of the excavation including any sumps, foundation excavations, pile caps, lift
pits or other localised excavations.
4.2.4 During the detailed phase of the investigation, a minimum of one investigation point per 400m2
shall be achieved. At least half of these shall extend to the depth of investigation required by
4.2.1 to 4.2.3. Where significant changes in ground properties or in bedrock depth are
observed, the number of excavation points should be increased.
4.2.5 Where the lateral support system includes anchors or soil nails extending beyond the
perimeter of the excavation and where there is a possibility that the conditions outside the
excavation perimeter may differ from those within the excavation, additional investigation
shall be carried out in the anchored zone. This applies particularly to sites adjacent to
geological contacts, faults and dykes or other intrusions.
4.3 Methods of Investigation

4.3.1 The method of investigation at each investigation point shall be capable of determining the
nature of the ground profile, the properties of the ground whether by in situ measurements or
by retrieving of samples for laboratory testing, and the depth of the water table. Such methods
include rotary core boreholes, auger holes, trial pits and piezocone testing.
4.3.2 Methods of investigation such as DPSH tests that are not capable of determining the nature of
the ground profile shall not be regarded as investigation points unless it can be reliably shown
that the ground profile is uniform over the area of the site in question. In any event, the ration
of such tests to investigation points employing investigation methods in compliance with 4.3.1
shall not exceed one in two.
4.4 Essential Data

4.4.1 Except to the extent permitted by 4.3.2, the data at each investigation point shall include:
a) A complete description of the soil and rock profile in accordance with the references given
in 2.1.2.
b) Depth of the permanent and perched water tables, if any.
c) Results of in situ tests and details of any samples taken, if any.
4.4.2 With the exception of Geotechnical Category 1 excavations, the investigation shall provide the
following geotechnical parameters for each layer within the soil profile:
a) Grading (including determination of clay fraction) and Atterberg Limits.
b) Bulk density, specific gravity and moisture content.
c) Compressibility of soil.
d) Shear strength of soil in terms of effective strength parameters.
e) Undrained shear strength where appropriate
f) In the case of permanent lateral support, an assessment of the corrosivity of the ground.
In the case of Geotechnical Category 2 excavations, geotechnical parameters may be
determined from test results, either directly or through correlation, theory or empiricism,
and from other relevant data. For Geotechnical Category 3 excavations, geotechnical
parameters shall be determined from appropriate laboratory tests or from the results of in
situ tests.
5.1 The investigation shall be undertaken under the control of a Competent Person who:
a) is registered in terms of the Engineering Profession Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000), as either
a Professional Engineer or a Professional Engineering Technologist, and has a tertiary
qualification (degree or diploma) in geotechnical engineering, or
b) is registered in terms of the Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act No. 27 of 2003),
as a Professional Natural Scientist, and has a BSc (Hons) degree or higher qualification in
engineering geology, and
c) is generally recognized as having the necessary experience and training to undertake
rational assessments in the field of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology.
PART 2:
for
B: EXCAVATIONS AND LATERAL SUPPORT
2. ESSENTIAL DATA
2.1 Site data

2.1.1 Investigations for excavations and lateral support
The following essential site data should be provided for geotechnical investigations for
excavations and lateral support:
a) Registered property name, e.g. erf number and street address.
should preferably be provided in AutoCad or similar electronic format.
d) Existing development and services both on and around the site.
f) Any previous geotechnical investigations or knowledge of problem soil conditions.
g) Any specific requirements imposed by local (or other) authorities or neighbouring land
owners regarding the investigation of the site.
h) Access restrictions.

2.2.1 The following essential data should be provided on the proposed development:
a) Nature of the proposed works.
b) Structural and architectural requirements / plans.
c) Depth and extent of the proposed excavation.
d) Type of temporary and permanent support envisaged.
e) Permissible movements of adjacent structures / services.
f) Extent of monitoring requirements.

d) Responsibility for notifications to the Department of Labour.
e) Employer’s safety specification in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Note: Commercial terms such as method or measurement and payment, limitations of liability, indemnities,
etc. are best included in the professional services agreement under which the professional responsible for the
investigation is appointed rather than in the project specification.
3.2 Amendments
Appendix D3
Pile Foundations
Drafted by Keshia Myburgh (candidate) and Professor Peter Day
137
for
C: PILE FOUNDATIONS

This specification covers geotechnical investigations for pile foundations. It lists the minimum
requirements for such investigations within the framework of existing national and industry
standards.
2. INTERPRETATIONS
2.1 Normative References

a) SANS 10160-5: Basis of structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
Civil Engineering Purposes in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, January 1973.
November 1976.
2.1.3 On dolomite land, the latest edition of the following additional standards shall form part of the
contract document:
a) SANS 633: Soil profiling and rotary percussion borehole logging on dolomite land in
Southern Africa for engineering purposes.
b) SANS 1936-1: Development of dolomite land, Part 1: General principles and requirements.
c) SANS 1936-2: Development of dolomite land, Part 2: Geotechnical investigations and
determinations.
d) Additional References
a) SAICE (2010). Site Investigation Code of Practice. Geotechnical Division, SAICE.
b) EUROCODE 7: BS EN 1997-1:2004 Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General rules.
c) EUROCODE 7: BS EN 1997-2:2007 Geotechnical Design – Part 2: Ground Investigation and

Testing.
d) Franki Africa (2008). A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern Africa. 4th
Ed. December 2008. Franki Africa, Johannesburg.
2.2 Application
2.2.1 This specification is applicable to geotechnical investigations for piled foundations. Particular
requirements for the application of this specification are given in Part 2: Project Specification.
2.3 Definitions
references shall apply:
Atterberg Limits: Transition points between various states of soil consistency, namely the
CPT, CPTu: Static cone penetration test without and including pore water pressure
measurements respectively.
Investigation Point: A point on the site where the soil and rock profile, and the properties of
the ground are determined to at least the depth of the rockhead or the likely pile founding
depth.
SPT: Standard penetration test.
3.1 The requirements for geotechnical investigations, design of geotechnical works,

supervision of construction and monitoring shall be in accordance with the requirements
set out in Section A.3 of SANS 10160-5 for the appropriate category of development.
3.2 Unless otherwise stated in the Project Specification, the following geotechnical categories
shall apply:
a) Geotechnical Category 1: Vertically loaded piles in stable ground supporting relatively
simple structures where the adequacy of the bearing stratum can be assessed from the
description of the soil profile. No exceptional loading or settlement limitations and
negligible risk of pile failure or excessive settlement.
b) Geotechnical Category 2: Piles or pile groups supporting conventional structures where
the assessment of pile capacity and pile head displacements involves the application of
well-established design methods based on the results of routine in situ or laboratory
testing. No exceptional loading or difficult ground conditions.
c) Geotechnical Category 3: Piles, pile groups and piled rafts subject to high vertical or
horizontal loads or in difficult ground conditions requiring specialist geotechnical input.
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS PILE FOUNDATIONS
4.1 General
4.1.1 Geotechnical investigations for pile foundations shall be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of SAICE (2010) Site Investigation Code of Practice.
4.1.2 Quantitative data for the assessment of pile capacity and displacements is required for all
categories of piled foundations except Geotechnical Category 1 foundations.
2.
4.2 Extent of Investigation

investigation will have no influence of the performance of the piles.
4.2.2 Irrespective of the nature of the ground, the depth of investigation shall not be less than the
likely founding depth of the piles plus a minimum of six pile diameters.
4.2.3 Below buildings or other developments with closely spaced points of load application, a
minimum of one investigation point per 400m2 shall be achieved. At least half of these shall
extend to depth of investigation required by 4.2.1 or 4.2.2.
4.2.4 Below bridge foundations or other widely spaced points of load application, a minimum of two
investigation points per foundation shall be achieved. All investigation points shall extend to
depth of investigation required by 4.2.1 or 4.2.2. Additional investigation points may be
required depending on the extent of the foundation and the variability of the profile.
4.2.5 In instances where significant changes in ground properties or in bedrock depth is observed,
the number of investigation points should be extended/increased.
4.3 Methods of Investigation

4.3.1 The method of investigation shall be capable of investigating the ground conditions to the
depths required by 4.2.1 or 4.2.2. Typical methods of investigation include rotary core drilling,
auger hole drilling, often combined with in situ testing such a static and dynamic probing.
4.3.2 The method of investigation shall be capable of providing quantitative data required for the
design of the piles by means of in situ testing or retrieving samples for laboratory testing or
both.
4.3.3 For major projects in difficult or unfamiliar ground conditions, the installation and testing of
trial piles may be considered.
4.4 Essential Data

4.4.1 Data at each investigation point shall include:
a) A complete description of the soil and rock profile in accordance with the references given
in 2.1.2.
b) Depth of the permanent and perched water tables, if any.
c) Depth, thickness, extent and permeability of water-bearing strata in the ground.
d) The presence, classification and distribution of identified obstructions such as boulders,
well-cemented pedocretes, etc.
4.4.2 With the exception of Geotechnical Category 1 foundations, the investigation shall quantify the
soil parameters required for the design of the piled foundations as listed below.
a) For the assessment of pile capacity by calculations based on ground strength parameters:
Drained and/or undrained shear strength (as appropriate) of soil and the unconfined
compressive strength and rock mass classification of rock for all horizons contributing to
the capacity of the pile:
b) For the assessment of pile capacity based on in situ test results: Profiles of in situ test
results such as CPT or CPTu, SPT or pressure meter tests.
c) For the assessment of pile settlement or lateral movement: profiles of in situ tests or
stiffness parameters for the soil or rock mass determined by in situ or laboratory tests.
d) For the assessment of downdrag or uplift forces due to soil displacement around the pile
shaft, where applicable: stiffness and shear strength parameters of the unstable soil
horizons and any overlying horizons.
4.4.3 In the case of Geotechnical Category 2 foundations, geotechnical parameters may be
determined from test results, either directly or through correlation, theory or empiricism, and
from other relevant data. For Geotechnical Category 3 excavations, geotechnical parameters
shall be determined from appropriate laboratory tests or from the results of in situ tests.
5.1 Competent persons shall conform to the following requirements:

a) the requirements of 3.2 of SAICE (2010) Code of Practice in the case of pile foundations.
b) the requirements of 3.2 of SANS 1936-2 for development on dolomite land.
5.2 For Geotechnical Category 3 developments (see 3.2), the appointed competent person shall be:
a) registered as a Professional Engineer or a Professional Engineering Technologist with the
Engineering Council of South Africa, or
b) registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with the South African Council for Natural
Scientific Professions, and
c) have suitable experience in geotechnical site investigations.
PART 2:
for
C: PILE FOUNDATIONS
2. ESSENTIAL DATA
2.1 Site data

2.1.1 The following essential site data should be provided for geotechnical investigations done for
pile foundations:
a) Registered property name, e.g. erf number and street address.
should preferably be provided in AutoCAD or similar electronic format.
d) Accessibility and constraints on site.
e) Existing development and services.
f) Details of previous land use, where disturbance of the natural ground conditions may have
taken place.
g) Restricted areas of the site such as environmentally sensitive zones, heritage areas and
graveyards.
h) Any previous geotechnical investigations or knowledge of problem soil conditions.
i) Any specific requirements imposed by local (or other) authorities regarding the
investigation of the site.

2.2.1 The nature of the proposed development affects the Geotechnical Category of the site and land
use category required for the application of SANS 1936-1. It also determines any specific
requirements associated with the proposed development such as movement tolerance of
foundations, foundation loading, etc.
2.2.2 The following essential site data should be provided on the proposed development:
a) Nature of the proposed development, e.g. high-rise building, industrial structure, bridge,
etc. including layout / architectural plans of proposed development.
b) Location of columns or points of load application to the foundations.

c) Magnitude of loads on the foundations.
d) Permissible movements.

d) Accommodation of traffic, e.g. lane or road closures.
e) Responsibility for notifications to the Department of Labour.
f) Employer’s safety specification in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Note: Commercial terms such as method or measurement and payment, limitations of liability, indemnities, etc. are
best included in the professional services agreement under which the professional responsible for the investigation
is appointed rather than in the project specification.
3.2 Amendments

Myburgh Minimum 2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myburgh Minimum 2018 PDF

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

Myburgh Minimum 2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Minimum Site Investigation Requirements Needed to

Define Site Conditions Considering the Results of Ground

Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Supervisor: Professor P.W. Day

Copyright © 2018 University of Stellenbosch

Plagiaatverklaring / Plagiarism Declaration

3 Ek verstaan ook dat direkte vertalings plagiaat is.

Studentenommer / Student number Handtekening / Signature

K.S Myburgh 17 October 2017

Voorletters en van / Initials and surmane Datum / Date

This research comprehensively evaluates the investigation requirements specified in regulatory

In Suid-Afrika is daar verskeie nasionale standaarde, praktykskodes en wetgewing beskikbaar wat

Professor Peter Day,

5.2.1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 52

6.2.3 Gauteng Golf Estate – Structural damage to houses ............................................................................... 80

i. To provide an overview of the various components of a geotechnical investigation and an

ii. Demonstrate the consequences of inadequate investigations as a result of non-compliance of

iv. Produce an initial draft of a standardised specification for geotechnical investigations of

Research Methodology and Report Layout

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: The regulatory framework for geo-professionals in South Africa

Chapter 4: Specific requirements for various categories of development

Chapter 5: Case Histories

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

Chapter 2: Literature Review

- Karl von Terzaghi, 1936

As in Clayton, Matthews and Simons (1995:1):

Historical overview of geotechnical engineering

Geotechnical Development in South Africa

Recent (practical) Geotechnical Advances in South Africa

The Geotechnical Investigation

Figure 2.1: The four-stage-approach to geotechnical

• FIDIC (French acronym for International Federation of Consulting Engineers) 1999.

Geotechnical investigations generally involve the drilling of holes or formation of excavations. As

2.6.1 Non-intrusive Methods

2.6.1.2 Geophysical Methods

2.6.2 Intrusive Methods

2.6.2.2 Geotechnical Drilling

2.6.3 In-situ Test Methods (Field Testing)

Table 2.1: Most commonly used field tests.

Test Parameters Measured Advantages Disadvantages

High Moderate Low Not Applicable

2.6.4 Laboratory Test Methods

Parameters Laboratory Test

2.7.1 Preliminary Site Investigation (Phase I – Desk Study)

2.7.2 Detailed Site Investigation (Phase II – Intrusive)

2.7.3 Investigation during Construction

Table 2.3: Site investigation costs (Rowe, 1972).

% of capital % of earthworks and

Bridges 0,12 - 0,50 0,26 - 1,30

Figure 2.2: The impact of expenditure on cost overruns for UK highway

Chapter 3: The Regulatory Framework for Geo-Professionals

Legislative Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations

3.2.1 National Building Regulation and Building Standards Act

3.2.2 Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act

3.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Act

Codes and Standards

3.3.1 SAICE Code of Practice for Site Investigations

3.3.2 The Application of the National Building Regulations