Council archive · source document
RFI - Attachment D - Geotechnical Investigation Report · MCU25/0053
URBIS AttachmentD_ Geotechnical Investigation Report
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 46 pages
Page 2
Geotechnical Investigation Report
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Proposed Residential Development
7 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads
28 February 2025
www.ptgconsulting.com.au
1
Page 3
REPORT DETAILS
Unique Document Identification
Document Title Geotechnical Investigation Report - Proposed Residential Development
Project Number PTG/01608
Document ID PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Client SCG Consulting Engineers
Client Contact Tom Harrington
PTG Office Details
Location Sunshine Coast
Address U2/9-13 Matheson Street, Baringa, QLD, 4551
Telephone 1300 911 304
Email [email protected]
Web www.ptgconsulting.com.au
Revision Details
Revision No. Prepared By Details Reviewed By Date
RevA JC Draft for Review AP/JT 27/02/2025
Rev0 PW Issue of Report JT 28/02/2025
Document Approval
Written By: Reviewed By:
Jayden Culwick Justin Taing
Graduate Geotechnical Engineer Associate Geotechnical Engineer (RPEQ #30087)
p | (07) 5647 0457 p | (07) 5647 0411
e | [email protected] e | [email protected]
Page 4
1 REPORT SCOPE 4
2 SITE DESCRIPTION 4
3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5
4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW 6
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION 6
CONTENTS
6 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL 6
7 LABORATORY TESTING AND RESULTS 7
8 ACID SULFATE SOILS COMMENTS 10
9 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS 12
SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SITE MOVEMENTS 12
FOUNDATIONS 12
9.2.1 HIGH LEVEL FOUNDATIONS 12
9.2.2 PILED FOUNDATIONS 12
RETAINING WALL PARAMETERS 13
10 LIMITATIONS 14
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Materials Encountered in Boreholes ................................................................................................ 7
Table 2: Field pH (pHF) and Field pH Peroxide (pHFOX) Screening Results ....................................................................... 7
Table 3: Summary of Chromium Reducible Sulphur (CRS) test results ......................................................................... 10
Table 4: Summary of possible PASS, based on initial pHF and pHFOX screening. .......................................................... 11
Table 5: Action Criteria Thresholds for Soil-Lime Treatment ............................................................................................ 11
Table 6: Allowable Bearing Pressures for High Level Footings ........................................................................................ 12
Table 7: Ultimate Geotechnical Design Parameters for Bored or Driven Piles ........................................................... 13
Table 8: Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................... 13
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Test Location Plan
Appendix 2 Borehole Logs
Appendix 3 Laboratory Testing
3
Page 5
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
1 REPORT SCOPE
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation carried out by PTG Consulting (PTG) for the
proposed residential development to be located at 7 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads. The investigation was
commissioned by Tom Harrington on behalf of SCG Consulting Engineers.
The geotechnical investigation included four (4) auger boreholes with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing
and laboratory testing of selected samples undertaken in general accordance with PTG’s proposal PTGT/01451/Rev0,
‘AS1726:2017-Geotechnical Site Investigations’ and ‘AS1289-Methods of Testing for Engineering Purposes’.
This report includes a description of the fieldwork procedures, the results of the fieldwork and laboratory testing, and
reporting on the following:
» Site description including detailed bored logs, site images and marked site plan with approximate test locations;
» Review of regional geology;
» Subsurface conditions, including groundwater (if encountered);
» Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS): Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS) and/or Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) (if
encountered);
» Site classification and predicted ground surface movement (ys) in accordance with AS 2870-2011;
» Allowable bearing pressures for high level footings and estimated settlements;
» Suitable pile types, ultimate base bearing, skin frictions and estimated settlement (if required);
» Retaining wall design parameters;
» Any other geotechnical issues identified that would need management (if any).
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 7 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads and is identified as Lots 0, 00000 and 1 on BUP10936. The site
has an area of 1,120 m2 and is bordered by Noosa Parade to the north, units and park land to the west, park land to the
east and a canal to the south. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the site and surrounds with the approximate site
boundary shown in red.
At the time of the investigation, there was a small block of units running the length of the property with a driveway
running along the west side and a swimming pool on the east boundary.
4
Page 6
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Figure 1: Aerial view of the site from QLD Globe (site extents shown in red).
3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Reference to available geology mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Anthropocene (Qhh) aged gravel, sand
and silts; or man-made deposits.
Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the site (in red) with the Regional Geology overlay , while Figure 3 shows the Acid
Sulfate Soils Likelihood overlay in the vicinity of the site. It is assumed that in Figure 2, the green geology shading does
not line up with the land/water boundary due to a mapping error, and that the entire site would be Anthropocene
material.
Figure 2: Regional geology, from QLD Globe.
Figure 3: Regional Acid Sulphate Likelihood map, from the QGD Database.
5
Page 7
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
A brief review of historical imagery indicates the site was built up in 1972 to 1973 on natural islands. Figures 4 and 5
show the vicinity before and after construction of the islands.
Figure 4: Noosa, May 1972 (from QImagery). Figure 4: Noosa, September 1973 (from QImagery).
4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
Based on the provided plans, it is understood that the development will comprise demolition of the existing dwelling,
then construction of a new dwelling consisting of a single basement level below ground with an area of 471 m2 and
two residential levels above ground including a swimming pool. It is assumed the works will comprise of minor
earthworks, basement excavation and construction of suitable foundations to a depth of up to 3.5 m below ground
level.
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The fieldwork scope included four boreholes drilled to 4.5 m Below Ground Level (mBGL) in depth using a 4WD utility
mounted drilling rig fitted with 100 millimetre (mm) diameter solid flight augers. The drilling was undertaken by an
experienced driller who logged the bores and collected samples.
Disturbed samples of representative soil types were collected from the boreholes for soil description and classification
purposes and subsequent laboratory testing. The visual-tactile description and classification methods undertaken on
disturbed samples, and shown on the attached logs, are described in accordance with AS1726:2017.
DCP testing was undertaken adjacent to the boreholes from the surface and then recommenced at selected depths
within the/select boreholes with the number of blows to achieve 100 mm depth penetration recorded in accordance
with AS1289.6.3.2.
Soil consistency and relative density described on the borehole logs were inferred from the DCP results, tactile
assessment and published correlations.
The approximate borehole locations and numbers are shown on the test location plan attached in Drawing 1. The
borehole log report sheets are attached in Appendix 2.
6 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
Table 1 summarises the soils encountered within the boreholes. In summary the soil profile encountered within the
boreholes comprised a silty sand/sand to the termination depth of 4.5 m.
The sand has been logged as ‘fill’ as no discernible natural boundary was observed during drilling. However, as noted
above, the material has been placed for over 50 years and can be treated as natural sand for engineering purposes.
6
Page 8
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Table 1: Summary of Materials Encountered in Boreholes
Borehole No. Non-soil - Pavers (m) Fill - Silty Sand (m)
BH1 - 0.0 – 4.5
BH2 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 – 4.5
BH3 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 – 4.5
BH4 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 - 4.5
DCP testing undertaken indicated that sands generally have a medium dense to dense relative density, with some
loose material encountered near the surface.
Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of the boreholes. It should be noted that groundwater levels can
be perched and fluctuate seasonally and during and after heavy rainfall events. Given this natural variability, it is
prudent to assume that water levels can fluctuate. Furthermore, the site is in close proximity to the tidal Noosa River
and the materials encountered are of a permeable nature, which increases the likelihood of groundwater levels
fluctuating.
7 LABORATORY TESTING AND RESULTS
Laboratory testing was undertaken by a Nationally Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory
on soil samples taken at every 0.25 m depth in accordance with the ‘National Acid Sulfate Soils Guidance: National acid
sulfate soils sampling and identification methods manual’ (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018). This
document is herein referred to as the ‘National Acid Sulfate Soil Guidelines’.
Initial laboratory testing included field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests in order to arrive at a ‘positive field
sulphide identification’ and to inform the selection of samples for further testing. A summary of the results is presented
below in Table 2. The samples highlighted in Table 2 were selected for further testing. Laboratory reports of test
results are attached in Appendix 3.
Table 2: Field pH (pHF) and Field pH Peroxide (pHFOX) Screening Results
pHF pHFOX Reactivity pH Difference
Borehole Sample Depth Material
(pH units) (pH units) Number (pH units)
0.25 SAND 4.9 2.6 2 2.3
0.50 SAND 4.9 2.0 3 2.9
0.75 SAND 5.0 2.8 2 2.2
1.00 SAND 4.9 2.4 2 2.5
1.25 SAND 5.2 2.7 2 2.5
1.50 SAND 5.8 2.4 2 3.4
1.75 SAND 6.2 2.7 2 3.5
2.00 SAND 6.0 2.7 2 3.3
2.25 SAND 6.1 2.6 2 3.5
BH1
2.50 SAND 5.5 2.3 2 3.2
2.75 SAND 5.8 1.9 3 3.9
3.00 SAND 5.8 2.0 2 3.8
3.25 SAND 6.0 1.5 2 4.5
3.50 SAND 6.4 2.2 4 4.2
3.75 SAND 5.9 2.2 4 3.7
4.00 SAND 5.8 1.7 2 4.1
4.25 SAND 5.7 1.7 2 4.0
4.50 SAND 6.1 2.2 4 3.9
0.25 SAND 6.3 3.9 2 2.4
0.50 SAND 6.4 3.8 2 2.6
BH2
0.75 SAND 5.9 3.8 2 2.1
1.00 SAND 6.1 3.5 2 2.6
7
Page 9
1.25 SAND 6.5 3.6 2 2.9 1.50 SAND 63 2.8 2 3.5 1.75 SAND 6.6 3.2 2 3.4 2.00 SAND 63 3.2 2 3.1 2.25 SAND 6.5 3.0 2 3.5 2.50 SAND 4.8 1.6 3 3.2 2.75 SAND 47 1.6 3 3.1 3.00 SAND 5.4 1.9 3 3.5 3.25 SAND 5.2 2.5 2 2.7 3.50 SAND 5.5 3.2 4 2.3 3.75 SAND 5.3 2.3 4 3.0 4.00 SAND 5.4 17 2 3.7 4.25 SAND 5.4 17 2 3.7 4.50 SAND 5.8 2.4 4 3.4 0.25 SAND 6.2 3.3 2 2.9 0.50 SAND 6.6 3.8 2 2.8 0.75 SAND 6.4 3.6 2 2.8 1.00 SAND 6.7 3.6 2 3.1 1.25 SAND 63 3.9 2 2.4 1.50 SAND 6.5 3.3 3 3.2 1.75 SAND 6.6 3.6 2 3.0 2.00 SAND 6.6 3.6 2 3.0 2.25 SAND 6.8 3.4 2 3.4 BAS 2.5 SAND 6.5 3.4 2 3.1 2.75 SAND 6.5 3.3 2 3.2 3.00 SAND 6.6 3.3 2 3.3 3.25 SAND 6.5 3.1 2 3.4 3.50 SAND 6.1 2.5 2 3.6 3.75 SAND 63 2.5 3 3.8 4.00 SAND 6.5 2.1 4 44 4.25 SAND 63 2.3 4 4.0 4.50 SAND 6.4 24 4 4.0 0.25 SAND 6.8 4.2 2 2.6 0.50 SAND 6.8 4.2 2 2.6 0.75 SAND 6.6 3.9 2 2.7 1.00 SAND 7.0 3.5 2 3.5 1.25 SAND 6.6 2.9 2 3.7 1.50 SAND 6.8 3.2 2 3.6 1.75 SAND 6.7 4] 2 2.6 2.00 SAND 6.7 3.5 2 3.2 pHa 2.25 SAND 6.6 3.4 2 3.2 2.50 SAND 65 3.7 2 2.8 2.75 SAND 8.6 5.5 2 3.1 3.00 SAND 7.7 2.8 3 49 3.25 SAND 8.6 3.0 2 5.6 3.50 SAND 8.5 3.6 2 49 3.75 SAND 8.9 5.7 2 3.2 4.00 SAND 8.6" 6.0 2 2.6 4.25 SAND 8.8 5.8 2 3.0 4.50 SAND 8.5 3.4 2 5.1 Notes: * Updated result (initial result of 4.0 was determined to be an error)
Page 10
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
From the guidelines:
• A measured pHF less than 4 indicates that oxidation of sulfides has probably occurred in the past, indicating
that AASS could be present; and
• A strong reaction with peroxide, a pHFOX at least one unit below the measured pHF, and a pHFOX of less than
3 strongly indicates PASS.
Figures 4 to 6 below present the Table 2 results graphically and indicate which results indicate the presence of either
Actual or possible Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (within the pink zones). The samples that were selected for follow up
testing are circled in red.
Field pH measurements
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Depth (m)
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Field pH (pH units)
Figure 4: Field pH test results. The pink zone (pH < 4) indicates the possible presence of AASS.
pH(fox) measurements
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Depth (m)
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pH(fox) (pH units)
Figure 5: Field pH after peroxide (pHFOX) test results. The pink zone (pH < 3) indicates the possible presence of PASS.
9
Page 11
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Difference in pH following oxidation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Depth (m)
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pH difference (pH units)
Figure 6: Change in pH following oxidisation. The pink area indicates a change in pH of greater than 1.0 pH units.
After receiving the results of the above screening testing, one quarter of the samples were selected for follow up
Chromium Reducible Sulphur (CRS) suite testing. Samples were selected based on screening results that indicated a
large pH difference, a higher reactivity number and/or lower pHFOX results, whilst ensuring a representative spread of
sample depths and boreholes. A summary of the CRS testing is presented in Table 3 below. The detailed laboratory
results are attached in Appendix 3.
Table 3: Summary of Chromium Reducible Sulphur (CRS) test results
Acid
Actual Potential
Sample Neutralising Net Acidity
Borehole ID Material Acidity Acidity
Depth (m) Capacity (mol+/ t)
(mol+/ t) (mol+/ t)
(mol+/t)
0.5 SAND 13 13 0 26
1.75 SAND 2 11 0 13
BH1 2.75 SAND 14 41 0 55
3.25 SAND 8 61 0 69
4.0 SAND 8 77 0 85
1.5 SAND <2 11 0 11
2.25 SAND <2 11 0 11
BH2 2.5 SAND 74 16 0 90
3.0 SAND 4 11 0 16
4.25 SAND 8 51 0 58
2.25 SAND <2 14 0 14
3.75 SAND 4 12 0 16
BH3
4.0 SAND 6 121 0 128
4.5 SAND 4 58 0 63
1.25 SAND 2 15 0 17
3.25 SAND <2 41 <10 37
BH4
3.5 SAND <2 42 121 <10
4.5 SAND <2 40 111 <10
Note: The highlighted Net Acidity values have exceeded the relevant action criteria as outlined in the National Acid Sulfate Soil Guidelines, assuming less
than 1,000 tonnes of soil are disturbed below RL 5m AHD.
8 ACID SULFATE SOILS COMMENTS
AASS are typically indicated by pHF results below 4.0. None of the samples tested exceeded this criterion. The lowest
pHF result was 4.7 as recorded in the 2.75 m sample from borehole BH2.
Possible PASS are typically indicated by pHF results above 4.0 with a pHFOX result below 3.0 after a reaction to added
peroxide. The following samples tested met this criterion:
10
Page 12
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
» BH1 – 0.25 m to 4.50 m;
» BH2 - 1.50 m, 2.50 m to 3.25 m and 3.75 m to 4.50 m;
» BH3 – 3.50 m to 4.50 m; and
» BH4 – 1.25 m and 3.00 m.
These results are presented in Table 4 to show the distribution of where samples were identified at depth relative to
each borehole. As borehole BH1 was the closest to the river, it is not unexpected that samples from that borehole had
the most number of positive results.
Table 4: Summary of possible PASS, based on initial pHF and pHFOX screening.
Sample Depth (m) BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4
0.25 Possible PASS - - -
0.50 Possible PASS - - -
0.75 Possible PASS - - -
1.00 Possible PASS - - -
1.25 Possible PASS - - Possible PASS
1.50 Possible PASS Possible PASS - -
1.75 Possible PASS - - -
2.00 Possible PASS - - -
2.25 Possible PASS - - -
2.50 Possible PASS Possible PASS - -
2.75 Possible PASS Possible PASS - -
3.00 Possible PASS Possible PASS - Possible PASS
3.25 Possible PASS Possible PASS - -
3.50 Possible PASS - Possible PASS -
3.75 Possible PASS Possible PASS Possible PASS -
4.00 Possible PASS Possible PASS Possible PASS -
4.25 Possible PASS Possible PASS Possible PASS -
4.50 Possible PASS Possible PASS Possible PASS -
On the basis that PASS had been identified, CRS testing was carried out on a selection of samples to confirm the
presence and severity of PASS.
The texture of the soil sediment influences soil behaviour and therefore treatment required if excavated. The %S and
TAA action criteria thresholds for different soil textures are shown in Table 5. Based on the provided information, it
has been assumed that more than 1,000 tonnes of soils will be disturbed below RL 5 mAHD. The following table is
referenced from the ‘Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil Management Guidelines V5.1’.
Table 5: Action Criteria Thresholds for Soil-Lime Treatment
1 – 1000 tonnes disturbed > 1000 tonnes disturbed
Texture Equivalent Equivalent
Texture Range
Category Equivalent Acidity – Equivalent Acidity –
Sulfur - %S TAA (mole Sulfur - %S TAA (mole
H+/tonnes) H+/tonnes)
Sands to loamy
Coarse 0.03 18
sand and peats
Clayey sands to
Medium 0.06 36
light clays 0.03 18
Light, medium
Fine to heavy clays 0.10 62
and silty clays
As more than 1000 tonnes of material will be disturbed, the applicable action criterion is 18 mol H+/t.
The action criterion was breached in half of the soil samples tested, nine in total. At least one sample from each
borehole exceeded the criteria, with borehole BH1 again returning the most number of positive results. The lowest Net
11
Page 13
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Acidity/Equivalent Acidity value that exceeded the criteria was 26 mol H+/t (near the top of BH1), and the highest
was 128 mol H+/t (near the base of BH3).
The pHfield, pHFOX and confirmatory CRS results indicate the presence of Acid Sulfate Soils (Possible Acid Sulfate
Soils) at the site within soils up to 4.5 mBGL (maximum investigation depth). Therefore, based on the test results, an
Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) will be required if this project in to proceed.
9 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS
The geotechnical comments in this report are based on factual information collected during the fieldwork, best
practice, local experience and published literature however are fundamentally opinion.
In summary, the ground conditions that are likely to be encountered at the site can be characterised as comprising a
surficial layer of topsoil, then silty sand/sand. Localised uncontrolled fill zones could also be encountered.
SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SITE MOVEMENTS
In accordance with AS2870, the site is classified as class ‘A’ due to the ground conditions being sand with little or no
ground movement from moisture changes to be expected.
FOUNDATIONS
Based on an interpretation of the typical structural loads anticipated, and subsurface conditions encountered during
the investigation, both high level and piled foundations could be considered suitable for the development.
Based on the information available at the time of writing this report, general design parameters and recommendations
have been provided in the subsections below which can be used for design of the foundation system of the structure.
The design of the structure must consider the structural loads against serviceability.
All footing excavations should be inspected by PTG to confirm that bearing pressures have been achieved, and
footings are clean and free from loose and/or water softened materials.
9.2.1 HIGH LEVEL FOUNDATIONS
Preliminary design of high-level pad footings up to 3 m wide or strip footings with a minimum 0.5m depth can be
designed using the allowable bearing pressures in Table 2. Elastic settlements of properly designed and constructed
high level footings are usually in the order of 10 mm for 0.5 m wide strip footings to 25 mm for large square pad
footings up to 3 m wide.
Table 6: Allowable Bearing Pressures for High Level Footings
Material Type Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa)
Loose sand/silty sand Not Recommended
Medium dense sand/silty sand 100
Dense sand/silty sand 150
Note that in sands, bearing capacity increases with depth. If foundation depths for the basement are provided, then
updated parameters can be provided.
9.2.2 PILED FOUNDATIONS
Bored or driven piles can be designed using the ultimate skin friction and base bearing capacities in Table 7 below.
12
Page 14
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
Table 7: Ultimate Geotechnical Design Parameters for Bored or Driven Piles
Material Type Ultimate Skin Friction (kPa) Ultimate Base Bearing (kPa)
Loose sand/silty sand Not Recommended Not Recommended
Medium dense sand/silty sand 2 500
Dense sand/silty sand 4 1000
Notes: Assuming pile is founded to a minimum depth of 1.5 m and top 1 m of pile is ignored for skin friction.
As with the high-level foundations, bearing capacity in sands increases with depth. If bearing capacities at deeper
depths are required, they can be provided.
The above parameters are only suitable where the excavation of piled foundations are supervised and at a minimum
inspected by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer to confirm the founding conditions and materials encountered
in the side walls.
The design of piled foundations should be undertaken in accordance with:
» AS 2159-2009: Piling - Design and installation;
» Any other relevant design standards (Australian or international); and
» Engineering Principles.
The piled foundation design should also consider:
» Piles should be founded a minimum of two pile diameters into the nominated strata and have a minimum pile
length of four times the pile diameter;
» The upper 1 m of pile length should be ignored due to pile load development and shrink swell effects; and
» Settlement of properly designed and constructed footings should be less than 1% to 2% of the pile diameter.
To calculate the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g), the ultimate geotechnical strength should be multiplied by a
suitable geotechnical strength reduction factor (фg) as per Section 4 of AS 2159–2009. The geotechnical strength
reduction factor (фg) is based on:
» фgb = The basic geotechnical strength reduction factor, calculated using a risk assessment procedure;
» фtf = Intrinsic testing factor, based on the type of pile testing adopted; and
» K = The testing benefit factor, based on a percentage of the piles that are tested.
Typically, where no pile testing is undertaken and the piles have a low redundancy, the assessed risk rating would be
high and a фg value of 0.45 would apply. It should be noted this assessment has been undertaken by PTG to assist
with the design of the foundations, however as assessment of each risk rating and factors must be undertaken by the
designer of the piles for the final design.
Specialist piling contractors should be consulted when selecting and installing piles.
RETAINING WALL PARAMETERS
It is understood that retaining walls will be required for the development. Retaining wall type and height are unknown
at the time of writing this report.
Any retaining structures at the site should be designed in accordance with AS4678-2002 ‘Earth Retaining Structures’.
Retaining wall design should consider the below:
» The distance from the crest and magnitude of any surcharge loads (ie buildings, roads);
» Whether the selected wall type is suitable for the proposed loading conditions;
» Wall geometry and the presence of any slopes at the crest or toe of the wall; and
» Type of backfill to be used behind the wall, and whether compaction will exert additional forces onto the wall.
Table 8: Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Design
Bulk Unit Weight Drained Cohesion Effective Friction Angle
Material Type
(kN/m ) 3
(c’ kPa) (φ’ °)
Loose sand/silty sand 17 0 28
Medium dense sand/silty
18 0 30
sand
Dense sand/silty sand 19 0 32
Very dense sand/silty sand 20 0 35
13
Page 15
PTG/01608 – 0001 – Rev0
10 LIMITATIONS
PTG Consulting has prepared this report (or services) for this project in accordance with PTG's proposal and
acceptance received from the Client. These limitations apply whether the report was created under PTG’s own terms
and conditions or otherwise.
This report is provided for the exclusive use of the SCG Consulting Engineers for the Geotechnical scope of works at
7 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads. The report should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the
same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as
stated above, and without the express written consent of PTG, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse
to PTG for any loss or damage. In preparing this report, PTG has necessarily relied upon information provided by the
client and/or their agents.
PTG's advice is based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling supplemented by
knowledge of local geology and experience. The accuracy of the advice provided by PTG in this report may be affected
by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing
locations. For this reason our reports include an interpretation of conditions between the test points. There are
unknowns or variations in ground conditions between test locations that cannot be inferred or predicted. Such
variations may occur after PTG's field testing has been completed. The precision and reliability of interpretive
assessment between discrete points is dependent on the uniformity of the subsurface strata, as well as the frequency,
detail, and method of sampling or testing.
Geotechnical information represents an opinion and is based extensively on judgment of both data and interpretive
assessments or observation. This report and its associated documentation are provided explicitly based on PTG’s
opinion of the site at the time of inspection, and cannot be extended beyond this. Any recommendations or design
suggestions will need to be verified on site during project implementation or construction. Inspection and verification
on site may be conducted by a suitably qualified geotechnical consultant or engineer, and where subsurface conditions
or interpretations differ from those provided in this document or otherwise anticipated, PTG must be notified and be
provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations
The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, and is based on the information obtained from field and
laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. The
information and interpretation may not be relevant if the development proposal is changed. If this happens then PTG
Engineering will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work.
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, and the discussion and
recommendations or suggestions relating to the geotechnical aspects of the scope of works. However, PTG
Engineering cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for:
» Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
» Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities.
» The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.
The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components, as required by Health and Safety Legislation
and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction
and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such
assessment being dependent upon factors relating to the likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to
property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role
respectively of PTG.
This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached documents and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual pages or sections. PTG cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by
others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome, or conclusion stated in this
report.
14
Page 16
Appendix 1 Test Location Plan
Page 17
Site locality
BH4
BH3
Legend
Standard Borehole
Approximate site location
BH2
BH1
Client: SCG Consulting Engineers
Site: 7 Noosa Parade
Noosa Heads, QLD
Title: Test Location Plan
Date: Drawn: Checked:
20/02/2025 PW ZK
Project: Drawing No: Revision
PTG/01608
1 0
Site image from QLD Globe. Map image from QImagery. © State of Queensland (Department of Resources).
Page 18
Appendix 2 Borehole Log Reports
Page 19
BOREHOLE BH1
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: Seymore Leisure Pty - C/O SCG DATE: 21/01/2025 - 24/01/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 508720 m
LOCATION: 7 Noosa Pde, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7081290 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/01608 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: Mapstone Geo Services RIG: 4WD GT-10 LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: LG
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 FILL - SM Silty SAND, dark brown, fine to medium grained, loose, moist 1
Loose
0.10 ~ yellow grey, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse grained 1
0.25 pHf & pHfox 3
Medium Dense 4
1.5 0.5 pHf & pHfox, and 8
0.5
0.50 ~ dense CRS 10
Dense
9
0.70 ~ medium dense 0.75 pHf & pHfox 7
8
1.0 1.0 8
1 pHf & pHfox
7
6
1.25 pHf & pHfox 6
5
Medium Dense
0.5 1.5 6
1.5 pHf & pHfox
1.50 ~ dark grey 5
5
1.75
pHf & pHfox, and 4
CRS
6
DRILLMETHOD_AUGER_100
0.0 2.0 6
2 pHf & pHfox
6
2.10 ~ dense 9
2.25 pHf & pHfox 10
9
-0.5 2.5 Dense 8
2.5 pHf & pHfox
8
10
2.75
pHf & pHfox, and 10
CRS
2.80 ~ medium dense 7
-1.0 3.0 6
3 pHf & pHfox
6
6
Medium Dense pHf & pHfox, and
3.25 6
CRS
7
-1.5 3.5 7
3.5 pHf & pHfox
7
3.60 ~ dense 8
3.75 pHf & pHfox 10
11
Dense
-2.0 4.0 pHf & pHfox, and 10
4
CRS 10
10
4.25 pHf & pHfox
-2.5 4.5
4.5 pHf & pHfox
Bore terminated at 4.50m.
Target depth achieved.
26/2/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG01608 BH LOGS.GPJ
-3.0 5.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m). Approximate elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 20
BOREHOLE BH2
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: Seymore Leisure Pty - C/O SCG DATE: 21/01/2025 - 24/01/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 508715 m
LOCATION: 7 Noosa Pde, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7081305 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/01608 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: Mapstone Geo Services RIG: 4WD GT-10 LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: LG
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 NON-SOIL - Pavers (100 mm)
0.10 FILL - SM Silty SAND, yellow grey, fine to coarse grained, loose, moist 1
Loose 0.25 pHf & pHfox 1
3
0.40 ~ medium dense 4
1.5 0.5
Medium Dense 0.5 pHf & pHfox
8
0.60 ~ dense 11
Dense
0.75 pHf & pHfox 9
0.80 ~ medium dense 8
1.0 1.0 8
1 pHf & pHfox
8
7
1.25 pHf & pHfox 6
6
0.5 1.5 pHf & pHfox, and 5
Medium Dense 1.5
1.50 ~ dark grey CRS 6
5
1.75 pHf & pHfox 5
4
DRILLMETHOD_AUGER_100
0.0 2.0 5
2 pHf & pHfox
7
7
2.20 ~ dense 2.25
pHf & pHfox, and 9
CRS
10
-0.5 2.5 pHf & pHfox, and 11
2.5
Dense CRS 9
9
2.75 pHf & pHfox 10
12
2.90 ~ medium dense 7
-1.0 3.0
3
pHf & pHfox, and
CRS 6
6
3.25 pHf & pHfox 6
Medium Dense 6
-1.5 3.5 7
3.5 pHf & pHfox
8
8
3.75 pHf & pHfox 8
3.80 ~ dense 10
-2.0 4.0 11
Dense 4 pHf & pHfox
10
12
4.25
pHf & pHfox, and
CRS
-2.5 4.5
4.5 pHf & pHfox
Bore terminated at 4.50m.
Target depth achieved.
26/2/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG01608 BH LOGS.GPJ
-3.0 5.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m). Approximate elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 21
BOREHOLE BH3
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: Seymore Leisure Pty - C/O SCG DATE: 21/01/2025 - 24/01/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 508705 m
LOCATION: 7 Noosa Pde, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7081330 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/01608 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: Mapstone Geo Services RIG: 4WD GT-10 LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: LG
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 NON-SOIL - Pavers (100 mm)
0.10 FILL - SM Silty SAND, yellow grey, fine to coarse grained, loose, moist 1
Loose
0.25 pHf & pHfox 1
0.30 ~ dark grey, loose to medium dense 4
Medium Dense
1.5 0.5 6
0.5 pHf & pHfox
0.50 ~ dense 9
Dense 10
0.75 pHf & pHfox 10
0.80 ~ mendium dense 8
1.0 1.0 7
1 pHf & pHfox
7
6
1.25 pHf & pHfox 5
4
0.5 1.5 4
1.5 pHf & pHfox
Medium Dense 3
5
1.75 pHf & pHfox 3
4
DRILLMETHOD_AUGER_100
0.0 2.0 3
2 pHf & pHfox
5
6
2.20 ~ dense 2.25
pHf & pHfox, and 8
CRS
10
-0.5 2.5 12
2.5 pHf & pHfox
Dense 9
10
2.75 pHf & pHfox 10
2.80 ~ medium dense 8
-1.0 3.0 7
3 pHf & pHfox
7
6
3.25 pHf & pHfox 6
6
Medium Dense
-1.5 3.5 7
3.5 pHf & pHfox
7
8
3.75
pHf & pHfox, and 8
CRS
8
-2.0 4.0 pHf & pHfox, and 8
4
4.00 ~ dense CRS 9
8
Dense 4.25 pHf & pHfox 9
10
-2.5 4.5 pHf & pHfox, and 9
4.5
Bore terminated at 4.50m. CRS
Target depth achieved.
26/2/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG01608 BH LOGS.GPJ
-3.0 5.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m). Approximate elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 22
BOREHOLE BH4
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: Seymore Leisure Pty - C/O SCG DATE: 21/01/2025 - 24/01/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 508715 m
LOCATION: 7 Noosa Pde, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7081335 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/01608 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: Mapstone Geo Services RIG: 4WD GT-10 LOGGED: JC CHECKED: LG
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 NON-SOIL - Pavers (100 mm)
0.10 FILL - SM Silty SAND, yellow grey, fine to coarse grained, loose, moist 1
Loose
0.25 pHf & pHfox 1
0.30 ~ medium dense 4
Medium Dense
1.5 0.5 6
0.5 pHf & pHfox
0.50 ~ dense 9
Dense 10
0.75 pHf & pHfox 10
0.80 ~ medium dense 8
1.0 1.0 7
1 pHf & pHfox
7
6
1.25
pHf & pHfox, and 5
CRS
4
0.5 1.5 4
1.5 pHf & pHfox
1.50 ~ dark grey Medium Dense 3
5
1.75 pHf & pHfox 3
4
DRILLMETHOD_AUGER_100
0.0 2.0 3
2 pHf & pHfox
5
6
2.25 pHf & pHfox 8
2.30 ~ dense 10
-0.5 2.5 12
2.5 pHf & pHfox
Dense 11
10
2.75 pHf & pHfox 10
2.80 ~ medium dense 8
-1.0 3.0 7
3 pHf & pHfox
7
6
3.25
pHf & pHfox, and 6
CRS
6
Medium Dense
-1.5 3.5 pHf & pHfox, and 7
3.5
CRS 7
8
3.75 pHf & pHfox 8
8
-2.0 4.0 8
4 pHf & pHfox
4.25 pHf & pHfox
-2.5 4.5
4.5
pHf & pHfox, and
Bore terminated at 4.50m. CRS
Target depth achieved.
26/2/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG01608 BH LOGS.GPJ
-3.0 5.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m). Approximate elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 23
Appendix 3 Laboratory Test Results
Page 24
0 0.00 True
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Work Order : EB2502462 Page : 1 of 17
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : JAYDEN CULWICK Contact : Customer Services EB
Address : 35 LIMESTONE STREET Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
DARRA
Telephone : ---- Telephone : +61-7-3552-8685
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde Date Samples Received : 23-Jan-2025 08:10
Order number : PO - 0560 Date Analysis Commenced : 29-Jan-2025
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 29-Jan-2025 15:14
Sampler : JAYDEN CULWICK
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/111
No. of samples received : 72
No. of samples analysed : 72
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted, unless the sampling was conducted by ALS. This document shall
not be reproduced, except in full.
This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:
l General Comments
l Analytical Results
Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with
Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Layla Hafner Acid Sulphate Soils - Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
right solutions. right partner.
Page 25
Page : 2 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by ALS have been developed from established internationally recognised procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures
are fully validated and are often at the client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing
purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contract for details.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.
~ = Indicates an estimated value.
l ASS: EA003 (NATA Field and F(ox) screening): pH F(ox) Reaction Rate: 1 - Slight; 2 - Moderate; 3 - Strong; 4 - Extreme
Page 26
Page : 3 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH1 0.0 - 0.25 BH1 0.25 -0.5 BH1 0.5 - 0.75 BH1 0.75 - 1.0 BH1 1.0 - 1.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-001 EB2502462-002 EB2502462-003 EB2502462-004 EB2502462-005
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.2
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.6 2.0 2.8 2.4 2.7
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 3 2 2 2
Page 27
Page : 4 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH1 1.25 - 1.5 BH1 1.5 - 1.75 BH1 1.75 - 2.0 BH1 2.0 - 2.25 BH1 2.25- 2.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-006 EB2502462-007 EB2502462-008 EB2502462-009 EB2502462-010
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 6.2 6.0 6.1 5.5
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 28
Page : 5 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH1 2.5 - 2.75 BH1 2.75 - 3.0 BH1 3.0 - 3.25 BH1 3.25 - 3.5 BH1 3.5 - 3.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-011 EB2502462-012 EB2502462-013 EB2502462-014 EB2502462-015
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.4 5.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 1.9 2.0 1.5 2.2 2.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 3 2 2 4 4
Page 29
Page : 6 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH1 3.75 - 4.0 BH1 4.0 - 4.25 BH1 4.25 - 4.5 BH2 0.0 - 0.25 BH2 0.25 -0.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-016 EB2502462-017 EB2502462-018 EB2502462-019 EB2502462-020
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 5.7 6.1 6.3 6.4
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 1.7 1.7 2.2 3.9 3.8
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 4 2 2
Page 30
Page : 7 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 0.5 - 0.75 BH2 0.75 - 1.0 BH2 1.0 - 1.25 BH2 1.25 - 1.5 BH2 1.5 - 1.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-021 EB2502462-022 EB2502462-023 EB2502462-024 EB2502462-025
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.9 6.1 6.5 6.3 6.6
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.8 3.5 3.6 2.8 3.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 31
Page : 8 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 1.75 - 2.0 BH2 2.0 - 2.25 BH2 2.25- 2.5 BH2 2.5 - 2.75 BH2 2.75 - 3.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-026 EB2502462-027 EB2502462-028 EB2502462-029 EB2502462-030
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.3 6.5 4.8 4.7 5.4
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.2 3.0 1.6 1.6 1.9
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 3 3 3
Page 32
Page : 9 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 3.0 - 3.25 BH2 3.25 - 3.5 BH2 3.5 - 3.75 BH2 3.75 - 4.0 BH2 4.0 - 4.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-031 EB2502462-032 EB2502462-033 EB2502462-034 EB2502462-035
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.2 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.4
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.5 3.2 2.3 1.7 1.7
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 4 4 2 2
Page 33
Page : 10 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 4.25 - 4.5 BH3 0.0 - 0.25 BH3 0.25 -0.5 BH3 0.5 - 0.75 BH3 0.75 - 1.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-036 EB2502462-037 EB2502462-038 EB2502462-039 EB2502462-040
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 6.2 6.6 6.4 6.7
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.4 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.6
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 4 2 2 2 2
Page 34
Page : 11 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH3 1.0 - 1.25 BH3 1.25 - 1.5 BH3 1.5 - 1.75 BH3 1.75 - 2.0 BH3 2.0 - 2.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-041 EB2502462-042 EB2502462-043 EB2502462-044 EB2502462-045
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.8
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.4
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 3 2 2 2
Page 35
Page : 12 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH3 2.25- 2.5 BH3 2.5 - 2.75 BH3 2.75 - 3.0 BH3 3.0 - 3.25 BH3 3.25 - 3.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-046 EB2502462-047 EB2502462-048 EB2502462-049 EB2502462-050
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.5
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 36
Page : 13 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH3 3.5 - 3.75 BH3 3.75 - 4.0 BH3 4.0 - 4.25 BH3 4.25 - 4.5 BH4 0.0 - 0.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-051 EB2502462-052 EB2502462-053 EB2502462-054 EB2502462-055
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.8
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.4 4.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 3 4 4 4 2
Page 37
Page : 14 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH4 0.25 -0.5 BH4 0.5 - 0.75 BH4 0.75 - 1.0 BH4 1.0 - 1.25 BH4 1.25 - 1.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-056 EB2502462-057 EB2502462-058 EB2502462-059 EB2502462-060
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.8 6.6 7.0 6.6 6.8
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.2 3.9 3.5 2.9 3.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 38
Page : 15 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH4 1.5 - 1.75 BH4 1.75 - 2.0 BH4 2.0 - 2.25 BH4 2.25- 2.5 BH4 2.5 - 2.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-061 EB2502462-062 EB2502462-063 EB2502462-064 EB2502462-065
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.5 8.6
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.7 5.5
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 39
Page : 16 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH4 2.75 - 3.0 BH4 3.0 - 3.25 BH4 3.25 - 3.5 BH4 3.5 - 3.75 BH4 3.75 - 4.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-066 EB2502462-067 EB2502462-068 EB2502462-069 EB2502462-070
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 7.7 8.6 8.5 8.9 4.0
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.8 3.0 3.6 5.7 6.0
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 3 2 2 2 2
Page 40
Page : 17 of 17
Work Order : EB2502462
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH4 4.0 - 4.25 BH4 4.25 - 4.5 ---- ---- ----
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 ---- ---- ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2502462-071 EB2502462-072 -------- -------- --------
Result Result ---- ---- ----
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 8.8 8.5 ---- ---- ----
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 3.4 ---- ---- ----
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 ---- ---- ----
Page 41
0 0.00 True
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Work Order : EB2503423 Page : 1 of 6
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : JAYDEN CULWICK Contact : Customer Services EB
Address : 35 LIMESTONE STREET Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
DARRA
Telephone : ---- Telephone : +61-7-3552-8685
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde Date Samples Received : 31-Jan-2025 11:15
Order number : PO - 0560 Date Analysis Commenced : 05-Feb-2025
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 06-Feb-2025 09:04
Sampler : ----
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/111
No. of samples received : 18
No. of samples analysed : 18
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted, unless the sampling was conducted by ALS. This document shall
not be reproduced, except in full.
This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:
l General Comments
l Analytical Results
Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with
Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Layla Hafner Acid Sulphate Soils - Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
right solutions. right partner.
Page 42
Page : 2 of 6
Work Order : EB2503423
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by ALS have been developed from established internationally recognised procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures
are fully validated and are often at the client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing
purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contract for details.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.
~ = Indicates an estimated value.
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite): Analysis is performed as per the Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods Guidelines (2004) and the updated National Acid Sulfate Soils Guidance: National acid sulfate soils identification
and laboratory methods manual, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, ACT (2018)
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite):Retained Acidity not required because pH KCl greater than or equal to 4.5
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite): Laboratory determinations of ANC needs to be corroborated by effectiveness of the measured ANC in relation to incubation ANC. Unless corroborated, the results of ANC testing should
be discounted when determining Net Acidity for comparison with action criteria, or for the determination of the acidity hazard and required liming amounts.
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite): Liming rate is calculated and reported on a dry weight basis assuming use of fine agricultural lime (CaCO3) and using a safety factor of 1.5 to allow for non-homogeneous mixing and
poor reactivity of lime. For conversion of Liming Rate from 'kg/t dry weight' to 'kg/m3 in-situ soil', multiply 'reported results' x 'wet bulk density of soil in t/m3'.
Page 43
Page : 3 of 6
Work Order : EB2503423
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH1 0.25 -0.5 BH1 1.5 - 1.75 BH1 2.5 - 2.75 BH1 3.0 - 3.25 BH1 3.75 - 4.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2503423-001 EB2503423-002 EB2503423-003 EB2503423-004 EB2503423-005
Result Result Result Result Result
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.3 5.7 5.2 5.3 5.3
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t 13 2 14 8 8
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.021 0.018 0.066 0.098 0.123
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t 13 11 41 61 77
(a-22B)
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.14
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 26 13 55 69 85
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 2 <1 4 5 6
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.14
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 26 13 55 69 85
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 2 <1 4 5 6
Page 44
Page : 4 of 6
Work Order : EB2503423
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 1.25 - 1.5 BH2 2.0 - 2.25 BH2 2.25- 2.5 BH2 2.75 - 3.0 BH2 4.0 - 4.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2503423-006 EB2503423-007 EB2503423-008 EB2503423-009 EB2503423-010
Result Result Result Result Result
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.1 5.9 4.6 5.6 5.3
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t <2 <2 74 4 8
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 0.12 <0.02 <0.02
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.018 0.018 0.025 0.018 0.082
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t 11 11 16 11 51
(a-22B)
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 <0.02 0.14 0.02 0.09
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 11 11 90 16 58
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 <1 7 1 4
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 <0.02 0.14 0.02 0.09
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 11 11 90 16 58
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 <1 7 1 4
Page 45
Page : 5 of 6
Work Order : EB2503423
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH3 2.0 - 2.25 BH3 3.5 - 3.75 BH3 3.75 - 4.0 BH3 4.25 - 4.5 BH4 1.0 - 1.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2503423-011 EB2503423-012 EB2503423-013 EB2503423-014 EB2503423-015
Result Result Result Result Result
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.2 5.6 5.2 5.4 6.1
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t <2 4 6 4 2
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.022 0.020 0.194 0.094 0.024
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t 14 12 121 58 15
(a-22B)
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.10 0.03
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 14 16 128 63 17
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 1 1 10 5 1
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.10 0.03
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 14 16 128 63 17
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 1 1 10 5 1
Page 46
Page : 6 of 6
Work Order : EB2503423
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/01608 7 Noosa Pde
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH4 3.0 - 3.25 BH4 3.25 - 3.5 BH4 4.25 - 4.5 ---- ----
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 23-Jan-2025 00:00 ---- ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2503423-016 EB2503423-017 EB2503423-018 -------- --------
Result Result Result ---- ----
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 8.9 9.0 9.0 ---- ----
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t <2 <2 <2 ---- ----
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ---- ----
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.066 0.068 0.065 ---- ----
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t 41 42 40 ---- ----
(a-22B)
EA033-C: Acid Neutralising Capacity
Acid Neutralising Capacity (19A2) ---- 0.01 % CaCO3 0.03 0.61 0.56 ---- ----
acidity - Acid Neutralising Capacity ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 121 111 ---- ----
(a-19A2)
sulfidic - Acid Neutralising Capacity ---- 0.01 % pyrite S 0.01 0.19 0.18 ---- ----
(s-19A2)
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 ---- ----
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 ---- ----
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 37 <10 <10 ---- ----
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 <1 <1 ---- ----
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.06 0.07 0.06 ---- ----
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 41 42 40 ---- ----
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 3 3 ---- ----
Page 47
a vy 5 = 2 Q < 9 5 www.ptgconsulting.com.au
Used in these records
RFI - Attachment D - Geotechnical Investigation Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.3 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.