Council archive · source document
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation · OPW21/0315
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.au
1/28 Kessling Avenue
Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone (07) 5351 0400
Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd Project 95120.00
248 Abbotsford Road 14 October 2020
BOWEN HILLS QLD 4006 R.001.docx
BWE/ADS
Attention: Bradley Miles
Email: [email protected]
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residence
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas
Partners Pty Ltd (DP) for the proposed residence at 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville.
The investigation was undertaken at the request of Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd in general accordance with
DP’s proposal SSC200261 dated 11 September 2020.
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a one to two storey residential dwelling
possibly suspended over a single level basement.
The aim of the investigation was to assess and provide preliminary comments on the following:
• subsurface conditions including groundwater (if encountered);
• foundation soil reactivity in accordance with AS2870 (AS 2870, 2011);
• indicative foundation options and bearing pressures;
• indicative earthworks and site preparation, including excavatability, batter slopes, suitability of site
soils for reuse, compaction standards;
• indicative temporary and permanent cut batter slopes;
• indicative temporary ground support options;
• indicative geotechnical design parameters for temporary ground support and permanent
basement walls;
• presence and severity of acid sulfate soils (ASS); and
• management and treatment of ASS (if any).
The investigation comprised the drilling of one bore followed by laboratory testing, engineering
analysis and reporting. Details of the field work and laboratory testing are presented in this report,
together, with preliminary comments on the items listed above.
Brisbane • Cairns • Canberra • Central Coast • Coffs Harbour • Darwin • Geelong • Gold Coast • Macarthur • Melbourne
FS 604853 Newcastle • North West Sydney • Perth • Port Macquarie • Sunshine Coast • Sydney • Townsville • Wollongong
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 24 pages
Page 2
Page 2 of 11 This report must be read in conjunction with the attached notes entitled “About This Report” along with any other attached explanatory notes and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. 2. Site Description The site is broadly a rectangular block located at 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville. The site is bounded by Wyuna Drive to the south, existing residential dwellings to the east and west and a canal to the north (refer to Drawing 1 attached). At the time of the investigation, the site was occupied by an existing residential dwelling. Access for the investigation was limited to the grassed front yard. 3. Regional Geology and Acid Sulfate Soil Conditions Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland’s 1:100,000 scale digital geological maps indicate the site is located in an area underlain by Pleistocene aged estuarine channels and banks typically comprising “sandy mud, muddy sand, minor gravel”. The natural subsurface conditions encountered in the bores comprised silty sand and sand, which is consistent with above described geology. Reference to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines 1:100,000 Acid Sulfate Soils Redcliffe to Teewah Map indicates the site is located in an area described as disturbed land likely to contain ASS. The presence or otherwise of ASS was determined through laboratory testing. The results of laboratory testing are discussed further in Sections 6.0 and 7.5.2 of this report. 4. Field Work Methods The field work was undertaken on 24 September 2020, and comprised the drilling and sampling of one bore (designated as Bore 1). Due to the existing dwelling, access for the drilling rig was restricted to the grassed front yard. The approximate bore location is indicated on Drawing 1 attached. The bore was drilled to 6.0 m depth using a 4WD mounted Jacro 200 drilling rig utilising continuous flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was carried out to assess the relative density of the subsurface soil conditions. On completion, the bore was observed for groundwater seepage and then backfilled with spoil which was tamped into the hole. Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 3
Page 3 of 11
The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel who logged the bore, collected
disturbed samples for visual assessment and subsequent laboratory testing. Strata identification was
undertaken in the field through observation of cutting returns and recovered samples.
5. Field Work Results
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bore are given in detail on the attached borehole log,
together with notes defining the classification methods and descriptive terms used. The depths were
measured below existing surface levels at the time of investigation.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bore comprised relatively ‘loose’ to ‘medium dense’
sand fill to 2.35 m depth. In the absence of documentation to confirm the fill was placed in a controlled
manner or to confirm the degree of compaction to an engineering standard was achieved, the fill is
assumed to be ‘uncontrolled’. Underlying the fill, natural sands were encountered. Initially, the relative
density of the natural sands was medium dense, grading dense to very dense and then very dense
with depth.
Groundwater seepage was encountered at 2.35 m depth at the time of the investigation. It should be
noted however, that groundwater depths and ground moisture conditions are affected by climatic
conditions and soil permeability, and will therefore vary with time. Groundwater levels are expected to
be similar to the water level in the canal at the rear of the site, albeit somewhat a dampened response
to tidal variations.
6. Laboratory Testing
Particle size distribution tests were carried out on selected samples recovered from the bore for
classification purposes. The results of this testing are summarised in Table 1 with detailed material
test reports attached.
Table 1: Results of Particle Size Distribution Testing
Bore Depth Material Particle Size Distribution %
No. (m)
Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
1 1.6-2.0 FILL/ SAND 0 97 3
1 3.6-4.0 SAND 0 99 1
In addition, samples recovered from the bore were screened by measurement of pH after the addition
of distilled water (pHf) and peroxide (pHfox). The pHf test provides a preliminary indication of past
oxidation of sulfides resulting in the presence of actual acid sulfate soils (AASS). The pH fox test
provides a preliminary indication of the presence of unoxidised sulfides and therefore, potential acid
sulfate soils (PASS).
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 4
Page 4 of 11 Based on the results of the screening tests and visual inspection of the samples, selected samples were subjected to more rigorous Chromium Suite analytical testing. The results of this testing are discussed further in Section 7.5.2 with detailed report sheets attached. Preliminary field screening and chemical laboratory tests for ASS were carried out with reference to the QASSIT Guidelines (Ahern, C R; Ahern, M R; Powell, B, 1998), the Soil Management Guidelines (Dear, et al., 2014) and the Laboratory Methods Guidelines (Ahern, McElnea, & Sullivan, 2004). 7. Comments 7.1 Site Classification Site classification of foundation soil reactivity strictly only applies to residential buildings up to two- storeys and to other buildings of similar size, loading and flexibility as defined in accordance with AS2870. In the absence of documentation to confirm that the existing fill was placed in a controlled manner to a specified engineering standard, the fill is deemed to be ‘uncontrolled’. In addition, given the presence of relatively loose sands with an allowable bearing capacity of less than 100 kPa, the site would then be classified as ‘Class P’ (problem site) requiring design by engineering principles. However, it is anticipated that the relatively loose sand fill will be excavated and removed as part of the basement excavation. Provided all footings (ie. edge beams, internal beams and load support thickenings) extend through any fill and found into the natural strata, the site maybe be reclassified based on engineering principles. Based on the investigation results, the existing sand fill and natural sand material encountered on this site are non-reactive to changes in soil moisture content, consistent with Class A conditions. 7.2 Basement Construction Excavations in the order of 3 m below existing site levels are anticipated to achieve the proposed bulk excavation level for a basement. Based on the ground conditions encountered in the bore, excavation of the existing fill and natural sands could be undertaken using conventional small to medium sized earthmoving equipment, such as drotts, backhoes or 15t (or larger) excavators. The use of pneumatic tools or hydraulic rock breakers will be required to assist in the excavation of any existing concrete. It should be recognised that the excavatability estimates are based on materials encountered at the bore location only and that conditions may prove more difficult (or easier) for excavatability beyond the bore location and the depths drilled as part of this investigation. Where space permits, battering would be the most economic option to stabilise the excavation faces. Temporary batter slopes in fully dewatered conditions should be no steeper than 2.5H:1V. Battering is Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 5
Page 5 of 11
not likely to be suitable where there is a need to build close to the site boundaries and adjacent to in-
ground services or where excavations will extend below the groundwater table.
It is therefore anticipated that bulk excavation will require positive support comprising temporary
measures such as sheet piles. Sheet piles could either be installed to act as a cantilever or be
anchored or propped. Anchoring would allow the use of a lighter section sheet and would provide
better control of soil movements. These movements will be both lateral and vertical occurring at the
crest of and behind the excavated faces as a result of relaxation of these faces.
The design of flexible retaining walls should be specifically engineer designed in accordance with
AS4678 (AS 4678, 2002) using a triangular pressure distribution and the earth pressure parameters
given in Table 2. Flexible walls are those which are free to rotate or tilt (such as cantilevered walls)
and should be designed using active (Ka) earth pressure coefficient. Rigid walls are those which are
restrained against rotation or tilt (ie. single anchored/propped walls) and should be designed using the
at-rest earth pressure (Ko).
Table 2: Earth Pressure Coefficients (non-sloping crest backfill)
Material Unit Friction Active At Rest Passive
Weight Angle Ka Ko Kp
(kN/m3) (degrees)
Loose sands 17 30 0.33 0.50 3.0
Medium dense sands 18 33 0.30 0.45 3.3
Passive resistance (Kp) at the toe of the wall should be ignored in the zone where future disturbance
(eg. services trenches) could occur.
The effects of surcharge in the retained zone should be included by multiplying the vertical pressure
developed by the surcharge by the appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient given in Table 2.
Allowance should also be made for the surcharge due to sloping crests if applicable.
The basement structure will need to be ’tanked’ with the basement walls and floor slabs designed to
resist full hydrostatic pressures.
7.3 Site Preparation and Earthworks
All existing sand fill encountered on site should be considered as ‘uncontrolled’. However, it is
anticipated that the sand fill will be excavated and removed as part of the basement excavation.
At bulk excavation level the exposed subgrade is expected to predominately comprise medium dense
natural sands. Trafficability across the sand subgrade will be impossible except for tracked equipment
or 4WD vehicles. Surface loosening of the sand is anticipated due to excavation works. In order to
improve trafficability across the loosened surface sands, the exposed subgrade should be compacted
with a small vibrating roller to achieve a minimum density index of 70%. If the sand is dry, it should be
saturated and left for a short period prior to vibration. To improve subgrade performance and site
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 6
Page 6 of 11
trafficability, it is recommended that, in areas where loose to medium dense sands are exposed at
subgrade level, they be overlaid with 150 mm of well compacted select granular fill with a minimum
CBR value of 15%.
7.4 Foundations
High level footings may be preliminary designed using the allowable bearing pressures given in
Table 3.
Table 3: Preliminary Allowable Bearing Pressures for High Level Footings
Material Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa)
Existing uncontrolled fill 75
Medium dense (or better) natural sands 100
The above bearing pressures are contingent upon all footing excavations being free of any loose or
water softened material prior to the placement of concrete. All footing excavations should be inspected
and tested by an experienced geotechnical engineer from DP to confirm bearing pressures prior to
casting of concrete.
Where necessary to deepen footings in order to found into competent material, footings may be made
up with mass concrete poured to the underside of the footing, or alternatively, footings may be
constructed over mass concrete filled, backhoe excavated pedestals.
Where footings are located adjacent to underground services, the footings should extend to below
invert level for a distance of 1 m out from the trench. Beyond 1 m from the trench, the footings should
be taken to below an imaginary line drawn up at 45 degrees from the invert level. These requirements
do not override minimum structural footing base levels.
Slabs supported on high level foundations should be stiffened to suit the expected ground surface
movements.
Experience indicates that properly designed and constructed high level footings loaded as above are
likely to undergo settlements in the order of 1% of the footing width.
7.5 Acid Sulfate Soils
7.5.1 What are Acid Sulfate Soils
Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides or sulfidic
materials, often located over extensive low-lying coastal areas, predominately below RL 5 AHD. These
soils are generally found close to the natural ground surface, but may also be found at depth within the
soil profile.
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 7
Page 7 of 11
ASS includes actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) and potential acid sulfate soils (PASS). AASS and
PASS are often found within the same soil profile, with AASS generally overlying PASS. AASS are
highly acidic resulting from the oxidation of soil materials that contained sulfides. PASS are soils that
contain iron sulfides or sulfidic materials, which have not yet been oxidised.
7.5.2 Criteria for Evaluation of Acid Sulfate Soils
The criteria on which the results of screening tests (pH f and pHfox) were assessed as indicative of
possible actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) or potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) were based on the
QASSIT Guidelines as follows:
• pHf of less than 4 indicates oxidation of sulfides has probably occurred in the past, indicating the
presence of actual acidity (AASS). None of the samples tested returned a pHf value of less than
4.
• pHf between 4 and 5.5 indicates the soils are acidic. This may be as a result of limited oxidation
of sulfides, but may also be as a consequence of the presence of organic acids. Typically
samples of the natural sands tested returned pHf values of between 4.8 and 5.4.
• pHf of greater than 5.5 indicates the soil has little or no actual acidity; however, this can be
common with PASS materials or marine-influenced samples. Generally the samples of sand fill
tested returned pHf values of greater than 5.5.
The pHf test method does not detect acidity bound within sulfides; however, the pHfox test gives an
indication of any potential acid release. Results of the pHfox are summarised as follows:
• pHfox of less than 3, plus a pHfox reading at least one pH unit below pHf, plus a strong reaction
with peroxide, strongly indicates the presence of PASS. All of the natural sand samples tested
returned pHfox values of less than 3 and generally with a reaction to peroxide.
• pHfox between 3 and 4 indicates the possibility of PASS material and a pH fox between 4 and 5
may indicate the presence of small amounts of sulfide or fine carbonates. The samples of sand fill
tested returned pHfox values of between 3 and 4.6.
To provide confirmation of the above qualitative testing, quantitative analytical testing was carried out
on selected samples, generally with the greatest difference in pHf and pHfox readings and strongest
reaction using the Chromium Suite method.
• The chromium reducible sulfur values (SCR) where greater than 0.01 %S indicates a significant
level of sulfide, and where greater than 0.03 %S then the soil has a potential acidity level
exceeding the QASSIT guideline value. Samples of the natural sands tested returned SCR values
of 0.02% indicating levels of potential sulfur.
• Where the total actual acidity (TAA) value exceeds 18 mol/t then the soil has an acidity level
exceeding the QASSIT guideline value. Three of the samples tested returned TAA values greater
than 18 mol/t indicating the presence of acidity.
• Where the sulfur in KCl extract values (SKCl) is greater than 0.01 %S, then the soils acidity is likely
to be a result of sulfide oxidation. None of the samples tested returned a SKCl value equal to or
greater than 0.01 %S.
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 8
Page 8 of 11
Generally, the action criterion from the chromium suite of tests, which triggers a requirement for ASS
disturbance to be managed, derived from the Soil Management Guidelines is as follows:
• Net Acidity (TAA + SCR + SNAS) of greater than or equal to 0.03 %S for disturbances of greater
than 1000 tonnes
Based on the laboratory test results, both the existing sand fill and natural silty sand are considered to
be acidic. However, only the natural sands are considered to contain PASS, having the potential to
generate sulfuric acid when disturbed and exposed to oxygen. The measured acidity in the sand fill is
not likely attributed to sulfides (based on the SKCl results), but rather naturally occurring acidity
commonly found in non-ASS soils.
7.5.3 Management and Treatment of ASS
As the disturbance of the acidic soils cannot be avoided, these disturbed soils will require some
treatment.
While the non-ASS acidic sand fill material does not require specific treatment, appropriate
management of the natural acidity should however be carried out to reduce the risks of environmental
impact in order to comply with the general environmental duty of care where appropriate (ie.
neutralisation of any acidic leachate).
It is recommended that a guard layer of neutralising agent (eg. aglime) be spread under and also over
the top of stockpiles of acidic soils to limit the generation of acidity from the surface of the stockpile
and any leachate emerging near the base. A nominal guard layer rate of 2.5 kg/m2 is recommended.
Reapplication of the guard layer will be necessary under areas of repeated temporary stockpiling.
However, the natural sands will require neutralisation treatment in order to reduce the risk of oxidation
and consequent reduction of pH to produce acidic conditions potentially damaging to the environment
and to buried steel and concrete.
‘Ag lime’ should be used as the preferred neutralisation material for the management of ASS as it is
usually the cheapest and most readily available product for soil neutralisation. This material is mildly
alkaline (pH of 8.5 to 9), of low solubility, and does not present any handling problems. The ‘ag lime’
comprises calcium carbonate typically made from limestone that has been finely grounded and sieved
to a fine powder.
Table 4 provides indicative liming rates for neutralisation of the different ASS material likely to be
disturbed.
Table 4: Indicative Liming Rates
Material Lime Application Rate for Treatment (kg/m3)
Existing Sand Fill Not required
Natural Sands 4.0
3
Notes: Assumes a bulking up factor of approximately 1.5 tonnes/m
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 9
Page 9 of 11
A guard layer of ‘ag lime’ should also be applied over the base of the basement excavation. This
guard layer of lime should be applied at a rate of 2.5 kg/m2.
It is generally preferable if an ‘ag lime’ with a purity of 95% or better is used (ie. NV >95, where NV is
the neutralising value, a term used to rate the neutralising power of different forms of materials relative
to pure, fine calcium carbonate which is designated NV = 100). The above lime dosing rates should be
adjusted by a factor of 100/NV.
Temporary dewatering for basement excavation will result in the localised lowering of the water table.
How the groundwater will be extracted and treated will depend on the groundwater dewatering
contractor at the time of construction. It is assumed dewatering will probably comprise a ring of
dewatering spears around the outside of the sheetpiles.
It should be anticipated that for a properly designed and constructed retention and dewatering system
would result in minimal drawdown of the groundwater outside of the excavation and mitigate the extent
of aeration of permanently saturated potential acid sulfate soils. The dewatering contractor would need
to develop their own dewatering management plan to ensure negligible environmental impact.
The dewatering management plan would need to include how the extracted groundwater shall be
treated to meet the water quality targets for the Noosa River prior to discharge.
To further mitigate any potential risk associated with short-term dewatering, the following management
strategies should be included in the contractors dewatering management plan:
• minimise periods of active dewatering as much as possible; and
• quality of any groundwater inflows into the excavations be monitored as well to ensure insitu
acidification is not occurring. Monitoring would involve pH testing of inflows during daily
dewatering periods. If the monitored pH levels fall more than 1.0 unit over the course of
construction monitoring, or is consistently below pH 4.0, then further assessment would be
required to determine whether there has been any significant environmental impact.
8. References
Ahern, C R; Ahern, M R; Powell, B. (1998). Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid
Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland 1998. Resource Sciences Centre, Indooroopilly: Department of
Natural Resources.
Ahern, C. R., McElnea, A. E., & Sullivan, L. A. (2004). Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods
Guidelines. In Queensland Acid Sulfate Soils Manual 2004. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia:
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy.
AS 2870. (2011). Residential Slabs and Footings. Standards Australia.
AS 4678. (2002). Earth-retaining structures. Standards Australia.
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 10
Page 10 of 11 Dear, S., Ahern, C., O'Brien, L., Dobos, S., McElnea, A., Moore, N., & Watling, K. (2014). Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines. Brisbane: Department of Science: Department of Science, Information, Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government. 9. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has prepared this report for the proposed residence at 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It 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 DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP 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. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the 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 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 DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the geotechnical Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 11
Page 11 of 11
components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design,
construction, maintenance and demolition.
Please contact the undersigned at our Sunshine Coast office if you have any questions or require
further clarification on this matter.
Yours faithfully
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Reviewed by:
Brett Egen Andre Dos Santos
Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments: About this Report
Test Location Plan
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Laboratory Test Results
Proposed Residence 95120.00.R.001.docx
33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville October 2020
Page 12
Introduction • A localised, perched water table may lead to
These notes have been provided to amplify DP's an erroneous indication of the true water
report in regard to classification methods, field table;
procedures and the comments section. Not all are • Water table levels will vary from time to time
necessarily relevant to all reports. with seasons or recent weather changes.
They may not be the same at the time of
DP's reports are based on information gained from construction as are indicated in the report;
limited subsurface excavations and sampling, and
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will
experience. For this reason, they must be mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to
regarded as interpretive rather than factual be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must
documents, limited to some extent by the scope of first be washed out of the hole if water
information on which they rely. measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by
Copyright installing standpipes which are read at intervals
This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty over several days, or perhaps weeks for low
Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a
for which it was commissioned and in accordance particular stratum, may be advisable in low
with the Conditions of Engagement for the permeability soils or where there may be
commission supplied at the time of proposal. interference from a perched water table.
Unauthorised use of this report in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.
Reports
The report has been prepared by qualified
Borehole and Test Pit Logs personnel, is based on the information obtained
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this from field and laboratory testing, and has been
report are an engineering and/or geological undertaken to current engineering standards of
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and interpretation and analysis. Where the report has
their reliability will depend to some extent on been prepared for a specific design proposal, the
frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or information and interpretation may not be relevant
excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,
sampling or core drilling will provide the most DP will be pleased to review the report and the
reliable assessment, but this is not always sufficiency of the investigation work.
practicable or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
represent only a very small sample of the total interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion
subsurface profile. of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and
recommendations or suggestions for design and
Interpretation of the information and its application construction. However, DP cannot always
to design and construction should therefore take anticipate or assume responsibility for:
into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other The potential for this will depend partly on
than 'straight line' variations between the test borehole or pit spacing and sampling
locations. frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy
by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to
Groundwater
commercial pressures.
Where groundwater levels are measured in
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
boreholes there are several potential problems,
investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
namely:
• In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time the hole is left open;
July 2010
Page 13
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site
during construction appear to vary from those
which were expected from the information
contained in the report, DP requests that it be
immediately notified. Most problems are much
more readily resolved when conditions are
exposed rather than at some later stage, well after
the event.
Information for Contractual Purposes
Where information obtained from this report is
provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including the
written report and discussion, be made available.
In circumstances where the discussion or
comments section is not relevant to the contractual
situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a
specially edited document. DP would be pleased
to assist in this regard and/or to make additional
report copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.
Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical
and environmental aspects of work to which this
report is related. This could range from a site visit
to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on
site.
July 2010
Page 14
Site
Location Plan
N
1
LEGEND:-
Bore Location and Number
NOTE:-
1. Test locations are approximate only and are
shown with reference to existing site features.
2. Image obtained from Google Earth Pro. and
Near Map. Date of imagery 06-08-2020.
CLIENT: Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd
TITLE: Test Location Plan PROJECT No: 95120.00
Douglas Partners
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
OFFICE: Sunshine Coast DRAWN BY: JST Proposed Residence DRAWING No: 1
SCALE: As shown DATE: September 2020 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville REVISION: 0
Page 15
Sampling reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing
Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting or softening of samples by groundwater.
to allow engineering examination (and laboratory
testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Non-core Rotary Drilling
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with
information on colour, type, inclusions and, water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill
depending upon the degree of disturbance, some rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill
information on strength and structure. cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can
be determined from the cuttings, together with
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin- some information from the rate of penetration.
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it Where drilling mud is used this can mask the
to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively cuttings and reliable identification is only possible
undisturbed state. Such samples yield information from separate sampling such as SPTs.
on structure and strength, and are necessary for
laboratory determination of shear strength and
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally Continuous Core Drilling
effective only in cohesive soils. A continuous core sample can be obtained using a
diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm
internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
Test Pits achieved (which is not always possible in weak
Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
an excavator, allowing close examination of the in- very reliable method of investigation.
situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth
of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe
and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential Standard Penetration Tests
disadvantage of this investigation method is the Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a
larger area of disturbance to the site. means of estimating the density or strength of soils
and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in
Large Diameter Augers Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing
Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.
short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in
diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50
rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of
intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is
disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture normal for the tube to be driven in three
content. Identification of soil strata is generally successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value
much more reliable than with continuous spiral is taken as the number of blows for the last 300
flight augers, and is usually supplemented by mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
occasional undisturbed tube samples. rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be
practicable and the test is discontinued.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The test results are reported in the following form.
The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm • In the case where full penetration is obtained
diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are with successive blow counts for each 150 mm
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
testing. This is a relatively economical means of 4,6,7
drilling in clays and sands above the water table. N=13
Samples are returned to the surface, or may be • In the case where the test is discontinued
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but before the full penetration depth, say after 15
they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for
from the sides of the hole. Information from the the next 40 mm as:
drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs 15, 30/40 mm
or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
July 2010
Page 16
The results of the SPT tests can be related
empirically to the engineering properties of the
soils.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /
Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests
Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are
carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground
using a standard weight of hammer falling a
specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil
the number of blows required to penetrate each
successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally
there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be
extended in certain conditions by the use of
extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are
commonly used.
• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer
dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This
test was developed for testing the density of
sands and is mainly used in granular soils and
filling.
• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod
with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven
using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS
1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed
initially for pavement subgrade investigations,
and correlations of the test results with
California Bearing Ratio have been published
by various road authorities.
July 2010
Page 17
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of The proportions of secondary constituents of soils
soils and rocks used in this report are generally are described as follows:
based on Australian Standard AS1726:2017, In fine grained soils (>35% fines)
Geotechnical Site Investigations. In general, the
Term Proportion Example
descriptions include strength or density, colour,
of sand or
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
gravel
And Specify Clay (60%) and
Soil Types
Sand (40%)
Soil types are described according to the
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading Adjective >30% Sandy Clay
of other particles present: With 15 – 30% Clay with sand
Trace 0 - 15% Clay with trace
Type Particle size (mm) sand
Boulder >200
Cobble 63 - 200 In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)
- with clays or silts
Gravel 2.36 - 63
Term Proportion Example
Sand 0.075 - 2.36
of fines
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
And Specify Sand (70%) and
Clay <0.002 Clay (30%)
Adjective >12% Clayey Sand
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
With 5 - 12% Sand with clay
subdivided as follows:
Trace 0 - 5% Sand with trace
Type Particle size (mm) clay
Coarse gravel 19 - 63
In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)
Medium gravel 6.7 - 19 - with coarser fraction
Fine gravel 2.36 – 6.7 Term Proportion Example
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36 of coarser
Medium sand 0.21 - 0.6 fraction
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.21 And Specify Sand (60%) and
Gravel (40%)
Adjective >30% Gravelly Sand
Definitions of grading terms used are: With 15 - 30% Sand with gravel
Well graded - a good representation of all Trace 0 - 15% Sand with trace
particle sizes gravel
Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the specified range The presence of cobbles and boulders shall be
Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular specifically noted by beginning the description with
particle size ‘Mix of Soil and Cobbles/Boulders’ with the word
Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular order indicating the dominant first and the
particle size with the range proportion of cobbles and boulders described
together.
May 2019
Page 18
Cohesive Soils Estuarine soil – deposited in coastal estuaries;
Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the Marine soil – deposited in a marine
basis of undrained shear strength. The strength environment;
may be measured by laboratory testing, or Lacustrine soil – deposited in freshwater
estimated by field tests or engineering lakes;
examination. The strength terms are defined as
follows: Aeolian soil – carried and deposited by wind;
Colluvial soil – soil and rock debris
Undrained transported down slopes by gravity;
Description Abbreviation
shear strength Topsoil – mantle of surface soil, often with
(kPa) high levels of organic material.
Very soft VS <12
Fill – any material which has been moved by
Soft S 12 - 25 man.
Firm F 25 - 50
Stiff St 50 - 100
Very stiff VSt 100 - 200 Moisture Condition – Coarse Grained Soils
Hard H >200 For coarse grained soils the moisture condition
Friable Fr - should be described by appearance and feel using
the following terms:
Dry (D) Non-cohesive and free-running.
Cohesionless Soils Moist (M) Soil feels cool, darkened in
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are colour.
classified on the basis of relative density, generally Soil tends to stick together.
from the results of standard penetration tests Sand forms weak ball but breaks
(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
easily.
penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below: Wet (W) Soil feels cool, darkened in
colour.
Relative Abbreviation Density Index Soil tends to stick together, free
Density (%) water forms when handling.
Very loose VL <15
Loose L 15-35
Medium dense MD 35-65 Moisture Condition – Fine Grained Soils
Dense D 65-85 For fine grained soils the assessment of moisture
content is relative to their plastic limit or liquid limit,
Very dense VD >85 as follows:
‘Moist, dry of plastic limit’ or ‘w <PL’ (i.e. hard
and friable or powdery).
Soil Origin
‘Moist, near plastic limit’ or ‘w ≈ PL (i.e. soil can
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
be moulded at moisture content approximately
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
equal to the plastic limit).
Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
‘Moist, wet of plastic limit’ or ‘w >PL’ (i.e. soils
of the underlying rock;
usually weakened and free water forms on the
Extremely weathered material – formed from hands when handling).
in-situ weathering of geological formations.
‘Wet’ or ‘w ≈LL’ (i.e. near the liquid limit).
Has soil strength but retains the structure or
fabric of the parent rock; ‘Wet’ or ‘w >LL’ (i.e. wet of the liquid limit).
Alluvial soil – deposited by streams and rivers;
May 2019
Page 19
Introduction
These notes summarise abbreviations commonly Orientation
used on borehole logs and test pit reports. The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
Drilling or Excavation Methods h horizontal
C Core drilling v vertical
R Rotary drilling sh sub-horizontal
SFA Spiral flight augers sv sub-vertical
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia Coating or Infilling Term
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia cln clean
co coating
he healed
Water inf infilled
Water seep stn stained
Water level ti tight
vn veneer
Sampling and Testing
Coating Descriptor
A Auger sample
ca calcite
B Bulk sample
cbs carbonaceous
D Disturbed sample
cly clay
E Environmental sample
fe iron oxide
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
mn manganese
W Water sample
slt silty
pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
Shape
S Standard Penetration Test
cu curved
V Shear vane (kPa)
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
Description of Defects in Rock un undulating
The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on Roughness
the logs. po polished
ro rough
Defect Type sl slickensided
B Bedding plane sm smooth
Cs Clay seam vr very rough
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault Other
J Joint fg fragmented
Lam Lamination bnd band
Pt Parting qtz quartz
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
May 2017
Page 20
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock
General Sedimentary Rocks
Asphalt Boulder conglomerate
Road base Conglomerate
Concrete Conglomeratic sandstone
Filling Sandstone
Soils Siltstone
Topsoil Laminite
Peat Mudstone, claystone, shale
Clay Coal
Silty clay Limestone
Sandy clay Metamorphic Rocks
Gravelly clay Slate, phyllite, schist
Shaly clay Gneiss
Silt Quartzite
Clayey silt
Igneous Rocks
Sandy silt Granite
Sand Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Clayey sand Dacite, epidote
Silty sand Tuff, breccia
Gravel Porphyry
Sandy gravel
Cobbles, boulders
Talus
May 2017
Page 21
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Residence EASTING: PROJECT No: 95120.00
LOCATION: 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville NORTHING: DATE: 24/9/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILL/Silty SAND SM: fine to medium grained, brown,
moist, loose, fill ASS samples taken
0.25 every 0.25 m interval to
- orange-brown streaked grey and brown 0.3 4m depth
D
0.6
0.9
1 FILL/SAND SP: fine to medium grained, orange-brown 1
grey, with silt fines, moist, loose to medium dense, fill
- medium dense to dense
1.6
D
2 2.0 2
2.35
Silty SAND SM: fine to medium grained, grey, wet,
medium dense 2.5
D
2.9
3 3
3.3
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey, trace of silt
fines, wet, medium dense
3.6
D
4 4.0 4
- dense to very dense
4.9
5 Silty SAND SM: fine to medium grained, dark brown, 5
wet, very dense (indurated)
>>
5.3
D
5.8
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 2.35 m at time of drilling.
REMARKS: Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 22
Material Test Report
Report Number: 95120.00-1 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 06/10/2020
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
248 Abbotsford Road, Bowen Hills QLD 4006
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Bradley Miles
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Number: 95120.00
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Project Location: 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville
Work Request: 10696 Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Sample Number: SS-10696A Laboratory Manager
Date Sampled: 24/09/2020 NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Dates Tested: 25/09/2020 - 01/10/2020
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: Bore 1, Depth: 1.6 - 2.0 m
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Sieve Passed % Clay
Passing Limits Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
0.6 mm 100 Sieve
0.075
0.425
0.15
0.3
0.6
(mm)
0.425 mm 98 100
0.3 mm 79 90
0.15 mm 6
80
0.075 mm 3
Percent Passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 95120.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 1 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 23
Material Test Report
Report Number: 95120.00-1 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 06/10/2020
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: Rohig (Qld) Pty Ltd
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
248 Abbotsford Road, Bowen Hills QLD 4006
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Bradley Miles
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Number: 95120.00
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Project Location: 33 Wyuna Drive, Noosaville
Work Request: 10696 Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Sample Number: SS-10696B Laboratory Manager
Date Sampled: 24/09/2020 NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Dates Tested: 25/09/2020 - 01/10/2020
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: Bore 1, Depth: 3.6 - 4.0 m
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Sieve Passed % Clay
Passing Limits Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
1.18 mm 100 Sieve
0.075
0.425
0.15
1.18
0.3
0.6
(mm)
0.6 mm 99 100
0.425 mm 95 90
0.3 mm 63
80
0.15 mm 3
0.075 mm 1
Percent Passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 95120.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 2 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 24
www.biotrack.com.au
781 Mt Glorious Rd Highvale 4520 Biotrack Certificate of Analysis
Signatory: Ph:+617 3289 7179 ABN 91 056 237 275
Test Code/Name [1] FIELD SCREEN SUITE
Lab Reference (LR) 290920.570 Client Name Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (Sunshine Coast)
SampleID All Samples Client Contact Brett Egen
Project Name 33 Wyuna Drv Noosaville
Report Date 2/10/2020 Job Number 95120
Sample Received Date 28/09/2020 Order Number
Sample Disposal Date 28/11/2020 Chain of Custody
Sample Packaging Plastic Bag Client Email [email protected]
Temperature Ambient Client Address 28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park Queensland 4556
Analytical Method: Test Methodology for pH_f and pH_fox as per QASSIT 2004 Laboratory Methods. Indications based on pH data only.
RATE: 0=No Reaction 1=Low 2=Moderate 3=High 4=Very High (steam evolved).
TEMP: Surface temperature rise (⁰C) oxidised sample at 5 minutes - cooling may occur for fast reaction.
S# SampleID pH_f pH_Fox Change Rate Indication
1 Bore1 0-250 5.9 3.0 -2.9 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
2 Bore1 250-500 5.6 3.4 -2.2 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
3 Bore1 500-750 5.7 3.5 -2.2 0 low TAA & sulphide possible
4 Bore1 750-1000 6.0 3.6 -2.4 0 low TAA & sulphide possible
5 Bore1 1000-1250 6.2 3.9 -2.3 0 low TAA & sulphide possible
6 Bore1 1250-1500 6.0 3.8 -2.2 0 low TAA & sulphide possible
7 Bore1 1500-1750 6.5 4.6 -1.9 0 low TAA & low TPA
8 Bore1 1750-2000 6.3 4.3 -2.0 0 low TAA
9 Bore1 2000-2250 6.6 4.2 -2.4 0 no TAA & sulphide possible
10 Bore1 2250-2500 6.3 3.4 -2.9 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
11 Bore1 2500-2750 5.3 2.7 -2.6 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
12 Bore1 2750-3000 5.2 2.8 -2.4 2 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
13 Bore1 3000-3250 5.4 2.2 -3.2 3 low TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
14 Bore1 3250-3500 5.4 2.7 -2.7 3 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
15 Bore1 3500-3750 7.7 2.9 -4.8 3 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
16 Bore1 3750-4000 4.8 2.6 -2.2 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
Page 2
Page 25
DETERMINATION OF ACID SULFATE SOIL PROPERTIES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Bio-Track Analysis By: Bio-Track Pty Ltd aBn 91 056 237 275 781 Mt. Glorious Road Highvale, Brisbane, Australia, 4520 Ph. 07 32897179 LAB REFERENCE LRO61020.716 DATE OF REPORT 08 OCTOBER 2020 4@18:32:29 Page 1 of 1 Report Pages CLIENT NAME Brett Egen c/o Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (Sunshine Coast) 28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park 4556 PROJECT NAME 33 Wyuna Drv Noosaville YOUR PROJECT/JOB REFERENCE 95120 SAMPLING DATE NUMBER OF SAMPLES 4 Samples supplied by client SAMPLE TYPE:Soil/Solid DATE RECEIVED 6/10/2020 5:11:39 PM PACKAGING Plastic Bag Ground Oven Dry Samples DISPOSED ON 5/12/2020 Sample ID as received. METHODOLOGY: As per (DNR QASSIT May 2004), oven dried (85°C), >1000 um shell removed, fine grind. All reported values gravimetric, dry mass. %sEQ (equivalent sulphur) calculated as moles TAA/624 + %S Cr + %SNAS - sANC_BT (sNAS included irrespective of pH). LIME1 rates calculated to neutralise TPA (or TAA if >TPA)+ aS_RAS -ANC_BT/1.5 LIME2 rates calculated to neutralise TAA + aS_POS or S_Cr + aS_RAS -ANC_BT/ 1.5 NB. Lime rates assume 97% Lime neutralisation but DO NOT include any safety factors. Suggested factor=1.5-2. Rates are kg/ton. Multiply by bulk density to convert to kg/m3. Fineness Factor (FF)=1.5 CBN POS= moles carbonate alkalinity released by oxidation assuming (Ca POS - Ca KCL) + (Mg POS - Mg KCL) is due to carbonate solution. Blanks represent unmeasured values, zeros & <0.x represent measured values. If pH KCl>4.5 then s-RAS (calculated from acid extract) may be zero for undisturbed soil. acid reactive calcium calculated as the difference between 1 M KCl and 4 M HCL soluble Ca. ID. DEPTH pH pH TAA TPA TSA S KCL SP $ POS S$ Cr s-NAS s EQ Ca KCL Ca P Mg KCL Mg P CBN POS LIME1 LIME2 sANC_BT mm KCL Ox m/t m/t m/t % % & % % % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg m/t kg/t kg/t % Analytical Method Codes 23A 23B 23F 23G 23H = 23Ce 23De 80 23 Ee 22B s20Je s 23Vh 23Wh 238m = 23Tm a23U&X s19A2 Bore1 750-1000 5.41 23 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.037 108 26 1 Bore1 1750-2000 5.84 21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.034 25 0 1 Bore1 3000-3250 5.08 22 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.054 92 0 2 Borel 3500-3750 6.47 4 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.022 179 0 1 Signatory ff us8? For and on behalf of Bio-Track Pty Ltd Ca NAS is the Ca NAS mg/kg 20E <10 <10 <10 68
Used in these records
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.5 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.