Original source · versioned page text
Att 9 - Geotech and PASS report
Attached to the e-mail Council Road Upgrade, Attachments inc Waste Mgmt Plan & Geotech (Email 2 of 3).MCU17/0054.
Report on
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Commercial Development
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin
Prepared for
Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
Project 90151.00
May 2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 39 pages
Page 2
Document History
Document details
Project No. 90151.00 Document No. R.001.docx
Document title Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Commercial Development
Site address 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin
Report prepared for Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
File name 90151.00.R.001
Document status and review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Revision 0 Sean Kelly Brett Egen 18 May 2017
Distribution of copies
Status Electronic Paper Issued to
Revision 0 1 - [email protected]
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached
drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and
inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 18 May 2017
Reviewer 18 May 2017
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
Fax (07) 5351 0499
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Regional Geology........................................................................................................................... 2
4. Field Work Methods ....................................................................................................................... 2
5. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 2
6. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 3
6.1 Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing ...................................................................3
6.2 Compaction and Soaked CBR Testing ................................................................................4
6.3 Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................4
7. Proposed Development.................................................................................................................. 4
8. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 5
8.1 Site Preparation and Earthworks .........................................................................................5
8.2 Excavation ...........................................................................................................................6
8.3 Batter Slopes .......................................................................................................................6
8.4 Site Classification .................................................................................................................7
8.5 Site Settlements ...................................................................................................................7
8.6 Foundations .........................................................................................................................8
8.7 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................9
8.8 Pavement and Slab-On-Ground ........................................................................................10
8.9 Acid Sulfate Soils ...............................................................................................................11
8.9.1 What are Acid Sulfate Soils ..................................................................................11
8.9.2 Criteria for Evaluation of ASS ...............................................................................11
9. References ................................................................................................................................... 12
10. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A: About this Report
Appendix B: Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan
Appendix C: Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Appendix D: Laboratory Test Results
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 4
Page 1 of 13
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Commercial Development
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty
Ltd (DP) for a proposed commercial development at 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin.
The investigation was undertaken at the request of Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd following authorisation
to proceed received on 11 April 2017, and was undertaken in general accordance with DP’s proposal
SSC170103 dated 11 April 2017.
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a single storey commercial building
2
surrounded by car parking and pavements. It is further understood that filling the 3,665 m site from
existing surface levels at around 1.3 mAHD up to design surface level of 2.5 mAHD is required.
The aim of the investigation was to assess the following:
subsurface conditions including groundwater (if encountered);
earthworks and site preparation, including excavatability, suitability of site soils for reuse,
compaction standards;
foundation soil reactivity in accordance with AS2870-2011 (Ref 1);
suitable high level footing options and allowable bearing pressures;
estimated settlements;
suitable piled foundation types;
ultimate end bearing and shaft adhesion pressures for axially loaded piles; and
slab-on-ground and pavement subgrade design parameters.
presence and severity of acid sulfate soils (ASS); and
management and treatment of ASS (if any).
The investigation comprised the drilling of six bores to between 2 m and 6 m depth followed by
laboratory testing, engineering analysis and reporting. Details of the field work and laboratory testing
are presented in this report, together, with comments on the items listed above.
This report must be read in conjunction with the notes entitled “About This Report” in Appendix A
along with any other attached explanatory notes and should be kept in its entirety without separation of
individual pages or sections.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 5
Page 2 of 13 2. Site Description The site is located at 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin (refer to Drawing 1 in Appendix B). The site is bounded by Hilton Terrace to the north, Ernest Street to the east and Earl Street to the west. At the time of investigation the site was occupied by existing commercial developments consisting of a number of buildings and detached sheds, surrounded by pavements. 3. Regional Geology Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland’s 1:100,000 scale geological maps indicate the site is underlain by Pleistocene aged Estuarine channels and banks typically comprising “sandy mud, muddy sand, minor gravel”. The natural subsurface conditions encountered during the investigation comprised silty sand and sandy/silty clays, inferred to be alluvial, which is considered to be consistent with the above described geology. 4. Field Work Methods The field work was undertaken on 18 April 2017 and comprised the drilling and sampling of six bores (designated Bores 1 to 6) to between 2 m and 6 m depth. The bore locations were set out with reference to site features, with locations recorded using a hand-held GPS device and surface levels interpolated from survey plan provided. The approximate bore locations are indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The bores were drilled using a 4WD mounted Jacro 200 drilling rig using continuous flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit. Strata identification was undertaken through observation of cutting returns and recovered samples. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests were carried out adjacent to the bores to assess the relative density/strength consistency of the subsurface soils. On completion, the bores were backfilled with drilling spoil after checking for groundwater. The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel who logged the bores, collected disturbed samples for visual and tactile assessment and for subsequent laboratory testing. 5. Field Work Results The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are given in detail on the borehole logs in Appendix C, together with notes defining the classification methods and descriptive terms used. The depths were measured below existing surface levels at the time of investigation. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 6
Page 3 of 13
In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores typically comprised pavement
materials and filling overlying natural silty and clayey sands then sandy and silty clays which are
further described below:
Pavement materials: An asphalt wearing surface of between 30 mm and 50 mm thick was
encountered in Bores 1 to 5. Underlying the asphalt surface in Bores 1 to 3, ‘very dense’ silty
sandy gravel roadbase materials were encountered to between 0.18 m and 0.2 m depth.
Filling: Relatively ‘medium dense’ to ‘dense’ clayey sand filling was encountered underlying the
asphalt in Bores 4 and 5, and from the surface in Bore 6, to between 0.21 m and 0.7 m depth.
Underlying the clayey sand filling in Bores 4 and 5, relatively ‘stiff’ sandy clay filling was
encountered to 1.45 m and 0.75 m depth respectively.
Sands: Underlying the roadbase and filling, typically natural silty sand was encountered in the
bores with clayey sand encountered in Bores 4 and 5. The relative density of the sands typically
were medium dense, becoming loose to medium dense with depth. The sands were encountered
to between 2.8 m and 4.1 m depth in Bores 2 to 5, and to termination at 2.0 m depth in Bores 1
and 6.
Clays: Underlying the filling in Bore 6 between 0.7 m and 0.95 m depth, and interbedded within
the silty sand in Bore 2 between 1.3 m and 1.55 m depth, an upper layer of soft to firm sandy clay
was encountered. Beneath the sands at between 2.8 m and 4.1 m depth in Bores 2 to 5, silty clay
was encountered. The strength consistency of silty clay was initially soft in Bores 2 and 3 to
approximately 3.5 m depth, grading stiff and then very stiff with depth. The strength consistency
of the silty clay was initially stiff in Bores 4 and 5, grading very stiff with depth. The very stiff silty
clay continued to termination at 6.0 m depth in Bores 2 to 5.
Groundwater seepage was encountered at between 0.7 m and 1.45 m depth. 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.
6. Laboratory Testing
6.1 Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing
Selected disturbed samples recovered from the bores were tested in the laboratory for engineering
properties of plasticity and particle size distribution for classification purposes. The results of this
testing are summarised in Table 1 with material test reports in Appendix D.
Table 1: Results of Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing
Bore Depth Material FMC Plasticity Particle Size Distribution
No. (m) (%) %
LL PL PI LS Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
(%) (%) (%) (%)
2 0.8-1.2 Silty sand 19.5 - - NP 0.0 0 95 5
4 0.8-1.2 Sandy clay/clayey 13.0 29 15 14 7.5 3 65 32
sand
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 7
Page 4 of 13
6.2 Compaction and Soaked CBR Testing
A Standard compaction and single point soaked California bearing ratio (CBR) test was undertaken on
a bulk sample recovered from Bore 1. The sample was first screened over the 19 mm sieve, as
required by the test standard, then compacted to 98% Standard dry density ratio and soaked for four
days under a 4.5 kg surcharge.
The results of the compaction and CBR testing are summarised in Table 2 with a material test report in
Appendix D.
Table 2: Results of Compaction and CBR Testing
Bore Depth Material MDD OMC Swell CBR
3
No. (m) (t/m ) (%) (%) (%)
1 0.2-0.7 Silty sand 1.69 13.5 0.0 35
Where MDD = Maximum Dry Density, OMC = Optimum moisture content
6.3 Acid Sulfate Soils
Samples were recovered from selected bores at 0.25 m depth intervals to 2.0 m depth and were
screened by measurement of pH after the addition of distilled water (pH f) 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 pHfox test provides a preliminary indication of the presence of
unoxidised sulfides and therefore, potential acid sulfate soils (PASS).
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 8.9 and detailed report sheets are provided in Appendix D.
Preliminary field screening and chemical laboratory tests for ASS were carried out with reference to
the QASSIT Guidelines (Ref 2), the Soil Management Guidelines (Ref 3) and the Laboratory Methods
Guidelines (Ref 4).
7. Proposed Development
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a single storey commercial building
2
surrounded by car parking and pavements. It is further understood that filling the 3,665 m site from
existing surface levels at around 1.3 m AHD up to design surface level of 2.5 m AHD is required.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 8
Page 5 of 13
8. Comments
8.1 Site Preparation and Earthworks
It is recommended that the following site preparation and earthworks procedures be carried out where
the proposed development will consist of new filling, slab-on-ground construction and/or pavement
construction:
Any deleterious, soft, wet or highly compressible material or topsoil material rich in organics or
root matter should be stripped and removed.
The silty and clayey sands will likely be very sensitive to water and will lose strength if they
become wet prior to or during construction. This may require the installation of subsurface drains
to intercept seepage and facilitate drying out should construction commence during or following
an extended period of wet weather. Significant works to ‘bridge’ these soils using overburden
material, or similar, would be required if weather conditions are unfavourable.
Undertake a minimum of six passes of the stripped surface using a smooth drum roller with a
minimum static weight of 12-tonne to detect the presence of any soft or loose spots. Vibration
must not be used as the compaction process may cause the groundwater to rise due to capillary
action. Areas demonstrating excessive movement under test rolling should be either tyned, dried
and recompacted or removed and replaced with compacted select filling. Treatment should be to
a standard sufficient so that the subgrade passes test rolling and that compaction can be
achieved in the first layer of filling. All earthworks should be carried out in accordance with AS
3798-2007 (Ref 5).
Depressions formed by the removal of existing structures, pavements, underground elements etc.
will require all disturbed, weakened soils to be excavated out and then backfilled with compacted
select filling.
It is considered that the majority of materials won from excavations on site where free of organic
and deleterious material will generally be suitable for reuse as bulk filling provided the moisture
content of the soils on placement approximates the OMC. This may require moisture conditioning,
especially where material has been stockpiled for extended periods or is significantly wetter than
OMC.
Imported select filling material, if required, should be a good quality select filling material with
minimum soaked CBR of 10%, of low plasticity and well graded with a maximum particle size of
75 mm.
Where clay soils are proposed to be used as filling beneath structures, such use is contingent
upon potential reactive movements being tolerable and a reduced CBR strength. It is
recommended that cohesive material be placed at depth and granular material (if available) be
placed close to footing level. This will reduce the effects of seasonal moisture change and
foundation soil reactivity, and will improve surface trafficability.
Approved structural filling should be placed in layers not exceeding 0.2 m ‘loose’ thickness, with
each layer compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 98% relative to Standard compaction.
Where filling has a significant clay content, moisture content within the filling should be
maintained within 2% of OMC during and after compaction.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 9
Page 6 of 13
Care should be taken not to over-wet clay soils as this can lead to problems associated with
trafficability and workability. Clayey soils should not be over-compacted (ie. not more than 102%
Standard) or placed too dry of OMC, as this can lead to future swelling and softening with
changes to moisture content or inundation from water.
Filled batters should be overfilled and then cut back to the required design batter angles in order
to maximise compaction of the material in the batter faces.
Field density testing should be carried out to confirm the standard of compaction has been
achieved and the placement moisture content. The frequency of testing should be carried out in
accordance with AS 3798-2007. Level 1 inspection and testing of filling must be undertaken
where the filling exceeding 0.5 m in depth is to support buildings, pavements or settlement
sensitive structures or Level 2 otherwise.
On completion of earthworks, it is important that the upper surface of new filled areas be
prevented from ‘drying out’ as this could lead to significant post construction swelling beneath the
building foundations and floor slabs which could damage the buildings. Where clay material is
exposed at subgrade level, it is recommended that a minimum 150 mm thick layer of granular
material (minimum CBR 10%) placed over any exposed clay subgrade to reduce the potential
dry-out at the top of the filled platform.
The above procedures will require geotechnical inspection and testing services to be employed during
construction. DP is suitably qualified to conduct earthworks testing and supervision services that will
be required during earthworks construction.
8.2 Excavation
Based on the ground conditions encountered, excavations in the filling and natural soils could be
undertaken using conventional small to medium sized earthmoving equipment, such as drotts,
backhoes or 8-15t (or larger) excavators.
The use of pneumatic tools or rock breakers may be required if any concrete is encountered.
It should be recognised that the excavatability estimates are based on materials encountered at the
bore locations only and that conditions may prove more difficult (or easier) for excavatability beyond
these bore locations and the depths drilled as part of this investigation.
8.3 Batter Slopes
Near vertical temporary excavations less than 1 m depth in dry soils are likely to be suitable for the
short term installation of underground services provided there are no sensitive services or structures,
or vehicular trafficked areas are located close to the excavation. Excavations in sands have the
potential to ‘collapse’ unexpectedly in a trenching situation, particularly where groundwater seepage is
encountered. Excavations in these materials should be considered unstable and shoring of trench
excavations in wet sands will be required.
All excavations greater than 1 m depth will need to be benched or battered for stability and prior to
personnel entering the excavation.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 10
Page 7 of 13
Temporary and long term batter slopes may be undertaken using the suggested batter slopes
provided in Table 3. Where groundwater seepage is encountered, batter slopes will need to be
considerably flatter.
Table 3: Batter Slopes
Safe Batter Slope (H:V)
Material
Short Term Long Term
Engineered filling* 1:1 2:1
Dry medium dense sands 1.5:1 2:1
Notes: * Depends on filling material type and level of compaction. Assumes clayey material compacted under ‘Level 1’
inspection and testing.
Slopes may need to be flattened to 3H:1V or less, in order to allow vehicle access for maintenance of
the slopes. It is recommended that all batters incorporate crest and toe drainage. The batters should
also be covered with topsoil and vegetation to provide long term erosion protection.
8.4 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. Such classification; however, provides an indication of the propensity of the ground surface
to move with seasonal variation in moisture content, and can be used to assist in the design of brittle
elements in non-residential buildings.
In strict accordance with AS 2870, given the presence of filling and soft soils at depth in some of the
bores, this site would be classified as ‘Class P’ (problem site) requiring design by engineering
principles.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the results of laboratory testing, shrink-swell
movements are estimated to be less than 20 mm. It is noted that the shrink-swell movements and site
classification will be affected by the proposed earthworks. The use of clay filling will increase
estimated shrink-swell movements, in particular imported high plasticity clay. It is preferable if imported
filling comprises low plasticity granular fill.
Site movements will also include site settlements, which are in addition to shrink-swell movements;
these settlements are discussed below. The total estimated site movements are estimated to be in the
order of 40 mm to 50 mm, consistent with Class H1 conditions.
8.5 Site Settlements
Preliminary estimates of settlement were made using DP’s in-house software T-REX with soil
settlement parameters assessed using published correlations and local experience.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 11
Page 8 of 13 The estimates indicate total settlements per 20kPa of development load (or metre of new filling) of up to 20mm. Most of this settlement is estimated to occur in the first six months after load is placed. With alluvial soils, settlements can be irregular, resulting in differential platform movements. Potential differential settlement will also depend on the variation in thickness of the underlying soft to firm clay. It is also noted that in addition to the site settlements indicated above, new filling will also undergo settlement due to self-weight. As a guide, well compacted clayey filling is expected to experience settlements of about 0.5% to 1% of fill thickness. 8.6 Foundations Provided that site preparation is carried out in accordance with the recommendations given in this report, it is considered that strip footings up to 1 m wide and pad footings up to 2 m in width, founded in the new controlled engineered filling could be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. These bearing pressures are limited to ensure overstressing and excessive settlement of the softer soils encountered at depth does not occur. All footing excavations must be inspected and tested by an experienced geotechnical engineer from DP to confirm bearing pressures prior to casting of concrete. 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. Alternatively, where development loads exceed the above allowable bearing pressures and estimated settlements, a suitable deep foundation will be required. Steel screw piles would be considered suitable given the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores. The ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) of screw piles can be calculated using the unfactored, ultimate end bearing values given in Table 4. Due to installation disturbance, it is recommended that the shaft friction on screw piles be ignored. The Rd,ug values given in Table 4 will need to be multiplied by a suitable geotechnical strength reduction factor (Ø g) to obtain the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) of piles. In accordance with AS2159–2009 (Ref 6), the Øg value must be determined by the designer, but based on the anticipated site, design and installation risk factors, a Ø g value of 0.45 is considered likely for a low redundancy pile system. If working stress methods are used in the pile design, the R d,ug values given in Table 4 will need to be divided by a factor of safety of 2.5 to calculate the maximum single pile working load. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 12
Page 9 of 13
Table 4: Ultimate (Unfactored) Screw Pile Design Parameters
Founding Material Ultimate Unfactored End Bearing Pressure*
(kPa)
Stiff natural silty clay 300
Very stiff natural silty clay 600
Notes: * Geotechnical strength reduction factor or factor of safety required
Experience indicates that properly designed and constructed piles sized using the parameters given
above and appropriately factored are likely to undergo settlements in the order of 1% to 2% of the pile
diameter.
It is recommended that the installation of steel screw piles should only be carried out by experienced
contractors and that pile capacities should also be checked in the field by load testing after installation
is complete. Measurement of installation torque should not be relied upon to indicate pile capacity, as
it has been documented that this can lead to misleading results. The torque relates to the soil through
which the helix is passing and not the soil beneath the base of the pile.
8.7 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be specifically engineer designed in accordance with AS 4678-2002 (Ref 7).
The design of flexible and rigid retaining walls could be undertaken using a triangular pressure
distribution and the earth pressure parameters given in Table 5. 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).
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. Allowance should
also be made for the surcharge due to sloping crests if applicable.
Table 5: Earth Pressure Coefficients (non-sloping crest backfill)
Material Unit Friction Active At Rest Passive
Weight Angle Ka Ko Kp
3
(kN/m ) (degrees)
Engineered filling* 19 26 0.40 0.55 2.5
Medium dense natural sand 19 33 0.30 0.45 3.3
Notes: * Depends on filling material type and level of compaction. Assumes clayey material compacted under ‘Level 1’
inspection and testing.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 13
Page 10 of 13
Preference should be given to adopting thin soil layers and using small hand-controlled compaction
equipment during backfilling against retaining walls. This is in order to limit the stress applied to the
walls during construction. Should heavy compaction be required, then wall stresses will be well in
excess of Ko and temporary propping should be used.
Clayey backfill should not be placed too dry of optimum moisture content, as this can lead to increased
future swelling with changes to moisture content or inundation from water creating additional load on
the back of the wall.
It is recommended that all retaining walls be drained for full height in order to minimise hydrostatic
pressure build-up behind the wall. Additional guidelines on wall drainage are provided in Appendix G
of AS 4678-2002.
8.8 Pavement and Slab-On-Ground
Subgrade conditions are expected to typically comprise either new engineered filling or natural sands.
The design of pavements and on-ground floor slabs will depend on the quality of the new imported
filling which is to be placed in order to raise site levels.
Soaked CBR testing will need to be carried out at the time of construction to confirm CBR values of
the imported filling material.
The results of the laboratory testing indicate a soaked CBR value of 35% for the natural silty sand
encountered onsite. The high laboratory CBR value in the silty sand material is a result of the lateral
confinement of the material in the sample mould. Such confinement is not likely to be achieved in the
field, therefore it is suggested that a maximum value of 10% be used for these sands based on
experience with similar soils.
For composite subgrades (ie. where imported filling is less than 1m) the Japan Road Association
method of assessing a weighted subgrade strength should be used:
0.33 0.33 3
CBRW = (DF x CBRF + (1-DF) x CBRS )
where: CBRW = weighted subgrade CBR (%)
DF = depth of filling (m)
CBRF = CBR of filling material (%)
CBRS = CBR of natural subgrade (%)
On-ground building floor slabs (ie. floating slabs) should be detailed so they can accommodate
potential ground movements, including settlements and shrink-swell movements. Differential
settlements could be expected to vary across the site, depending on the floor loads, as well as the
thickness and consistency of the near surface soils. Dowelling of floor slabs will minimise differential
movements between adjacent slabs.
The satisfactory on-going performance of pavements is dependent on the subgrade not being allowed
to become excessively wet. To improve pavement life, it is essential that sufficient subsoil drainage be
installed in areas where there is potential for water to enter the subgrade, (ie. adjacent to unsealed
areas, table drains, landscaped areas etc).
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 14
Page 11 of 13
8.9 Acid Sulfate Soils
8.9.1 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 m AHD.
These soils are generally found close to the natural ground surface, but may also be found at depth
within the soil profile.
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.
8.9.2 Criteria for Evaluation of ASS
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). No samples returned pHf values of 4 or less.
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. Two samples in
the clayey sand filling from Bore 4 returned pHf values of 4.9 and 5.0.
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. The remainder of the samples
tested returned pHf results 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. Samples tested below 1 m depth in Bore
1, and the majority of samples tested in the filling and the natural sands from in Bores 3 and 4
returned pHfox values of less than 3.
pHfox between 3 and 4 indicates the possibility of PASS material and a pHfox between 4 and 5
may indicate the presence of small amounts of sulfide or fine carbonates. Intermittent samples
from Bores 3 and 4 returned pHfox values of between 3 and 4. Samples tested in the upper 1 m
from Bore 1 and all of the samples tested in Bore 2 returned pHfox values of between 6 and 7.4.
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.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 15
Page 12 of 13
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 sandy clay from Bores 1 and 2,
the natural silty sand from Bore 3 and the clayey sand filling in Bore 4 tested returned SCR values
equal to or greater than 0.03 %S.
Where the total actual acidity (TAA) value exceeds 18 mol/t then the soil has an acidity level
exceeding the QASSIT guideline value. Only the clayey sand filling tested from Bore 4 returned
TAA value of greater than 18 mol/t, all of the remaining samples tested were alkaline with the
ability to neutralise (ANC) any potential acid generated.
Generally, the action criterion from the chromium suite of tests, which triggers a requirement for ASS
disturbance to be managed is as follows:
Net Acidity (TAA + SCR + SNAS – ANC/1.5) of greater than or equal to 0.03 %S
The above action criterion was exceeded in only the one sample of clayey sand filling tested from Bore
4. Using the results of the laboratory testing, the addition of lime to neutralise the ASS in the
disturbance to any clayey sand filling would be required at a rate of up to 2.75 kg of lime per tonne.
3
Assuming an overall stockpile density, after ‘bulking up’, of approximately 1.5 tonnes/m , this equates
3
to a lime application rate of approximately 4.25 kg/m (Liming rates assume a safety factor of 1.5, and
97% lime neutralisation).
No other samples tested exceeded the action criterion, indicating treatment to neutralisation any ASS
is considered not necessary.
9. References
1. Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 “Residential Slabs and Footings”, Standards Australia
2. Ahern, C R, Ahern, M R, and Powell, B, “Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid
Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland 1998”, QASSIT, Department of Natural Resources,
Resources Sciences Centre, October 1998.
3. Dear, S E, Moore, N G, Dobos, S K, Watling, K M, Ahern, C R, and O’Brien, l E, “Queensland
Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines”, Department of Science,
Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, 2014.
4. Ahern, C R, Sullivan, L A, and McElnea, A E “Laboratory Methods Guidelines 2003 – Acid
Sulfate Soils” in “Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual”, Department of Natural
Resources and Mines, August 2003.
5. Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments” Standards Australia.
6. Australian Standard AS 2159-2009 “Piling – Design and Installation”, Standards Australia.
7. Australian Standard AS 4678-2002, “Earth Retaining Structures”, Standards Australia
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx
11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 16
Page 13 of 13 10. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has prepared this report for the proposed commercial development at 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Martoo Consulting 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. The scope of work for this investigation/report did not include the assessment of surface or subsurface materials or groundwater for contaminants, within or adjacent to the site. 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 components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition. Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 90151.00.R.001.docx 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin May 2017
Page 17
Appendix A About This Report [OCR of page images] Appendix A About This Report
Page 18
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 19
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 20
Appendix B Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan [OCR of page images] Appendix B Drawing 1 — Test Location Plan
Page 21
Site
1
Location Plan
6
N
3 4
5
2
LEGEND:-
Test Bore Location and Number
NOTE:-
1. Test locations are approximate only and are
shown with reference to proposed site features.
2. Plan adapted from Hilton-Site Drawing provided
by Martoo Consulting.
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Test Location Plan PROJECT No: 90151.00
Douglas Partners
Geotechnics Environment
OFFICE: Sunshine Coast
Groundwater
DRAWN BY: JST Proposed Commercial Development DRAWING No: 1
DATE: May 2017 SCALE: As shown 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin REVISION: 0
Page 22
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
[OCR of page images]
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Page 23
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 24
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 25
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of Definitions of grading terms used are:
soils and rocks used in this report are based on • Well graded - a good representation of all
Australian Standard AS 1726-1993, Geotechnical particle sizes
Site Investigations Code. In general, the • Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
descriptions include strength or density, colour, particular sizes within the specified range
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
Soil Types
Soil types are described according to the • Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading particle size with the range
of other particles present:
Cohesive Soils
Type Particle size (mm) Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
Boulder >200 basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
Cobble 63 - 200
estimated by field tests or engineering
Gravel 2.36 - 63 examination. The strength terms are defined as
Sand 0.075 - 2.36 follows:
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002 Description Abbreviation Undrained
shear strength
(kPa)
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
Very soft vs <12
subdivided as follows:
Soft s 12 - 25
Type Particle size (mm) Firm f 25 - 50
Coarse gravel 20 - 63 Stiff st 50 - 100
Medium gravel 6 - 20 Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6 Hard h >200
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6 Cohesionless Soils
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2 classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
The proportions of secondary constituents of soils (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
are described as: penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:
Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and Relative Abbreviation SPT N CPT qc
Sand (40%) Density value value
(MPa)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Very loose vl <4 <2
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some Medium md 10 - 30 5 - 15
sand dense
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
of sand Very vd >50 >25
dense
May 2017
Page 26
Soil Origin
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
• Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
• Filling - moved by man.
Transported soils may be further subdivided into:
• Alluvium - river deposits
• Lacustrine - lake deposits
• Aeolian - wind deposits
• Littoral - beach deposits
• Estuarine - tidal river deposits
• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.
May 2017
Page 27
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 28
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 29
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.1 AHD BORE No: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 509382 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080356 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
0.05 ASPHALT 0.05
1
D
0.2 ROADBASE - very dense, grey-brown, fine to coarse silty 0.2 ASS sample taken every
sandy gravel roadbase, fine to coarse grained sand, moist 0.25 0.25m to 2m
SILTY SAND - dense, orange-brown, fine to medium B
grained silty sand, some fine gravel, moist
0.7
- medium dense, wet
0.85
- loose, grey
1 D 1
1.1
0
1.15
SANDY CLAY - soft, medium plasticity sandy clay, fine to 1.2
medium grained sand, wet D
1.4 pp = 10
1.5 1.5
SILTY SAND - loose to medium dense, grey, fine to 1.6
medium grained silty sand, some fine gravel, some clay
fines, some shell fines, moist D
1.9
2 2.0 2
Bore discontinued at 2.0m
-1
Limit of Investigation.
3 3
-2
4 4
-3
5 5
-4
6 6
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 0.7 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 30
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.4 AHD BORE No: 2
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 504367 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080326 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
0.04 ASPHALT
0.18 ASS sample taken every
ROADBASE - very dense, grey-brown, fine to coarse silty 0.25
sandy gravel roadbase, fine to coarse grained sand, moist 0.25m to 2m
1
SILTY SAND - dense to very dense, orange-brown, fine to
medium grained silty sand, some fine gravel, moist
- medium dense
- streaked grey, some shell fines, wet 0.8
1 D 1
1.2
1.3
SANDY CLAY - soft to firm, medium plasticity sandy clay, 1.4 pp = 20
0
fine to medium grained sand, wet
1.55
SILTY SAND - loose to medium dense, grey, fine to
medium grained silty sand, some fine gravel, some clay
fines, some shell fines, moist
2 2
-1
2.8
SILTY CLAY - soft, grey, medium to high plasticity silty 2.9 pp = 10
3 clay, trace of shell fines, wet 3
D
3.2
-2
- firm to stiff, light grey mottled red-brown, high plasticity, 3.5 pp = 100
moist
- stiff
3.9 pp = 130
4 4
4.3
4.4 pp = 170
-3
D
4.8
4.9 pp = 200
5 5
- very stiff
5.4 pp = 220
-4
5.9 pp = 270
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation.
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 0.7 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 31
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.2 AHD BORE No: 3
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 504408 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080315 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
0.03
ASPHALT
0.2 ROADBASE - very dense, brown, fine to coarse silty ASS sample taken every
1
0.25
sandy gravel roadbase, fine to coarse grained sand, moist 0.25m to 2m
SILTY SAND - medium dense to dense, orange-brown,
fine to medium grained silty sand, moist
- loose, trace of clay fines, some shell fines, wet
1 1
0
1.4
D
1.7
2 2
-1
2.8
SILTY CLAY - soft, grey, medium to high plasticity silty 2.9 pp = 10
3 clay, some shell fines, wet 3
D
-2
3.3
- stiff, light grey mottled red-brown, high plasticity, moist 3.5 pp = 120
3.9 pp = 180
4 4
- some fine ironstone 4.2
-3
D
4.4 pp = 210
4.5
- very stiff
4.9 pp = 230
5 5
-4
5.4 pp = 270
5.9 pp = 300
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation.
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 0.85 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 32
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.7 AHD BORE No: 4
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 504426 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080306 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
0.03
ASPHALT
FILLING - medium dense to dense, brown streaked grey, 0.2 ASS sample taken every
fine to medium with some coarse grained clayey sand 0.25 0.25m to 2m
filling, low plasticity clay fines, moist D
0.6
0.7
1
FILLING - stiff, dark grey-brown, low to medium plasticity 0.8
sandy clay/clayey sand filling, fine to medium grained 0.9 pp = 120
1 sand, moist D 1
- firm, medium plasticity
1.2
1.4 pp = 80
1.45
CLAYEY SAND - medium dense, dark grey, fine to
medium grained clayey sand, low plasticity clay fines, wet
1.7
0
SILTY SAND - medium dense to dense, grey, fine to
medium grained silty sand, wet 1.9
2 2
D
2.3
-1
2.9
3 CLAYEY SAND - medium dense, grey, fine to medium 3
grained clayey sand, low plasticity clay fines, some shell
fines, wet
-2
4 4
4.1
SILTY CLAY - stiff, light grey mottled red-brown, high
plasticity silty clay, moist
-3
4.9 pp = 210
5 - very stiff 5
5.4 pp = 240
-4
5.9 pp = 260
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation.
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 1.45 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 33
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.6 AHD BORE No: 5
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 504442 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080292 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
0.03
ASPHALT
0.21 FILLING - medium dense to dense, brown, fine to medium
with some coarse grained clayey sand filling, low plasticity
clay fines, moist 0.4
FILLING - stiff, dark grey-brown, some orange-brown D
0.6 pp = 190
1
streaking, medium plasticity sandy clay filling, fine to 0.7
0.75 medium grained sand, moist
CLAYEY SAND - medium dense, dark grey, fine to
1 1
1.05 medium grained clayey sand, low plasticity clay fines, wet
SILTY SAND - medium dense to dense, orange-brown
streaked grey, fine to medium grained silty sand, wet
0
- loose
2 2
2.35
CLAYEY SAND - loose to medium dense, grey, fine to
medium grained clayey sand, low plasticity clay fines,
some shell fines, wet
-1
3 3
3.3
SILTY CLAY - stiff, light grey mottled red-brown, high 3.4 pp = 180
plasticity silty clay, moist
-2
- very stiff
3.9 pp = 240
4 4
4.4 pp = 270
-3
4.9 pp = 270
5 5
5.4 pp = 200
- some fine to medium ironstone
-4
5.9 pp = 310
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation.
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 1.05 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 34
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.3 AHD BORE No: 6
PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development EASTING: 504425 PROJECT No: 90151.00
LOCATION: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville NORTHING: 7080321 DATE: 18/4/2017
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
FILLING - medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium
grained silty sand filling, some wire, concrete, moist
1
>>
0.7
SANDY CLAY - firm, dark grey-brown, medium plasticity
sandy clay, fine to medium grained sand, moist 0.9
0.95
1 SILTY SAND - medium dense, grey, fine to medium 1
grained silty sand, some clay fines, wet
0
- some shell fines
2 2.0 2
Bore discontinued at 2.0m
Limit of Investigation.
-1
3 3
-2
4 4
-3
5 5
-4
6 6
-5
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 0.95 m at time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. 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 35
Appendix D Laboratory Test Results [OCR of page images] Appendix D Laboratory Test Results
Page 36
Material Test Report
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1 1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Date Issued: 04/05/2017
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
Client: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
13/6 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads 4567
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Contact: Jack Lewis
Project Number: 90151.00
Project Name: Proposed Commercial Development
Project Location: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Work Request: 591 Nata Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Sample Number: 17-591A
Date Sampled: 18/04/2017
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
Sample Location: Bore 2 (0.8 - 1.2 m)
Particle Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1) Particle Size Distribution
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
2.36 mm 100
0.075
0.425
Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
0.3
0.6
(mm)
1.18 mm 93 100
0.6 mm 90
90
0.425 mm 84
0.3 mm 64 80
Percent Passing
0.15 mm 8 70
0.075 mm 5
60
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max
50
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Sample History Oven Dried 40
Liquid Limit (%) Not Obtainable 30
Plastic Limit (%) Not Obtainable
20
Plasticity Index (%) Non Plastic
10
Moisture Content (AS 1289 2.1.1)
Moisture Content (%) 19.5
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Page 1 of 3
Page 37
Material Test Report
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1 1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Date Issued: 04/05/2017
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
Client: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
13/6 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads 4567
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Contact: Jack Lewis
Project Number: 90151.00
Project Name: Proposed Commercial Development
Project Location: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Work Request: 591 Nata Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Sample Number: 17-591B
Date Sampled: 18/04/2017
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
Sample Location: Bore 4 (0.8 - 1.2 m)
Particle Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1) Particle Size Distribution
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
6.7 mm 100
0.075
0.425
Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
0.3
0.6
6.7
(mm)
4.75 mm 98 100
2.36 mm 97
90
1.18 mm 94
0.6 mm 86 80
Percent Passing
0.425 mm 79 70
0.3 mm 70
60
0.15 mm 45
0.075 mm 32 50
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 40
Preparation Method Dry Sieve 30
Sample History Oven Dried
20
Liquid Limit (%) 29
Plastic Limit (%) 15 10
Plasticity Index (%) 14
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max 0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Linear Shrinkage (%) 7.5 Particle Size (mm)
Cracking Crumbling Curling None
Moisture Content (AS 1289 2.1.1)
Moisture Content (%) 13.0
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Page 2 of 3
Page 38
Material Test Report
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1 1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Date Issued: 04/05/2017
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
Client: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
13/6 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads 4567
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Contact: Jack Lewis
Project Number: 90151.00
Project Name: Proposed Commercial Development
Project Location: 11-19 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Work Request: 591 Nata Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Sample Number: 17-591C
Date Sampled: 18/04/2017
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
Sample Location: Bore 1 (0.2 - 0.7 m)
California Bearing Ratio (AS 1289 6.1.1 & 2.1.1) Min Max California Bearing Ratio
CBR taken at 2.5 mm
CBR % 35
5
Method of Compactive Effort Standard
Method used to Determine MDD AS 1289 5.1.1 & 2.1.1
Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) 1.69 4
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 13.5
Laboratory Density Ratio (%) 98.0
Laboratory Moisture Ratio (%) 98.5 3
Dry Density after Soaking (t/m3) 1.66
Field Moisture Content (%) 12.1
2
Moisture Content at Placement (%) 13.5
Moisture Content Top 30mm (%) 15.2
Moisture Content Rest of Sample (%) 14.4 1
Mass Surcharge (kg) 4.5
Soaking Period (days) 4
0
Swell (%) 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Oversize Material (mm) 19
Oversize Material Included Excluded
Results 2.5 5 Tangent Corrected
Oversize Material (%) 2
Report Number: 90151.00-1 Page 3 of 3
Page 39
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) 270417.415 Client Name Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
SampleID All Samples Client Contact Brett Egen
Project Name Hilton Tce Tewantin
Report Date 5/05/2017 Job Number 90151
Sample Received Date 24/04/2017 Order Number
Sample Disposal Date 26/06/2017 Chain of Custody
Sample Packaging Plastic Bag Client Email [email protected]
Temperature Ambient Client Address 439 Montague Rd West End Brisbane Queensland 4101
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 2=Moderate 3=High 4=Very High (steam evolved).
TEMP: Surface temperature rise ( C) oxidised sample at 5 minutes - cooling may occur for fast reaction.
S# SampleID pH_f pH_Fox Change Rate Indication
1 BH1 0-250 6.8 6.4 -0.4 4 no TAA & low TPA & low sulphide
2 BH1 250-500 8.2 6.5 -1.7 0 no TAA & low TPA
3 BH1 500-750 8.1 7.4 -0.7 0 no TAA & no TPA & low sulphide
4 BH1 750-1000 7.9 6.7 -1.2 0 no TAA & no TPA
5 BH1 1000-1250 6.7 2.5 -4.2 4 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
6 BH1 1250-1500 6.8 2.8 -4.0 4 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
7 BH1 1500-1750 7.1 2.0 -5.1 4 no TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
8 BH1 1750-2000 7.2 2.1 -5.1 4 no TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
9 BH2 0-250 7.5 6.5 -1.0 1 no TAA & low TPA
10 BH2 250-500 7.8 6.0 -1.8 1 no TAA & low TPA
11 BH2 500-750 8.0 6.2 -1.8 1 no TAA & low TPA
12 BH2 750-1000 8.0 6.4 -1.6 1 no TAA & low TPA
13 BH2 1000-1250 8.1 6.5 -1.6 1 no TAA & low TPA
14 BH2 1250-1500 7.7 6.3 -1.4 4 no TAA & low TPA
15 BH2 1500-1750 7.6 6.5 -1.1 4 no TAA & low TPA
16 BH2 1750-2000 7.6 6.2 -1.4 4 no TAA & low TPA
17 BH3 0-250 6.6 2.8 -3.8 2 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
18 BH3 250-500 7.9 5.6 -2.3 2 no TAA & low TPA & sulphide possible
19 BH3 500-750 7.6 3.8 -3.8 2 no TAA & high sulphide/low buffer
20 BH3 750-1000 6.5 3.0 -3.5 1 low TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
21 BH3 1000-1250 7.5 3.4 -4.1 4 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
22 BH3 1250-1500 6.6 2.4 -4.2 3 no TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
23 BH3 1500-1750 7.4 3.0 -4.4 4 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
24 BH3 1750-2000 7.5 2.4 -5.1 4 no TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
25 BH4 0-250 4.9 2.6 -2.3 4 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
26 BH4 250-500 5.0 2.9 -2.1 0 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
27 BH4 500-750 5.8 3.1 -2.7 1 low TAA & moderate TPA & sulphide possible
28 BH4 750-1000 7.4 3.6 -3.8 4 no TAA & high sulphide/low buffer
29 BH4 1000-1250 7.3 4.3 -3.0 4 no TAA & sulphide possible
30 BH4 1250-1500 6.8 2.0 -4.8 3 no TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
31 BH4 1500-1750 6.8 3.3 -3.5 4 no TAA & moderate TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
32 BH4 1750-2000 6.5 2.2 -4.3 4 low TAA & high TPA & high sulphide/low buffer
Page 2
Page 40
DETERMINATION OF ACID SULFATE SOIL PROPERTIES
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
dn-'rd! n!,. IliLrnr{.r. I,fy Ird or n..i1?rJ< ,e, Mi !,s!.,-L r.i.r"-" r,,...-fi- /5r^ ph n?11q6r,ad
^rN ^r^.r^,,.p^;
LAB REFERENCE 1R050517.603 DATE 0F REPoRT 09 MAY 2017 d1B:37:54 Page 1 of 1 Report Pages.
CLIENT NAME Brett Egen clo Dougtas Partners Pty Ltd 439 Montague Rd t",est End Brisbane 4101
PROJECT NAME Hi Iton Tce Tewantin YOUR PROJECT/JOB REFERENCE 90151
SAMPLING DATE NUMBER 0F SAMPLES B Samples supptied by cIient SAMPLE TYPE:Soit/Sotid
DATE RECEIVED 5/05/2017 2:28:56 PN PACKAGING Ptastic Bag Ground 0ven Dry Samptes DISP0SED ON 4/07/?017
sanpte ID as received. nETHoooLoGY: as per (DNR oasslT ilay 2004), oven dried (85'C), >1000 m shett rdoved, ,ine srind. Att reported vatues g.aviEtric, dry Ess.
XsEo (equivatent sutphur) catcutated 6s mtes IM/624 + Xs cr + XsNAs - sAilC_BT (silAs inct'rded irrespective of pH).
if
LI El rates catcuLated to neutratise TPA (or TM >TPA)+ aS_RAS -ANC_BTI1.5 LIr,lE2 rates catculated to neutratise IAA + aS_POS or S-Cr + aS_RAS -ANC_BTI 1.5
NB. Lime rates .56he 972 tine neutratisatlon brt D0 NoT inctude any safety factors. sussested factor=1.5-2. Rates are kglton. uttipty by butk density to convert to kg/n3.
Fineness Factor (FF)=1.5 CBN PoS= notes c.rbonate atkatinity retEsed by oxidEtion 6$uiing (ca Pos - ca Kct) + ( s POS - l4s KCl) is due to carbomte sotution.
Kct extr..t. c. NAs is the..id.e..tive.atcium catcutatEd.. the differen.e b.trcen 1 rct 6rd 4l,l HCI sotuble C6.
ID. DEPTH PH PH TAA TPA TSA SKCI SP SPOS SCI S-NAS SEQCaKCI CaPMgKC[ MgPCBNPOS LIME1LIME2SANC-BT CaNAS
mm KCL ox nlt m/t nlt % % % % % % mg,/kg mg/kg mg/kg mS/kS n/t kglt kg/t % nglkg
AnatyticaI Method Codes 23A 238 23F 23c 23H 23Ce 23De 23Ee 228 s20Je s 23Vh 23Wh 23Sm 23Tm a23U&X s19A2 ZOE
BH1 500-750 8.35 il <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -0.232 681 30 -5 0.23 721
BH1 1000-1250 7.85 il 0.04 0.06 <0.01 -0.269 1364 333 -5 0.32 1284
BH2 250-500 7.86 il <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -0.200 802 48 -4 0.21 361
BH2 1250-1500 8.19 il 0.05 0.16 <0.01 -0.562 2032 371 - 10 0.72 11793
BH3 1250-1500 6.61 0 <0.01 0.02 <0-01 0.025 958 26 1 240
BH3 1750-2000 8.11 0 0.02 0-13 <0.01 -0.293 1365 15 -5 0.42 4538
BH4 500-750 4.69 22 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.060 562 148 ) 401
BH4 1250-1500 7.04 il <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -0.127 558 159 -3 0.1t, 40
Signatory /%D For and on behalf of Bio-Track Pty Ltd