Council archive · source document
Attachment 5 - Geotechnical Assessment · MCU18/0015
Attachment 5 (ye0technical Keport
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 81 pages
Page 2
8 October 2015 J000128-001-L-Rev0
David Neate
C/- Pamela Davidson
Innovative Planning Solutions Pty Ltd
PO Box 1043
Maroochydore QLD 4558
Email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES - 27 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA
Dear Pamela,
This letter report presents the results of a geotechnical assessment carried out by Core Consultants Pty Ltd
(Core) for a proposed development at the above site. The work was carried out in accordance with our
proposal Q000205-001-L-Rev0.
This office, previously operating as Golder, carried out a geotechnical investigation for a proposed
development on the site in 2003 (refer report 03682248-001, dated November 2003, attached). The proposed
development layout has since been amended. The 2003 geotechnical investigation covers much of the current
development layout, with the exception of the proposed development along the western boundary of the site.
Proposed development
We understand that the proposed development comprises a 19-unit residential development, as shown on
Innovative Planning Solutions drawing set SD.01 to SD.10 (D), dated 3 September 2015.
Fieldwork
To supplement and confirm the existing geotechnical report, the following geotechnical investigation was
undertaken:
Site walk-over assessment
Hand-auger borehole drilling
Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing
The fieldwork was undertaken on 23 September 2015.
A senior geotechnical engineer from Core reviewed the 2003 geotechnical report, and then undertook a site
walk-over to assess potential changes to the site since the 2003 geotechnical investigation.
Two hand-augered boreholes (designated BH1 and BH2) were drilled in the western portion of the proposed
development footprint, to depths of 1 m and 0.9 m below ground level, respectively.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was carried out adjacent to each borehole, to depths of 3.6 m and
3.1 m BGL, respectively.
Borehole locations were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS unit. Borehole locations are shown on the
attached Figure 1.
Reports of boreholes are attached, together with explanatory notes.
Site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown on the attached Photograph 1.
Page 3
J000128-001-L-Rev0
8 October 2015
Results
The site walk-over indicates that geotechnical conditions have not visibly changed since the 2003
investigation.
The ground conditions encountered in the boreholes in the western portion comprised about 0.3 m to 0.7 m of
very loose sand, then becoming loose. DCP testing indicates inferred medium dense sand from about 1 m
depth, becoming dense from about 2 m BGL.
No groundwater was encountered in the boreholes at the time of the investigation.
Recommendations
Considering that geotechnical conditions do not appear to have changed since the 2003 investigation, and that
the ground conditions encountered in the western portion are consistent with those encountered in adjacent
areas during the 2003 investigation, the recommendations in the Golder 2003 geotechnical report remain
applicable for the proposed development.
We anticipate that foundation conditions for proposed structures in the western portion of the development will
comprise deep sand. Footings supporting such structures will need to penetrate through the loose sand to
found in the underlying medium dense (or denser) sand.
A geotechnical engineer from Core must inspect footing excavations during construction to confirm the
founding conditions and design parameters (given in the attached Golder report).
The slope stability assessment and geotechnical advice on earthworks, retaining structures, footings,
pavement design, drainage & erosion, and construction management remain as per the attached Golder
geotechnical report (03632248-001).
Limitations
Your attention is drawn to the document, Limitations which is attached.
Yours sincerely,
CORE CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
Walter Mastenbroek Geoff Hurley
MEngPr MSc BSc (Hons) PMP MIEAust CPEng RPEQ MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Director
WM/GAH/wm
Attachments: Figure 1
Photograph 1
Borehole reports and explanatory notes
Golder Associates report 03632248-001
Limitations
2
Page 4
J000128-001-L-Rev0
8 October 2015
Attunga
Heights
Picture
Point Cr
Figure 1: Extract from IPS drawing SD.01 (D), showing the 2015 borehole locations.
Photograph 1: Site conditions during the fieldwork on 23 September 2015, looking approximately south-east
across the western portion of the proposed development footprint on 27 Attunga Heights.
3
Page 5
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: David Neate C/- IPS COORDS: 509147.0 m E 7080988.0 m N MGA94 56 DRILL RIG: Hand auger
PROJECT: Proposed Development SURFACE RL: DATUM: AHD CONTRACTOR:
LOCATION: 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: WM DATE: 23/9/15
JOB NO: J000128 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 1.00 m CHECKED: DATE:
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
CONDITION
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
SAMPLE OR Blows per 100 mm
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP SAND
fine to medium grained, pale grey brown, trace silt, trace root
matter
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
L
VL
0.40
becoming pale grey brown and brown
D-
HA
0.5
M
M
0.70
becoming pale grey brown
H L
1.0
END OF [email protected] m
PRACTICAL REFUSAL - Combination of tree roots and hole
collapse
BACKFILLED
1.5
2.0
CORE 8_1 LIB.GLB Log NON-CORED FULL PAGE J000128.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 08/10/2015 14:17 8.30.004 Datgel Tools
2.5
3.0
3.5
This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are
for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 6
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: David Neate C/- IPS COORDS: 509145.0 m E 7081001.0 m N MGA94 56 DRILL RIG: Hand auger
PROJECT: Proposed Development SURFACE RL: DATUM: AHD CONTRACTOR:
LOCATION: 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: WM DATE: 23/9/15
JOB NO: J000128 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.90 m CHECKED: DATE:
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
CONDITION
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
SAMPLE OR Blows per 100 mm
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP SAND
fine to medium grained, pale grey brown, trace silt, trace root
matter
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
VL
L
D-
HA
M
0.5
L
M-H
END OF [email protected] m
PRACTICAL REFUSAL - Combination of tree roots and hole
1.0 collapse
BACKFILLED
1.5
2.0
CORE 8_1 LIB.GLB Log NON-CORED FULL PAGE J000128.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 08/10/2015 14:17 8.30.004 Datgel Tools
2.5
3.0
3.5
This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are
for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 7
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS* Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
*T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatube Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.
M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant
effort from the equipment.
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the
digging implement or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of
excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level at date shown Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,
OBSERVED surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in
ENCOUNTERED less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open
for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water Sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Static cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects)
R=0 No visible evidence of contamination R=A No non-natural odours identified
R=1 Slight evidence of visible contamination R=B Slight non-natural odours identified
R=2 Visible contamination R=C Moderate non-natural odours identified
R=3 Significant visible contamination R=D Strong non-natural odours identified
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)
Length of core recov ered
100
Length of cylindrica l core recovered 100
Axial lengths of core 100 mm 100
Length of core run Length of core run Length of core run
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 8
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL, CI or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or GW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in
AS1726 – 1993, (Amdt1 – 1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field by
visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Division Sub Division Particle Size 40
BOULDERS > 200 mm CH
CI High plasticity
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm 30
CL
Medium clay
Low plasticity
Plasticity Index (%)
clay plasticity
Coarse 20 to 63 mm clay
GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm
20
OH or MH
Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm High liquid limit
silt
Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm
10 OL or ML
SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm Low liquid
CL/ML Clay/Silt limit silt
Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm OL or ML - Low liquid limit silt
SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CLAY < 0.002 mm Liquid Lim it (%)
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 9
RTI 11/055 Folio B382 cr « ~ Golder Associates Pty Ltd a + A.B.N. 64 006 107 857 ; tor Os | FF Seles, oowong, . AustTraila (PO Box 1 734, Milton BC, 4064) sociates 1 Telephone (07) 3721 5400 [ Fax (07) 3721 5401 Lo. http:/Avww.golder.com Bg r REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT [7 26 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS a NOOSA HEADS, QUEENSLAND 7 i n Lj Submitted to: yy Mr Phillip Harding hn G/- Victor G Feros Town Planning Consultants Ci 195 Dornoch Terrace (cnr Gladstone Road) Highgate Hill QLD 4101 [ DISTRIBUTION: [| 16 Copies - Victor G Feros Town Planning Consultants (Mr Ken Todd) 2 Copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd [ November 2003 03632248-001 a [ BEST Fonben tes OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, AFRICA, a 1 lewill Fl OFFICES IN ADELAIDE, BRISBANE, CAIRNS, MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE, PERTH, SYDNEY, NEW ZEALAND, INDONESIA, HONG KONG, CHINA, THAILAND, PHILIPPINES S | ‘The Assoelatin of Ing ‘Australis
Page 10
RTI 11/055 Folio B383 November 2003 -i- 03632248-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... cc ceecsssscsssesessssecessessnssessacanssessssecsecsesevsutensasessvaseateas 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION o......cccccsccseccecsseessccsesssesacecsesessesscsnsassciscenecnareneers 1 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...........cccccsccsesscsreessesssesscescsstssseesssesevseseseanes 2 4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ...........cccccsccssecscessecsscsscssscrevssssrssesecssraseees 3 4.1 FI@IGWOTK 0... eeeesseeecenecnetesseetaecaecoscesesnecseenaventsseesssssaseneecssessusensearsae 3 4.2 Laboratory Testing........ 4 5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS. .............:cecssesssssessesesescsscsrscescrrvnssssasseeeanasears 4 5.1 Geology & Subsurface Conditions oo... ecccsseeseesssssscscseeseseesesesarenests 4 5.2 Laboratory Testing oo... ccccecscecsecseecsacesseecsessseecsscssseessvensesssenrscnssevasees 5 6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT............:ccccedfesssescsessesccsagDucsesveesersenanees 6 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ADVICE... cccesesssscssnmsetilcrenfecsesscesegi¥isDhsliesssevesssecs 9 7.1 Earthworks... cccesscssecesecessesscesseeseeessilVicedbersssessaessfitlia WVdeessecenseeneveneere 9 7.1.1 Site Preparation... eciiiteescessessesessMbscDbssessscssseesseesnsentes 9 7.1.2 Excavation... cece ealecuslersessscessfissibeticrecessesssessscerenevseevenes 9 TAZ FINI. ee eeseneeselinesssseslscsceseesleseeeslyseseneesecseseeseseneeseessetseesenes 9 7.1.4 Batter Slopes... ee 7.1.5 Temporary Excavation Support... 7.2 Retaining Structure Design .........0 04, vee 7.3 Footing DeSIQn... iii. ioeecesasedientberceseetecesccstsctscescaseeeeeeessseeseecseeeneneees 7.3.1 Deep Sand Foundations 00... cccecsscssecssctssecsetscseeseesseersenss 7.3.2 Shallow Clay / Rock Foundations ve 7A —- Pavement DeSIQn.... cn eeciecccesccescceneecseeesaceceeecceeceesseessesatesneseaesentesneee 7.5 Drainage & Erosion Control vo... sesescsessneesnsesseestesseesneesaeesseeeeerensees 7.6 Construction Management ...........:cessccssssreccsseesssrscertecsetcensaeesssaatecseees 8.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION uu... cece eseeecteeecsseesesesereeeattnersetereesnees Golder Associates
Page 11
RTI 11/055 Folio B384 . 1 — November 2003 - ii- 03632248-001 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Summary of Shear Strength Testing Table 2 : Modelled Geotechnical Parameters y Table 3 : Summary of Slope Stability Analyses L Table 4 : Relative Risk Levels & Implications for Development — Table 5 : Retaining Structure Design Parameters Table 6 : Pavement Design Parameters i LIST OF FIGURES . Figure 1 : Site Plan B Figure 2 : Section A-A - Figure 3: Section B-B = Figure 4 : Section C-C os, Figure 5 : Section D-D Lo i , LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS _ Photograph 1 : View towards north below proposed Lodge Photograph 2 : Colluvium exposure in creek bank below possible landslip ~ Photograph 3 : View into site towards test pit T'P9 from Viridian site . LIST OF APPENDICES * Appendix A : Reports of Boreholes, Test Pits & DCP Tests nS Explanation Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test a Pit Reports Method’of Soil Description Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports rN Terms for Rock Material Strength & Weathering and Abbreviations for . Defect Descriptions L, Appendix B : Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results — Appendix C : Slope W Results Appendix D : “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report” C1 FI Golder Associates
Page 12
RTI 11/055 Folio B385 r C —d J t CTY ] November 2003 -l- 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out by Golden Ass Pty Ltd (Golder) for a proposed Group Housing Development and Accommodation Buildi gz at 26 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads. The investigation was undertaken for Mr Phillip Harding (Attunga Heights Pty Ltd) at the request of Victor G Feros, town planning consultants for the project. The development proposal comprises construction of Group Housing, an Accommodation Lodge and two minor access roads, which bridge the creek. This report presents the results of the site investigation and a slope stability assessment together with geotechnical advice regarding earthworks, retaining structures, footings, pavements, drainage and other construction matters. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The real property description of the site is Lot 27 on. RP\89506, Parish of Weyba and covers an area of about 1.8 hectares. Attunga Heights and Picture Point Crescent terminate adjacent to the southern and western site boundaries respectively. The site is bounded by residential properties to the south and west, Halse Lodge (north) and the Viridian Noosa site (east). Figure 1 shows the proposed development, layout overlain on the site plan, which includes ground surface contours and the positions of trees. The base plan for Figure | is derived from JMA Architects Drawing No. 978DA0001 Rev. B) dated 2 October 2003. The majority of the site’ is.a moderately-to steeply sloping sand dune slope (with an easterly to north-easterly aspect), intersected by.a meandering creek, which runs from the south towards the north adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The dune slope has a maximum elevation of about RL 58 m in the south-western corner of the site, with a minimum recorded elevation of about RL 10 m in the bed of the creek adjacent to the northern boundary. Ground slopes across the dune typically\range between about 20° and 30°, as shown in Photograph 1, with steeper slopes of up to.40° occurring adjacent to the banks of the creek. Boulders of diorite up to 800 mm across are exposed in the western bank of the creek in the northern part of the site. A massive outcrop of diorite is exposed in the bed of the creek adjacent to the middle of the eastern site boundary. There is also an approximately 1 m deep outcrop of colluvium (clay and rock), shown in Photograph 2, exposed beneath about 1 m of sand in the bank of the creek adjacent to the northern site boundary. This outcrop is located on a relatively sharp bend in the creek below a possible landslip within the dune sand. The approximate extent of the possible landslip is defined by ground sloping at about 40°, across which a number of mature trees were observed to have bent trunks indicative of previous ground movement. Golder Associates clates © L
Page 13
RTI 11/055 Folio B386 cu] tT eo C4 November 2003 -2- 03632248-001 The meanders of the creek have created two clay soil ‘islands’ that are defined along their eastern edges by the fenced site boundary of the Viridian site. These areas have a westerly to north-westerly aspect, with ground slopes ranging from about 5° up to 35° adjacent to the creek. Boulders of diorite up to about 1500 mm across occur across the surface of these parts of the site. Vegetation across the sand dune comprises a scattered to dense cover of saplings and mature trees with a light undergrowth, as shown on Photograph 1. The clay slopes mostly have a dense cover of small trees and weedy undergrowth. At the time of investigation, there was an existing house together with ancillary structures in the southern part of the site, accessed by a driveway from Attunga Heights. A concrete public walkway is located just outside of the western site boundary. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Drawings prepared by JMA Architects show the proposed. development» layout, including sections and elevations of the proposed buildings (refi Drawing Nos)978 DA0000 to 3003, Revision B). Our understanding is that the project involves construction of the following: e Lodge — three Jevel building (basement, ground and first floors) comprising masonry and light-weight walls, ground level slabs and suspended timber floors with a metal deck roof. Cuts up to about 2 m depth are proposed together with minor filling. Two lifts will be constructed close to the Entry Court, * Group Housing = 15 individual three level cabins (ground, first and loft floors) comprising mostly light-weight construction with ground level slabs and suspended timber floors. Cuts up\to about 6 m depth are proposed in the vicinity of Cabins 3B, 4A/B, 5A/B and 6B for a car parking level. Elsewhere, cuts will be less than 2 m depth and fill will be supported by retaining structures. In general, the proposed buildings will be suspended above the natural ground slopes and proposed cut platforms. We also understand there will be a driveway from Attunga Heights providing vehicle access to garages on the ground floor of the Lodge. Two driveways will provide access to the cabins from proposed ‘stub’ roads located within the Viridian site to the east, with timber bridges at parking area. Golder Associates
Page 14
RTI 11/055 Folio B387 09000 ren oe [ rc] «fT 6) OT —) November 2003 -3- 03632248-001 4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 41 Fieldwork Initially, eight boreholes (designated BH1 to BH8) were drilled by hand augering, with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests conducted from the ground surface adjacent to each borehole. However, due to the loose and dry nature of the near surface sands, it was only possible to extend the boreholes to depths of up to 0.9 m, below which the boreholes were found to collapse. In order to prevent collapse of the open boreholes, a second round of hand augering was conducted with casing installed to depths of up to about 1.5 m. Additional hand augered boreholes were drilled at three locations (BH2A, BH4A and BH7A). DCP tests were conducted from the surface and within the boreholes at 1.5 m intervals in ordetto reduce the effect of friction build up on the DCP rods and, thus, on the test results. Test pits were dug using a 1.5 tonne excavator with 350 mnitoothed bucketto depths of up to 2.3 m. Test Pits TP5 and TP 6 were dug adjacent to,two of the previously drilled boreholes (BH5 and BH6), which encountered shallow refusal toYDCP testing, Test Pit TP8 was dug in sand adjacent to the creek. Test pits TP9 and. TP10 were dug on ‘lie clay slopes on the eastern side of the creek. The size of excavator used.on’the site and.the number of test pits dug on the eastern side of the creek was restricted by severe access limitations imposed by existing structures and the density of vegetation cover as shown on Photograph 3. Disturbed and undisturbed\(U50) tube samples obtained from the boreholes and test pits were returned to Golder Associates’ Maroochydore laboratory prior to dispatch for geotechnical testing (ref. Section’4.2), The fieldwork was undertaken"by experienced geotechnical personnel on 9 October (initial boreholes) and 16 October (second round boreholes and test pits), 2003. The borehole and test pit locations are shown in Figure 1. Results of the fieldwork are presented in the Reports of Boreholes, Test Pits DCP Tests in Appendix A, along with explanatory notes. Surface levels shown on the borehole and test pit reports have been interpolated from survey information supplied by the client. Golder Associates
Page 15
r ro L RTI 117055 Folio B388 ~~ November 2003 -4- 03632248-001 4.2. Laboratory Testing Disturbed samples were tested for classification purpose by Geotech (S.C.) Pty Ltd to determine: ¢ Soaked (4 day) CBR with 100% Standard Compaction (2 No.); * Particle Size Distribution (PSD, 5 No.); and e Atterberg Limits and Percent Fines (< 0.075 mm, 2 No.). Golder Associates’ Mansfield laboratory conducted material strength testing on disturbed sand and undisturbed clay samples, as follows: e Direct Shear on sand remoulded at 70% Density Index (2-No.); arid e Triaxial Shear Test on undisturbed clay, CUM with pore*pressure measurements (1 No.). Results are summarised in Section 5.2 below aptheect reports are presented in Appendix B. 5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 5.1 Geology & Subsurface Conditions Published geological information’ indicates that the majority of the site is underlain by a Quaternary (Pleistocen¢) age quartz sand dune, with Jurassic to Cretaceous age Noosa Quartz Diorite to the east of the.creek and probably underlying the sand dune at depth. The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes and test pits are variable as shown in Sections A-A to D-D (Figures 2 to 5). Boreholes BH1 to BH4/4A encountered very loose to loose dune sands to depths of between about | m and 3 m, overlying medium dense sand, over dense sand below.about 3 m to 4 m down to the full depth of the boreholes. Boreholes BH5 and BH6 encountered loose to medium dense sand, then DCP refusal at about 1 mto 1.5 m depth. Test pits TP5 and TP6 dug adjacent to the boreholes encountered very loose to loose dune sand, containing some diorite gravel, cobbles and boulders up to 300 mm across, overlying dense to very dense colluvium comprising about 30% grey to dark grey silty sand and 70% diorite (extremely weathered to distinctly weathered, very low to medium strength gravel and cobbles). Diorite cobbles and boulders up to 400 mm across were excavated from Test Pit TP5, between 1.7 m and 2.2 m depth, where refusal of the excavator bucket occurred. A massive shelf of diorite was noted in the creek bed about 10 m to the north-east of test pit TPS. Refusal on diorite cobbles and boulders occurred immediately ' 1:100,000 Geological Map, GYMPIE SPECIAL, Sheet 9445 & Part 9545, DME, 1999 Golder Associates
Page 16
RTI 11/055 Folio B389 oT Ts 4 my ry OT LF co tT November 2003 -5- 03632248-001 Vo. below the colluvium in test pit TP6 at 1.2 m depth. It is possible that the cobbles and boulders are residual materials. Borehole BH7A intersected very loose sand to 2.2 m depth, then medium dense sand to 2.5 m, ‘below which hard, medium to high plasticity sandy clay was encountered to hand auger refusal at 2.8 m depth. From the DCP results, it is inferred that very stiff to hard clay extends to about 5.8 m depth, where practical DCP refusal (35 blows/100 mm) was encountered. Borehole BH8 and test pit TP8 encountered very loose to loose sand to 2.2 m depth, then medium dense sand to 2.6 m, below which dense or hard materials were intersected to the depth of investigation. Test pits TP9 and TP10 located on the eastern side of the creek encountered stiff sandy clay and mostly dense silty sand colluvium, respectively, to depths/of 0.4 m and “1,4 m. These materials overlay very stiff to hard, inferred residual clay to-bueketrefusal om probable ‘core stones’ of diorite at depths of 1.2 m and 1.7 m, respectively» Boreholes GAland GABH21 drilled on the Viridian site to the east encountered ‘sandstone’ below.2.9.m and 6.2 m depth, respectively. Only a trace of groundwater seepage was‘noted at 1.7 m, depth in test pit TPS during the investigation. Groundwater was not ericountered in the other boreholes or test pits. Our experience at similar sites indicates that groundwater ‘may develop in the sandy materials overlying the less permeable clays arid soil / rock colluvium, particularly following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. 4 Laboratory Testing CBR values of 1 % and 14% were respectively recorded by testing carried out on silty clay and silty sand samples recovered from test pits TP9 (1.0-1.2 m) and TP10 (0.5-0.7 m). The CBR testing was conducted foliowing 100% Standard compaction and four days of soaking. Atterberg Limits and-Percent Fines testing was undertaken on samples of sandy clay and silty clay recoyered from 0.2 m and 0.9 m depth in test pit TP9. The results indicate a medium plasticity clay with 57% material finer than 0.075 mm at 0.2 m depth, and a high plasticity clay with 88% fines at 0.9 m depth. Four PSD tests were conducted on sand samples recovered from the dune area and these indicate that the material is fine to medium grained with a trace of silt. A PSD conducted on a sand sample recovered from 0.5-0.7 m depth in test pit TP10, east of the creek, indicates a fine to medium grained silty sand. Golder Associates
Page 17
"RTI 117055 Folio B390 - se es
cc TC
rm)
J
t
(la tT. Ot CO
\
November 2003 -6- 03632248-001
The results of shear strength testing are summarised in the following table:
Table 1: Summary of Shear Strength Testing
Loe =
BHI SAND (SP) 6 42
(0.8-0.9 m)
BH4A SAND (SP) 11 40
(2.0 m) :
TP9 Silty CLAY (CH) 12 14
(0.6-0.8 m)
Full laboratory reports for the geotechnical testing are presented\in Appendix B.
6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
A quantitative slope stability assessment has been conducted for the site using the limiting
equilibrium software package SLOPE-W withy input. parameters obtained from the
geotechnical investigation to calculate factors of safety for specific sections of the site. This
information has been used to assess the level of risk and)implications for development.
Two sections (A-A (east) and A=A (west)) based on Section A-A on Figure 2 for the east and
west sides of the creek have been analysed. The following geotechnical parameters were
adopted for the model based on the investigation test results and our experience with similar
materials in the vicinity,
Table 2+ Modelled Geotechnical Parameters
Very Loose Sand 17 0 32
Very Loose Sand + Root 17 2 32
Matter
Loose-Medium Dense 17 0 36
Silty Sand
Dense Silty Sand 18 2 40
Dense-Very Dense 19 5 38
Colluvium
Very Stiff Clay 18 10 32
Diorite - Bedrock . . -
Golder Associates
Page 18
RTI 11/055 Folio B391 November 2003 -7- 03632248-001 The modelling results are given in Appendix C and are summarised in Table 3 below. Table 3 —- Summary of Stability Analyses Subsurface profile for Section A-A (east of creek — clay side) with a 0.8 1 piezometric ground water surface placed at interface between loose to ft medium dense and dense silty sand. Existing subsurface conditions (east) interpreted from test pit TP10. Subsurface profile as for Run#1 (east), but with a piezometric ground water 1.9 2 surface placed at the lower interface of dense silty sand. (cast) Subsurface profile for Section A-A (west of creek — sand dune side) with a 1.4 1 piezometric ground water surface placed at lower interface of very loose (west) sand. Existing subsurface conditions interpreted from test pit TP6 and borehole BH7A. Subsurface profile as for Run#1 (west), but with a piezometrieground water 0.9 21 surface placed about 0.7 m above lower interface of very loose sand. (west) Fully specified slip surface with a piezometric ground water surface placed 1.3 3 about 0.7 m above lower interface of very loose sand. (west) The results indicate that the calculated facto of safety for the section east of the creek is greater than 1.5, provided that the *groundwater/level is maintained at or below the lower interface of the dense silty sand (inferred colluvium). Experience indicates that a factor of safety of 1.5 corresponds to,a normally accepted level of risk. The factor of safety reduces to/léss‘than one if the groundwater level rises within the colluvial silty sand, resulting in the/poteiitial for slope instability on the creek banks (ie. where the ground slope exceeds about,15° to 20°). Stability modelling for the section west of the creek (ie. on the sand dune side) returned a factor of safety of 1.4, being slightly less than the normally acceptable level for long-term stability. As mentioned in Section 2, and as shown in Figure 1, there is a possible landslip located adjacent to the western side of the creek in the northernmost part of the site. The ground surface in this area slopes at about 40° towards the east. This possible landslip appears to be relatively shallow (about 1 m deep) and confined to the loose dune sand. At the toe of the slip, in the western bank of the creek, colluvium comprising very stiff to hard clay and diorite cobbles is exposed beneath about 1 m depth of sand. The toe of the slip is located on the outside of a sharp bend in the creek. When water flows in the creek, it is possible that the toe of the slip is exposed to high velocity flows, which may scour and undercut the slope, thereby Golder Associates
Page 19
] LT] RTI_11/055 Folio B392 November 2003 -8- 03632248-001 initiating instability. Local erosion control measures (e.g. gabion baskets) to protect the creek banks both here and elsewhere should be considered in detailed design. , The presence of this possible slip indicates that the steeper parts of the sand dune are close to equilibrium (ie. factor of safety ~ 1). Our stability analysis indicates that when the groundwater level rises 0.7 m above the lower interface of the very loose sand, the minimum factor of safety reduces less than one for a 5 m long slip circle located on the lower part of the slope (ie. in the bank of the creek). For a fully specified slip surface through the very loose sand and extending up slope for a distance of about 20 m, the factor of safety is about 1.3, being slightly less than acceptable for long-term stability. From the above observations and stability analyses, it is considered likely that surface slumping of the sand can occur within about 20 m of the creek after periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This needs to be considered in the detailed design of the.footings for structures (Section 7.3). Subject to the implementation of the geotechnical advice in Section 7,0, it is our opinion that there will be a Low to Moderate Risk of slope instability affecting the proposed development. Such a level of risk is manageable provided that the proposed treatment options are adopted. This risk assessment has been carried ott following the AGS Sub-Committee Guidelines on Landslide Risk Management (March:2000)» Relative levels of risk and their implications are given in the table below. Table 4: Relative Risk Leyels & Implications for Development VH VERY HIGH RISK | Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce to acceptable levels; may be too expensive and not practical. H HIGH RISK Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to acceptable levels. M MODERATE RISK | Tolerable provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain or reduce risks, May be accepted, May require investigation and planning of treatment options. , L LOW RISK Usually accepted. Treatinent requirements and responsibility to be defined to maintain or reduce risk. VL VERY LOW RISK | Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures Note:(1)The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment; these are only given as a general guide. Golder Associates
Page 20
- “RTI-117055 Fotio-B393 [ C aan hoo ra Ls Noveimber 2003 -9- 03632248-001 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ADVICE 7.1 Earthworks 7.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to any earthworks activities, organic rich topsoil must be stripped and removed from the building areas. This material must not be used as fill to support any structural loads, however it may be used in landscaping areas. Where footings are proposed to penetrate through new fill, it would be prudent to ‘pre-excavate’ shallow colluvium (which contains cobbles and boulders) and replace it with ‘clean’ soil that is free of particles greater than 100 mm. This should enable less difficult excavation for footings following placement of fill. 7.1.2 Excavation The results of the investigation indicate that the proposed excavations should encounter the following subsurface conditions: © Western (dune) side of creek: mostly very loose grading to dense sands, with possibly dense to very dense colluvium (diorite cobbles and boulders with about 30% silty sand) below about 1 m depth adjacent to‘the ereek. The depth of overlying sand increases up slope to in excess of 6 m. e Eastern side of creek: mostlymedium to,dense silty sand and stiff sandy clay colluvium overlying very stiff to\hard inferred residual sandy/silty clay. Numerous high strength diorite ‘core stone’ boulders below about 1.5 m depth. Considering the above, excavation to the depths shown in the design drawings should be achievable using conventional_carthmoving equipment, possibly with the assistance of ‘ripper’ attachments for efficient excavation of the colluvium and to dislodge large boulders. 7.1.3 Filling Fill must not be placed on slopes exceeding 15° or on slopes within about 20 m of the creek (Section 6), unless fully supported by engineer designed retaining structures (ref. Section 7.2). Fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of -2% to +1% of optimum moisture content for Standard Compaction. Confirmatory testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum of two tests per 300 mm vertical interval is recommended where structural fill heights are to exceed 300 mm. Further details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-1996 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments". Select fill should have a maximum particle size of 100 mm for an uncompacted layer thickness of 200 mm and shall be compacted by Golder Associates
Page 21
RTI 11/055 Folio B394
{ ) fb ce to
November 2003 -10- 03632248-001
repeated rolling to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 98% of the Maximum Standard Dry
Density for cohesive soils, or 75% Dry Density Index for cohesionless soils.
In accordance with good construction practice, fill embankments should be ‘benched’ into
slopes following stripping and ‘over built’ then trimmed back to the well compacted material.
7.1.4 Batter Slopes
As a general guideline, temporary unsurcharged cut batters in sand and clay should not be
formed steeper than 1V:2H. Flatter batters may be required if groundwater is encountered
during construction.
Cut batters should be assessed by a geotechnical engineer from Golder Associates during
excavation. Such assessments should be undertaken progressively, with excavated face
heights prior to inspection being limited to 2 m.
7.1.5 Temporary Excavation Support
For proposed excavations up to about 6 m deep within the yery loose grading to dense sands
on the western side of the creek, some form of'temporary support will be required to enable
construction to proceed safely. Options-for temporary support include:
e ‘Soldier’ piles comprising ‘H’ sections or CFA,piles with timber lagging;
e Sheet piles;
e Contiguous CFA piles with infiil grouting of voids;
e Secant piles; and
e Micro-fine grouting.
One or two rows of anchors will probably be required to provide sufficient lateral restraint for
the temporary support system depending on the height of the cut. Design of the support
system must be conducted with due consideration of embedded depth below the excavation
level, variability in stratigraphy over the anchor embedment length, dewatering requirements,
and anticipated ground conditions. Temporary support design must also take into account the
impact on nearby structures and ground vibrations from driving ‘H’ section or sheet piles
should be avoided.
Heavy duty drilling equipment is likely to be impractical for this site, as there are restrictions
to access due to the presence of trees and loose sandy slopes. Small tripod type auger rigs (for
CFA pile construction) or small skid rigs are available and would be well suited to the site.
Golder Associates
Page 22
RTI 11/055 Folio B395 J iW rq . November 2003 ~ll- 03632248-001 Selection of the temporary support system will need to consider the feasibility of using the structure for long-term support and the associated cost benefits. For example, it may be practical to incorporate some of these support systems into the permanent structure by covering them with sprayed concrete and attaching facing panels. However, if the system relies on temporary anchors or is prone to corrosion (eg. sheet piles), it will be necessary to construct a permanent retaining system (e.g. a propped or cantilevered wall). Detailed advice regarding design and installation of the support system should be obtained from a specialist contractor. 7.2. _ Retaining Structure Design Retaining wall design should be carried out using a triangular pressure distribution applicable to the wall type (ie. active pressures for a cantilever wall or at rest pressures for a propped/anchored wall) and based on the parameters in Table 5. The values in, Table 5 assume that the walls are fully drained and no allowance is included for construction loading, up- slope foundation loadings, the effect of sloping ground, or backfill compaction’stresses. Table 5 — Retaining Structure Design Parameters Unit Friction Lateral.Earth Pressure Coefficient Weight Angle (thm*) |\(Degrees) Ky K, K, 1.7 30 0.3 0.5 3.0 Va 34 0.25 0.45 3.4 1.9 40 0.2 0.4 4.5 1.8 27 0.4 0.6 2.6 * * * * * *: Variable dependent upon the type of material used and the degree of compaction achieved. Positive permanent drainage must be installed behind retaining walls unless they are designed for development of full hydrostatic pressures. Golder Associates
Page 23
RTI 11/055 Folio B396 GC \. ho fF Fo ob ow oh Ww ok ic ssi Pt fb fo tk November 2003 -12- 03632248-001 7.3 Footing Design Based upon the results of the investigation, we anticipate that the foundation conditions for the proposed structures will comprise either deep sand or shallow clay / rock. It is our preliminary assessment that the Lodge together with Cabins 3B, 4A/B, 5A/B and 6B will have deep sand foundations, whilst the other structures will encounter shallow clay / rock foundation conditions. Golder Associates should carry out inspections of footing excavations during construction to confirm allowable bearing pressures. 7.3.1. Deep Sand Foundations Footings supporting structures on deep sand foundations will need to penetrate through the loose sand to found in the underlying medium dense (or denser) sand. «Footings could comprise bored piers, however significant fall-in is expectedyfrom the loose upper sand resulting in construction difficulties unless the piers afe-installed using a casing/liner. Grout- injected (CFA) piles would also be a suitable method for the proposed, construction. Spoil from pile excavation should not be stockpiled on the slope, and similarly, any drilling fluids used in drilling the piles should notbe discharged_onto the slope. Piles founded in medium dense sand could be=designed using an allowable end bearing pressure of 500 kPa and allowable shaft adhesion of 20 kPa, A specialist piling contractor should confirm allowable pile capacities. Apart from vertical\loads imposed by ‘the supported structure, final pile depth will also be dependent upon bracing requiremenis to resist the potentially significant lateral loads exerted on the piles by movement of loose sand. If localised instability develops in the loose surface sand directly up the slope from a pile, heavy loads will be placed on the pile as the sand attempts to flow down.the slope past the pile. Estimation of lateral forces on piles should be based on an assumption that lateral ground movements occur along the interface between loose and medium dense sand. The average depth of the zone of loose sand is 3 m. Calculation of lateral forces on piles should be carried out in accordance with the method outlined in the figure below. Golder Associates
Page 24
RTI 11/055 Folio B397
“ November 2003 -13- 03632248-001
LOOSE SURFACE
SAND FLOWING
DOWN HILL
PILE
r
wd Passive K, = Jaterot earth
Pressure pressure cosfficlent
4 Dietrlayflo = 2.77
< Y = soll .density
wd = 18 KN/m>
a KpyH H_« depth of moving sand
| : =3m
@» 28°
Y= 18kN/m?
rT Equivalent Laterol Load on lle:
PL 4K nyH? x LSd
NOT.TO, SCALE
L ) Equivalent Pils
ee Width (di
. Nh {downstope) Equivalent Pils Width « 15 xd
(ipstope)
—
—e
oe
7.3.2. Shallow Clay / Rock Foundations
s Footings supporting structures‘on shallow clay / rock foundations must penetrate through any
7 unsuitable materials to, socket into natural soil comprising either very stiff to hard clay or
dense to very densevcolluvium. Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the
shallow clay / rock areas, particularly.the probable interlocking of strong diorite cobbles and
boulders, the use of bored piers or conventional strip or pad footings are considered to be
ud suitable options.
“ However, due to the presence of loose surface sands, and possibly seasonal groundwater
seepage, contingency’ should be allowed for the installation of temporary liners to support
7 open bored pier holes. Furthermore, due to the presence of strong diorite boulders within the
foundation, the pier boring equipment used must be capable of penetrating such materials (eg.
with a pick attachment).
a Piers which socket into the very stiff to hard clay or dense to very dense colluvium may be
4 designed using an allowable end bearing pressure of 600 kPa for cleaned bases and side
adhesion of 40 kPa.
Conventional strip or pad footings may be used to provide support elsewhere in the shallow
= clay / rock area. Such footings should penetrate through any fill and colluvium to found at
least 200 mm into natural very stiff (or stiffer) clay or medium dense sand. The footings may
be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 200 kPa.
Golder Associates
Page 25
RTI 11/055 Folio B398 Tr i | | 5 November 2003 -14- 03632248-001 Based upon our slope stability assessment in Section 6, piers or deeper pad footings must be designed to resist lateral movement from: e the sandy colluvium (up to about 1.5 m deep) on the eastern side of the creek where ground slopes exceed 15° (includes Cabins 1A, 3A and 3C); and e the very loose to loose sands (up to about 3 m deep) on the western side of the creek below about RL 25 m (includes Cabins 1B, 1C, 2B and 2C). Structures in these areas must also be braced at the surface to resist lateral movement. 7.4 Pavement Design Design parameters for pavements will be dependent upon the subgrade materials present after earthworks and the type, depth and quality of new fill used ¢o bring the site‘to\design levels. The geotechnical laboratory testing from this site, together.with the test pit and borehole results, indicate that the subgrade materials exposed following. earthworks may vary dependent upon the location. CBR values assessed from the results ‘of this investigation, and from previous experience, are provided in Table 6. Table 6; Payement/Design Parameters Design Comments CBR’ (%) 5-15 Value to be adopted will be dependent upon thickness and quality of fill placed. 3 Greater than laboratory result of CBR 1% (see note 2). 5 Considered appropriate based upon experience with similar materials. 10 Less than laboratory test result, however considered suitable based upon our experience with similar materials. Note: 1. Pavement design parameters assume that ‘good’ drainage is installed and maintained. 2. Subgrades with CBR < 3% should be designed as per subgrades with CBR = 3% but with the initial subgrade layer stabilised to a depth of 100-150 mm (eg. cement treated base). Detailed subgrade evaluation should be undertaken during construction following earthworks to confirm design CBR values and the extent of any subgrade stabilisation (if required). This should comprise inspection by Golder Associates. Golder Associates
Page 26
RTI 11/055 Folio B399 November 2003 -15- 03632248-001 7.5 Drainage & Erosion Control In general, site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water and to prevent ponding of water on subgrade areas during construction and also adjacent to foundations and perimeter slabs once construction is completed. , Erosion can be prevented by minimising vegetation disturbance and by avoiding concentrated high velocity surface water flows by localised grade control and collection of roof runoff in holding tanks. Also, average gradients of finished surface profiles should not be made steeper than the existing surface. To minimise site erosion and maintain stability of slopes after completion of construction, it is recommended that the denuded banks of the creek should be revegetated. The investigation results indicate that groundwater seepage may be encountered‘in areas.along and above the creek banks following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. Excess stormwater collected from the site (eg. tank. overflow) should be directed by pipes to an engineer designed dissipation structure(s) located within the creek. As a precautionary measure to prevent instability ofthe creek bank, a subsurface cut-off drain is recommended along the up slope. side of proposed Cabins 1A, 2A and 3A. The cut-off drain should penetrate into the upper intetface of the inferred residual clay underlying the colluvium. It should be noted that this drainvis not required for long-term stability of the proposed structures, whiclwill be supported by footings designed to resist lateral forces, but is a precaution to prevent. slumping and. erosion of the creek bank. Golder Associates should review the design of the drain) 7.6 Construction Management It will be necessary to implement a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for the proposed development. The CMP should include control measures for each component of the proposed construction works to maintain stability of the sand dune in compliance with the recommendations of this report. Golder Associates should prepare relevant parts of the CMP or review the document prior to finalisation. Golder Associates
Page 27
RTI 11/055 Folio B400 November 2003 -16- - 03632248-001 8.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION Your attention is drawn to the document - “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”, which is included in Appendix D of this report. This document has been prepared by the ASFE (Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences), of which Golder Associates is a member. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing. We would be pleased to answer any questions about this important information from the reader of this report. GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Flow fro! Ashley Davel John Legge Geotechnical Engineer SenionGeotechnical Engineer JABRISBANE.03\GEOTECH.03\03632248\00_CORRESPONDENCE\OUT03682248-001,D0C ACD/MIL/JL/acd Golder Associates
Page 28
RTI 11/055 Folio B401
7
"45
8
10
tregescopytoht © Golder Associates Ply, Lid,
,
\
{
‘oO
>
=
ORITE BOULDERS UP
"9 T0
pose ; IN
K ®
ised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in parl without wri{len permission |
%
-)
2
; 5 Se
SO ee ee ee ) : ss WALKWAY
BRS. BOREHOLE LOCATION
GR
All BOREHOLE FROM BAYVIEW NOOSA PROJECT NOTES:
PERMISSION OF JOHN HOLLAND PTY LID. DO NOT SCALE
POSSIBLE LANDSLIP — PROWEGT
Mr P Harding Attunga Heights
5 ROCK OUTCROP a. ORARN DATE Ime
a . 0 10 20m EFGolder {|= am —~ oS SITE PLAN
SEE COLLUVIUM OUTCROP 1:500 ————— $= Associates SoU 12-\\-o2
10 , r SCALE 4:500 ABH 03632248-1 FIGURE No 1
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associales Pty. Lid. Unaulhorise
k:\_Brisbane\2003\Geotech\03632248\01_FIGURES\03632248-1.dwq Jan 09, 2004 - 4:29pm ~ NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INITIALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INITIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
— ‘ LL.
Page 29
RTI 11/055 Folio B402
T
0 —- 3
al _ |
— 3 tL
os =
a ale 5 eS
3 si 2 2 [ye
é a =. 35
re a ia
4 a a. 9
te al VSt-H inferred below —
4 TR6 as ce
i (Offset 2m +. 15
= 10: 10
; LEGEND
SAND BS cy SB oiorne
i SILTYSSAND BB cuvey GRAVEL SILTY CLAY
E SANDY CLAY [] SANDSTONE 4 COLLUVIUM
; INTERPRETIVE ONLY
: DO NOT SCALE
3 CLIENT PROJECT
= 7 Mr P Harding Attunga Heights
2 te PS oe 03/103. |"
E Pisouer,. CHECKED po DATE 12 {i (02 SECTION A-A
: en 1:200 a3 |" 9 3632248-2 ee 2
K:\_Brisbane\2003\Geotech\03652248\01_FIGURES\03632248-2.dwg Nov 13, 2003 - 8:59am NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INITIALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INITIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
Page 30
Golder Associates Ply. Cia.
wy
awiniges copyright.
use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part wilhout written permis
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Una
RTI 11/055 Folio B403
&
|
1
(ete
Paes
GAI1
Be (offset .9m N)
Leathe eee php pd
10
NOTES:
BOREHOLES GA11 AND GABH21 HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE VIRDIAN PROJECT WITH THE
PERMISSION OF JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD.
indary
Site
(4) san
SILTY SAND
‘SANDY CLAY
TPS
(Offset 1.2m N)
SECTION B-B
BB cv
EB cuvey craven
(1 sanostone
BH4A,
(Offset™5.5imeN)
BH3
(Offset 5.7m S)
| |
a iF Fa) Fa YO
heat Toei hein rid
25
20
15
10
(BA dorne
B SILTY CLAY
COLLUMIUM
INTERPRETIVE ONLY
DO NOT SCALE
2 oy Mr P Harding ee Attunga Heights
ae PS ese! 08/41/03. |"™ Section DS
ae 1:300 a3 9 3632248-3 a 3
K:\_Brisbane\\2003\Geotech\03632248\01_FIGURES\03652248-3.dwg Nov 13, 2003 - 8:57am
NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INITIALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INITIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
Page 31
RTI 11/055 Folio B404
0 —— —— 4
a] = _
Hi alg 5 rr
3 + 35
4 a GABH21 L
4 0 = (Offset 18.9m N) + 3
= 7 = TP9 cc
> 4 (Offset 15.2m §) i=
3 6 + Sel + 3
2 ys L
a lt st |
‘a a Refusal to }—
é 20 —— mee + 2
i 18 —— + «(15
; A SEQTION C-C L
; 10 ole 35
; BB cy (4 ore
SILTY SAND Be cuvey GRAVEL SILTY CLAY
’ SANDY CLAY [J sanostone
e INTERPRETIVE ONLY
DO NOT SCALE
CLIENT PROJECT
Mr P Harding Attunga Heights
Golder ps PS mare” 711703: = eeTiONee
lee ease | eles ;
3 | BOREH REPRODUCED FROM THE VIRDIAN PROJECT WITH THE Ronee aa
|| FEMISSON GF JOHN HOUND Prr UD. or 1:250 asl" 03632248-4 Me 4
K:\_Brisbane\2003\Geotech\03632248\01_FIGURES\03632248-4.dwg Nov 13, 2005 - 8:55am NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INITIALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INITIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
Page 32
RTI 11/055 Folio B405
se or reproduction of this plan either wholly
ined on this
ea
0
45
5
no
BH2
(Offset 19.3m
SILTY SAND
Fe sanpy clay
—- 60
BH1 a
T + 5
le ey
sl
LE ag
SECTION..D+D T
+ 3
LEcENp .
Ec Sl vore == 0)
Fay CLAYEY GRAVEL SILTY CLAY
[_] sanostone COLLUVIUM
INTERPRETIVE ONLY
DO NOT SCALE
Z St Mr P Harding ree Attunga Heights
iii PS AMES Bit (03h9 [8
SECTION D-
Fi soue: CHECKED “bu DATE 12fu| o2 O D
as 1:250 a3 |" 93632248-5 SORE, 5
K:\_Brisbane\\2003\Geotech\03632248\01_FIGURES\03632248-5.dwg Nov 13, 2003 - 9:02am
NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INITIALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INITIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
Page 33
RTI 11/055 Folio B406 November 2003 03632248-001 Photograph 2: Colluvium exposure in creek bank below possible landslip Golder Associates
Page 34
RTI 11/055 Folio B407 November 2003 03632248-001 Photograph 3: View into subject site towards tes? pit TP9 fromViridian site Golder Associates
Page 35
a 3 t d " RTI 11/055 Folio B408 Appendix A Reports of Boreholes, Test Pits & DCP Tests Explanation Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Boreholes and Test Pit Reports Method of Soil Description Used_on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Terms for Rock Material Strength & Weathering and Abbreviations formDefect Descriptions Golder Associates
Page 36
RTI 11/055 Folio B409 - ae oe Beate. SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 54.5m DATUM: AHD71 ORILLER: LOCATION: _— Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.90 m CHECKED: her DATE: 210% Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Bw a = 3 ° ES uw g w [2 DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) 8 Berea rnprest |S1e | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 ibe Blows per 100 mm Yale | as ol] alo 222 ¥ jee) | BE PR #l83|2 g\gap = 1 2% 9.0~T-sa50 TSP] SAND 1 fine to medium grained, fight grey, trace of root matter 1 O90} ee Pd < 54.20 | becoming pale grey 7 * 05—] =| 5 4 0,90 _| DS 0,80-0.90m on 1 10—| 53.60 END OF [email protected] m wd UNABLE TO EXTRACT 7 15 = 20 om 254 4 3.0 4 2 35 4 § A J 8 4 1 s 4.0 + 5 4 4 5 4 4 8 ; J 8 45-] 4 gl 4 4 5 4 4 8 4 4 g 4 4 y 5.0 4 8 4 4 2 4 4 & 557) 4 & 4 J & 4 4 5 4 4 2 6.0 4 5 4 4 8 1 J & a 7 J z| 65— 4 a 7 4 w 7 4 & 4 4 8 J 4 =| \ Brot tba ao coats “ceo TE re ee ae me Bae me tine a This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for 2 geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. me
Page 37
RTI 11/055 Folio B410 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 47.56m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.80 m CHECKED:Att> DATE: ZAfrojos Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Su a 3 ge SAMPLE OR a o 3 w a DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3,2) Q ea > w] 2 — 5 Blows per 100 mm Z Be fi E i FIELD TEST 3 6 a SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION E Be Pr 3 gag § we bEpTH BI so|a 8 fered 5 10 15 20 25 9.0 Taro SP] SAND 1 1 fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter z 1 o30f |] fe 7 « 47.20 becoming pale grey a xr 71 > 7 05-| DS 0.50-0.70m aE = 7 “| 080 7 “| 46.70 END OF [email protected] m | 10-| UNABLE TO EXTRACT a 15 “| 2.0—~) 4 25— co 3.0—4 = 2 35 4 8 4 4 g J = 4.04 4 8 “J 4 5 4 4 z| 1 4 5 a 4 g 4 4 e 4 4 : 1 ! § 5.0 4 g 4 4 8 4 J é 554 4 QI 4 4 i 4 a 4 a 4 4 2 1 4 3 6.0 + 5 J y 7 4 2 4 4 a 71 4 ge 65 4 q 4 4 o 4 4 g 4 4 8 4 3 4 spo-t las -b--—---4 Dace tee eee HH Bae teh g This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. it has been prepared for g| geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. oD
Page 38
“——RTI-11/055 Folio B4it— ee 1 L L 4 i 4 [ ] L = c REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2A GAPS§_1_MOORE.GLB FULL PAGE JA20031OTHER OFFICES\03632248103632248BHDCP.GPJ GAPS_1.GDT 06/11/2003 8:43.29 AM SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 47.6m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: mm _ HOLE DEPTH: 6.00m CHECKED: Ate DATE: 24fro fos Dritling Sampling Ftetd Material Description Sul oO s 3 ee @ 8 w |Z DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Slésle| oo SAMPLEOR wi | — SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION & |e Blows per 100 mm 2 lia) i] eB FIELDTEST |2/z | @ 5 loa 2 on a Oo] solo 222 b leg} S| Be Pa #1888 gipae § 10 8 8 9.0—T 9750 TSP]SAND J fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter Fs 7 agof Ye q Yara (becoming pale grey J 0.5— - 1.0 — 15 4 2.0 om 2.5 = = 30 4 J = a 35-4 bom 40 ae 45 rs 4 5.0 com 1 1 §.5-— 4 a) 6.00 J ef ATO END OF [email protected] m | 6.54 4 po—tLelygt —L-——___4 jt LJ 4 This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. FO1b) RL2
Page 39
j — —RTI-L17/055 Folio B4it2z c~7 Cisse. CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding PROJECT: Housing Development LOCATION: Attunga Heights JOB NO: 03632248 POSITION: Refer to Site Plan SURFACE RL: 35.6m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.80 m CHECKED: Ave _DATE:21( 10/63 REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH3 SHEET: 1 OF 1 DRILL RIG: Hand Auger LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 oD rs Drilling Field Material Description PENETRATION RESISTANCE WATER METHOD DEPTH DEPTH RL SAMPLE OR FIELD TEST SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECOVERED GRAPHIC LOG USC Symbol DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Blows per 100 mm lo § 10 15 20 25 Ltt CONSISTENCY MOISTURE DENSITY, ©! (metres) re] TI Tw 2 35,50 HA ow vz fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 0,80 _| DS 0.70-0.80m a = VC & GAPS_1_MDORE.GLO FULL PAGE JA2002\0 THER OFFIGES\03832248103632248BHDCP.GPJ GAPS_1.GDT 21/10/2003 10:21:08 AM cI 34.70 pt J | Lygpt —-Li—— 4 This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for. information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. roi END OF [email protected] m UNABLE TO EXTRACT et ee tt te te lit dk
Page 40
RTI-117055 Folio B413 oe eee oe i PGolder REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH4 ~ "Associates SHEET: 1 OF 1 [~ CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 26m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: = Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 - JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.90 m CHECKEDAtip — DATE:24 fio fo Drilling Sampling Field Material Description ° Sy 2 = 3 Eg wu zg w zs DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) rm (8/84 2 | oa SAMPLEOR jwi/2 | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION eats Blows per 100 mm Pine ra zs FIELD TEST ole, @ 5 los fz a o oO 5 Zz Ls [Beg s | Be [par #183] 8 gap if ° 2% 9.0—~T7600 TSP] SAND 4 7 | fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to] = 7 a2m 3 7 t. Tool | fey poo 7 =< os 25.60 becoming fine grained, pale grey s! J [* J = La 1 0.90 _| DS 0.80-0.90m we 7 10-| 25.10 END OF [email protected] m | “dl UNABLE TO EXTRACT I we 1.54 4 2.0 co P 1 | L 2.5 = 3.0 4 rm 1 J Ls 4 J 2 35-4 a r> @ 4 4 3 4 4 1 8 ] q = 40 4 ~\ 8 wy i 5 4 4 2 4 4 Li 3 ] J 2 6 454 4 =, 8 4 4 a 4 4 8 4 z 5 4 4 § 5.04 4 al 2 1 q § 4 4 a 4 a _§ a 7 7 E 1 7 “ fi = 4 2 7 4 3 6.0 oe eat ty 4 : 8 4 4 d 7 4 2 65-4 4 . 9 4 4 a 4 4 a Ly EA 5 4 qpot—-te—yet —-lL------- J--l-4t—--—----~+-—-—--—~-~--—-—----- -— H——4t—-t Ll * 3 This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for. information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. rote
Page 41
"TRTI-117055_ Folio B414- > ~ Ce ~ as mo SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan ORILL RIG: Hand Auger 4G PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 26m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: = Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: mm_HOLE DEPTH: 5.50 m CHECKED: A-cg> DATE: &Ht0/oS [ Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Sw] a = 3 3 s wv ° 2 yw s DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Slee al ag SAMPLE OR gle | SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p lee Blows per 100 mm B 2a) 2 | 3 loco 8/8818 Bi22b 2s 10 18) 20s L [2 feel S| ae Pa 2|89/ 8 gigar__t P 0.07506 TSP] SAND [ fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to} = 7 7 0.2m a T = few t | ey Po J os— 25.60 becoming fine grained, pale grey 1.0 ~ VY’ 15—4 4 L 2.0- DS 2.00-2.10m 7 [, 4 J 254 4 [ |s 1 4 4 4 3.0 = 4 “I DS 3.00-3.10m fi 4 3 35 I [i 8 J J S| 4.04 4 —~ 8 “J 4 5 J 4 i z a J 3 45 4 2 4 4 : g a 4 4 CHI) | 3 : 1 & 1 7 § 5.0 + § 4 4 3 4 4 CH] 7 3 55—|_5.80 : J 4 3 we | 20.80 END OF [email protected] m 4 6 4 4 & 4 4 g so] 4 ry 3 7 4 rg 1 | & | 7 4 z 6.5 = -~ g 4 4 3 4 4 [i Q | 4 s 4 4 spo ttHlset —tL--——---4 a--4------~-—----~---- ~~ | 4 a g This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for. information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. mo
Page 42
A jd . }
=
|
ctT re omc , om FD
E.GLB FULL PAGE JAZQ03\0THER OFFICES103632248103632248BHDCP.GPJ GAPS_1.GDT 21/10/2003 10:21:13 AM
on
RTI 11/055 Folio B415
Golder REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH5
rASSOciat
GAPS_1_MODORI
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 19.6m DATUM: AHD71 ORILLER:
LOCATION: Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03
JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.80 m CHECKED: Aco DATE: 2} (10 (03 |
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
Zz Pod
e8 g 3 w |e DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
Sl@fle| xg SAMPLEQR |gl2 | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION aids Blows per 100 mm
G (2g|&| bs sleelg Bz 5 0 15
zleel2 | 38 a z182/ 8 gap _f 8 2
0.07850 TSP] SAND
7 fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 7
7 0.2m 7
x 7 slo 4
4 a 4
* os a a
{0.80 | DS 0.70-0.80m “ 7
| 18:70 END OF [email protected] m 4
10— UNABLE TO EXTRACT |
15— 4
20 4
25—- -
3.0 4
35 4
4.0 +
45 4
5.04 4
55 on
6.0~ 4
6.54 4
PH—to—ty7gt —L—————_4 Joel Pitot LL
This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations, It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. Foi
Page 43
r- a 47 mp7 om) oT } GAPS_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J:\200RX0THER OFFICESI03832248103632248BHDCP.GPS GAPS_1.GDT 21/0/2003 10:21:29 AM C RTI 11/055 Folio B416 Prscue REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP5 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan MACHINE: 1.5 Tonne Excavator PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 19m DATUM: AHD74 CONTRACTOR: Bebbington LOCATION: — Aftunga Heights PIT DEPTH: 2.20m LOGGED: ACD DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 BUCKET TYPE: 350 mm toothed CHECKED: At DATE: Ziprojps Excavation Sampling Field Material Description és a z wie STRUCTURE AND Sg @ 8 8/ze| «| = SAMPLE QR B12 1 E SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 Be ADDITIONAL = eae) es pePrH 8 Se O° & leg OBSERVATIONS = ae] S) Ae PR 2/59 3 2 [84 =] °° rs00 ‘TSP]SAND i fine to medium grained, white to light grey, some roots to 7 = 7 0.4 m, trace of roots to 1.0m 1 g 4 4 & =j7 Ly} | 05 als + g 4 4 uw 4 4 g) | ] i 4 4 | 18] 49] 1.00 4 % ae | ih [8.60 Mixture of SOIL (~30%) and ROCK (~70%) Coftuvium J id Soil is: SM Silty SAND = 7 fine to medium grained, dark grey Yo 7 ulé 4 Rock is: Mixture of XW to DW DIORITE =| > 7 w 7 very low to medium strength, dark greyrand'dark brown, a 7 3 1.54 present as subangular to subrounded gravel and cobble: om & 1 470 up to 200 mm across 7 Po) arse DIORITE Possibly Residual 7 yellow brown and dark grey, present as cobbles and H 7 boulders to 400 mini across, extremely to distinctly 7 2.0— weathered 7 1220 J | 16.80 TEST PIT DISCONTINUED @ 2:20 mm | q REFUSAL 25 = 3.05 q 3.54 _ 40 4 45 7 5.0 4 5.54 4 6.0 4 65 = This report of test pit must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information o and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination, nk AP GINT FN. FO1e RL2
Page 44
d
mT 6
4
3
—
u
a
5
TS
5 oI
RTI 11/055 Folio B417
[Associates
SHEET: 4 OF 1
CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
PROJECT: Housing Development - SURFACE RL: 14m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER:
LOCATION: = Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03
JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm_ HOLE DEPTH: 0.70m CHECKED: A-tp DATE: 24 fanfo3
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
Sus ° = z
oY a 3 w |2 DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
Slt o| ag SAMPLEOR {E/2 | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sloe Blows per 100 mm
2 ia] | Es FIELDTEST |8]z | 3 Bae
Zo a o oO B|zz
b [eg] 5 | BE oa 88/8 giege of 7
0.0706 TSP] SAND
7 | fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 7
q 03m 4
$ ] ra ]
0.5— 4
‘10.70 | DS 0.60-0.70m, fan 1
13.30 END OF [email protected] m
; UNABLE TO EXTRACT q
1.0— a
156-4 Refusal “
20-4 a
2.5 4
3.0 4
2 3.5 4
g 4 4
Z| 4 4
8 y o
§ 4.0 : 4
8 wd J
5 4 4
zg a 4
Z| 45 4
% 4 4
a 4 4
3 4 4
3 4 4
§ 5.04 4
g | 1
4 | ]
a 5.5 —
8
c ie | 4
S 4 4
f 4 4
3 6.0 4
5 4 4
gy 47 4
2 4 4
d 71 4
2 6.5 -
2 4 4
8 4 4
Wi
§ 4 4
s 4 | 1
3 This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for.
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. ey
Page 45
RTI 11/055 Folio B418
a)
[_ : TP6
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan MACHINE: 1.5 Tonne Excavator
PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 14m DATUM: AHD71 CONTRACTOR: Bebbington
LOCATION: — Attunga Heights PIT DEPTH: 1.20m LOGGED: ACD DATE: 16/10/03
JOB NO: 03632248 BUCKET TYPE: 350 mm toothed CHECKED: dew DATE: 247 5103
[" Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
é3 g 8 w [2 STRUCTURE AND
bo oc a2 wa
8 Es «| oe SAMPLER ele | 5 SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 lee ADDITIONAL
E Sate] & g 7 8 30/9 6/29) OBSERVATIONS
= sel | SE [or ZoS| 8 2 [88
BY] OO 00 TSP] SAND
7 z fine to medium grained, white to light grey, contains some 7
g 7 foots to 0.4 m depth q
- L{? oso} =| 7
5 os %° contains some metasandstone and diorite gravel, cobble O | >
5 z wT and boulders to 300 mm across, becoming light grey YT
BR 4
[" | Is 0.80 7
9 ‘J 13.20 Mixture of SOIL (~30%) and ROCK (~70%) Colluvium
5 SOIL is: SM Silly SAND 8 7
H] 9 | 10-7 fine to medium grained, grey =la 7
ma 6 1 120 ROCK is: XW DIORITE 7
} 72.80 low to medium strength, brown and dark grey) present a 4
. 4 subangular to subrounded gravel and cobbles fo 200 mi 7
1 ICfOSS 4
—/ 15 TEST PIT [email protected] m 4
, 4 REFUSAL ON INTERLOCKING M-H STRENGTH 4
4 DIORITE COBBLES AND BOULDERS (POSSIBLY 4
4 RESIDUAL) 4
2.0 4
25 oe
30 4
LL q 4
z 3.5 a
g 4 4
[ : | |
& J J
8 J 4
~ § 405] 7
gs 4 4
Lig 1 1
2 7 J
3 484 4
a 4 4
ri
; 5 7 7
§ 5.04 4
os a ] 4
4 4
& 5.56 com
9 4 4
~E ] 7
. & | 4
a £ 4 4
Z 6.0 7
L g | 1
‘
z| 6.5 +
| 4 4
3 4 4
z 4 4
8
= | 4
specced baw dace teen ee rr ne Lt bm me +
+ 3 This report of test pit must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only
and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. AP gINT FN. Fore
Page 46
GAPS_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE JA2002\0THER OFFICES\03632248\03832248BHDCP.GPJ GAPS_1.GDT 21/10/2003 10:21:18 AM = L on RTI 11/055 Folio B419 Beater, REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH7 es SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 20.6m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.80 m CHECKED: Aco DATE: 24 ((ofo3 Drilling Sampling Field Materia! Description Zz Ped 28 a 3 y 2 DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Slf4 e |] oe SAMPLEOR [ayo | SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Shee Blows per 100 mm zeae) ES 8/809 2195 2 lee) S| BE a #1898 eigen fe 9.0-T 7056 TSP] SAND 4 fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 7 7 0.2m 1 $ 1 a> 1 05 4 "|_0.20 | DS 0,70-0.80m ous 1 | 19:70 END OF [email protected] 4 10-] UNABLE TO EXTRACT J 15 4 2.0 4 25 4 3.0 4 3.6 | 4.04 45 4 5.0 4 5.5 4 6.0 - 65 4 Ltt ty. Ld i | __d_d ks This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination, Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. at 1p
Page 47
rt £ Z Po eo TPS en RTI 11/055 Folio B420 Bice... SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG: Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 20.5m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: — Attunga Heights INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: mm HOLE DEPTH: 2.80m CHECKED: DATE: Z1f10f 03 Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Su a = 3 Eo wy 3 w a DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Slee «| xe Finpresr [|e | SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Bae Blows per 100 mm FlZole| ag S| solo 2122 2 BE] S| Be PR [4 &S 8 Sa a Pp Pp 8 9.0~T 70350 SP]SAND fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 1 7 0.2m | 0.5—- om 4 4 10 4 4 = 4 4 a 4 sx 4 4 =x 1.6 4 2.0- DS 2.00-2.10m 7 2200) 2 7 Pty Lo a ge 7 718.30 becoming orange. brown 4 2.5—|-2.50_| DS 2.40-2.50m J wr] 8.09 Cl | Sandy CLAY 4 CH] medium tovhigh plasticity, light brown, orange brown, fing = ‘| 2,80 | DS 2.70-2,80m to mediuin grained Sand 7 17.70 END OF BOREHOLE @ 280m J REFUSAL 7 3.0 ~ 3 3.5— 4 3 1 1 3 7 4 g J 4 = 4.0 4 3 “J 4 5 4 4 9 4 4 2 7 4 9 454 4 g 4 4 a 4 4 3 4 4 z 1 § 5.0 4 8 4 + FH 4 4 8 1 4 E 55 4 9 4 4 i a 4 f 4 | Q' 7 4 3 6.0 | 5 4 4 y! 4 4 z 4 4 di 7 4 2 65— 4 | 4 4 8 4 4 @ 4 4 8 = 7 4 “tet —bya~t —-b RH 4 4 &. This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for 8 geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. roth
Page 48
i= MO J Lu u - 2 a a L . ro GAPS_t, MOORE.GLB FULL PAGE J\2003}0THER OFFICESW3632248\03632248BHDCP.GPJ GAPS_1,GDT 21/10/2003 10:21:23 AM RTI 11/055 Folio B421 REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH8 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan DRILL RIG; Hand Auger PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 23m DATUM: AHD71 DRILLER: LOCATION: Attunga Heights INCLINATION; -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 9/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 0.70m CHECKED: AtDd DATE: Zt tofoz} Drilting Sampling Field Material Description Su 9 5 3 eg w 3 wie DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Sls al ag SAMPLE OR 8/2 | SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Falta Blows per 100 mm bees | Be 8183/3 ggzo os 4 5 2 2 Be) | BE Part 2|53| 8 2|88 pi 2 9.03550 TSP] SAND 71 Q fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of root matter to 7 1 0.2m 4 s 4 a} 5 ] 0.5 a ‘1.a70 | DS.0.60-0.70m fe 1 22.30 END OF [email protected] 7 UNABLE TO EXTRACT 1 1.0~ | 1.5 4 20-4 4 25 4 3.0—-] 4 3.54 4 4.0— 4 45-4 4 5.0 a 5.5— 4 6.0 4 654 4 pte t ily, —~L______ Se Pet LL This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. Fore
Page 49
RTI 11/055 Folio B422 —- L i La i ) Mm om mmm [ 4 i a foe es SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan MACHINE: 1.5 Tonne Excavator PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 22m DATUM: AHD71 CONTRACTOR: Bebbington LOCATION: — Attunga Heights PIT DEPTH: 2.30 m LOGGED: ACD DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 BUCKET TYPE: 350 mm toothed CHECKED: Aw DATE: 21(10)03 Excavation Sampling Field Material Description ag g 3 g 2 © iG STRUCTURE AND 8 ge el oe eMBLE OR [ag 5 SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B ee ADDITIONAL E a2 z & 2 cere 8 So o 2/29) OBSERVATIONS = lie] S| o£ oR 7/59) 3 = (88 9.0—7 2200 TSP]SAND q fine to medium grained, light grey, trace of roots to 1.5 mi 7 a} 4 | r 3 0.5 0.60 7 oO 21.40 becoming white, light grey 5 = 4 gs; | a | fi 7 4 10 4 | 4 = : Bleie) 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 = oO 7 4 15-4 L 4 - 4 = 4 2.0 = 1 230 7 | 19.70 TEST PIT [email protected]'m 254 LIMIT REACH OF MACHINE J 30 4 z 3.5 - 8 J s 4.0— 4 ag oan 4 5 4 4 x 4 4 3 45—~ 4 g 4 4 a 4 4 a 4 4 e 4 4 § 5.04 4 2 a § 4 4 s 4 4 8 5.54 | 2 4 4 fe 6 4 4 a 4 4 3 60 4 8 4 J y "| 4 = J 4 2 65— 4 q 7 4 @ 4 4 @ 4 4 8 4 4 =, a} J. Let» a 4 g This report of test pit must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations, It has been prepared for geotechnical 9 purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. P giNT FN. aie
Page 50
mT) TJD PO UD OP) my TI x =o c T 2 C d C a bod GAPS_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE JA2002OTHER OFFICES\03632248102632248BHDCP.GPS GAPS_1.GDT 21/10/2003 10:21:36 AM ‘ooo RTI 11/055 Folio B423 PASSociat REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP9 1] This report of test pit must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical Purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information o1 and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan MACHINE: 1.5 Tonne Excavator PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 25m DATUM: AHD71 CONTRACTOR: Bebbington LOCATION: Attunga Heights PIT DEPTH: 1.20m LOGGED: ACD DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 BUCKET TYPE: 350 mm toothed CHECKED: At DATE: 2ifrojo3 Excavation Sampling Field Material Description > Zu a = 3° soa @ 8 ws STRUCTURE AND gle g| oe SAMPLEOR Jue 1 & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Slee ADDITIONAL = |<2 Es Bl eo 2183 OBSERVATIONS G (Se) | &S |oeery 2) 28/3 9 6a = jim o£ | RL 2} oS| 3 =|86 2] 0.077556 CI] Sandy CLAY Coltuviurn w medium plasticity, dark grey, fine to medium grained ~ 7 L $ DS 0,20-0.30m sand, some roots, some cobbles and boulders of diorite tba | ? 7 a | 040 700 mm across 7 [15 os] 4 Silly CLAY 7 5 2 nd high plasticity, yellow brown, light brown 7 ° 1 USO 0.60-0.80m « 7 ™ 1 eo =| | 10-1 DS 0.90-1.00m ae J : PP = 400 kPa a | 1.20 | BDS 1.00-1.20m = 7 “| 23.80 TEST PIT [email protected] m 7 REFUSAL ON HIGH STRENGTH DIORITE (PROBABLY 7 7 BOULDERS) 7 15 4 20-4 4 2.5-— 4 3.0 4 3.64 4 4.0 4 4.5 4 5.05 4 5.5 4 6.0 4 6.6—~ 4 pit tilyet —L_____-l aot 1 fod 4 Ni} dap gINT FN. Ri2| 2
Page 51
my rtd oo t cd RTI 11/055 Folio B424 Brote. SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Mr Phillip Harding POSITION: Refer to Site Plan MACHINE: 1.5 Tonne Excavator PROJECT: Housing Development SURFACE RL: 16.5m DATUM: AHD71 CONTRACTOR: Bebbington LOCATION: _— Attunga Heights PIT DEPTH: 1.70m LOGGED: ACD DATE: 16/10/03 JOB NO: 03632248 BUCKET TYPE: 350 mm toothed CHECKED: Atup DATE: 2\ftojo3, Excavation Sampling Field Materiat Description > zu a 3 & a9 w g wile STRUCTURE AND 8(Ezla| oe SAMPLE QR |wio |e SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sloe ADDITIONAL z 48 # E g pepre 8 Se @ @ |Bg) OBSERVATIONS = Gr] =| ae [ee “Z(oS) 3 2 188 9.07650 ‘SM Silly SAND Colluvium 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey, contains some diorite Q L 4 gravel and cobbles to 200 mm across = 7 | | a | 040 -— 1 Zl os 16.10 Silty SAND Slightly Cemented _ a " BDS 0.50-0.70m fine to medium grained, grey and brown, orange brown, 8 1 trace of gravel 4 . 4 4 2 4 z 4 m/e 4 o 4 wy _| 4 g| 17> DS 1.00-1.10m : a z 4 4 a} | J | |e 1.40 . = J 8 16 76.10 H~SJ CL] Sandy CLAY a 4 H " —~ low plasticity, grey and brownyorange brown, fine to g 1 470 fn] medium grained sand, contains some high strength 7 14.80 diorite cobbles and boulders.up to 600 mm across | 7 TEST PIT [email protected] m 7 7 REFUSAL ON HIGH STRENGTH DIORITE (PROBABLY 7 2.0 BOULDERS) + 2.5— 4 3.0 4 z 3.544 4 g 4 4 g 4 4 g J 4 = 40 4 3 “ A 5 4 4 o z| 1 4 2 7 4 8 45-] 4 z 4 4 S|. 5 4 4 5] 4 4 3 J J q 5,04 4 Z J z 4 1 4 a 55 4 9 4 4 & 4 J & 4 5 4 g 6.0— a 5 4 4 g 7 4 Z 1 J 2 654 J a 4 4 & 4 4 @ 4 4 8 4 4 = spit—L—lbyet —-L———_~_——_4 tote a | 3 This report of test pit must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbrevialions. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. AP gINT FN. RU]
Page 52
rs ~~ mo) oO Um A ~ am oo 6 RTI 11/055 Folio B425 ~ 44- fates REPORT OF BOREHOLE: GA11 CLIENT: LEIGHTON PROPERTIES COORDS 509126 mE 7080896 mN SHEET: 1 OF 1 PROJECT: BAYVIEW SURFACE RL: m DATUM: AHD DRILL RIG: HYDRAPOWER SCOUT LOCATION: NOOSA INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: BR DATE: 10/2/01 JOB NO: 00632103 CHECKED: DATE: 22fof of Drilting Sampling Field Material Description " - z > Su a = 1S eg g 3 wi STRUCTURE AND 8lFzle| oe SAMPLER ule 5 SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 [oe ADDITIONAL & ee) BY EE leon EAS & leg OBSERVATIONS = [Hel =| SE | Re 2169/3 $ |88 9 Pas] GC] CLAYEY GRAVEL 7 7 4 Gravel and cobble size rock fragments in a clayey =]. 4 4 2 matrix 0.50. . dayey matrix, medium plasticity, red brown, moist, 7 4 stiff = 4 4 . possible fill 8 CLAY . | > | 4 14 SPT Medium to high plasticity, mottled brown and grey, 4 4 7,00 - 1.45 m moist, very stiff to hard d 245 Neo . some sand with depth g 4 4 2 | 4 US50 4 2.50 - 2.90 m 12.90 7 3-4 SPT SANDSTONE 4 wz 3.17 [2.90 -3.09 m Extremely low strength, mottled brown _ 7 13, 21/35 mm End of [email protected] m 7 4 (T/C Auger Bit Refusal) 4 44 4 4 4 5 4 a 4 4 = 6— + 6 4 4 | | | 4 5 J 4 5 4 | g| - g J 4 8 J 4 i am ‘ 1 s J \ 4 o 5 4 4 ; “4 1 z 4 5 4 a 7 4 é 4 S 4 2 J 4 s 4 getty t H+ Hts —~————-—-—---—-~—————? a @ This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for Z| Geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are No.9 for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP Form RL 5
Page 53
we rs GAPS_1.GL6 FULL PAGE JABRISBANE.OS\GEOTECH.0303632045102_GINTW03622045BH.GPJ GAP5_1.GDT 30/04/2003 8:58:12 AM RTI 11/055 Folio B426 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: John Holland Pty Ltd COORDS: 803.991 mE 1663.247mN LOCAL DRILL RIG: Hydrapower Scout PROJECT: Bayview SURFACE RL: 28.887 m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: LOCATION: Noosa INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 19/3/03 JOB NO: 03632045 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 7.50 m CHECKED: “JDL DATE: $/o2 Drilling Sampling Field Material Description z > ow Qa — O Eg @ z w la STRUCTURE AND 8 Bs «lag eer 1g & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 [be ADDITIONAL E ig # E £ — 9 o 4 |g OBSERVATIONS = #2] S| SE | Re @ 8 2 |88 ie oc CIT Silty CLAY 4 Medium plasticity, light brown, trace sand 4 1-4 = 4 | a 4 244 + a 0 q 26.39 trace light grey 4 3.00 3135.89 7 44 4 J g | 6 4 15.50 4 23.39 1) Sandy CLAY q Medium plasticity, light greyAight brown J es -| 6.20. J 22.69 SANDSTONE 74 a 77.50 * 4 | 21.39 END OF [email protected] m 4 Refusal to rotary blade bit | GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED . 7 8— \ Ty 9 4 pHeHtolygt tt LL J~ toe —| This report of borehole must be read in conjunction wilh accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. rea
Page 54
RTI 11/055 Folio B427 EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS p Golder, USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD AS* Auger Screwing : RD Rotary blade or drag bit HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm “vv V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm ‘T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator DTC _Diatube Coring CT Cable Tool Rig EE Existing Excavation WB Washbore or Bailer JET Jetting HAND Excavated by Hand Methods PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used. M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used. H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant effort from the equipment. R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage ‘or unacceptable wear to the digging implement or machine. These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator. WATER ww Water level at date shown <j Partial water loss Cc Water inflow <~@» . Complete water loss GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling OBSERVED water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit. GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be ENCOUNTERED present in less permeable strata. inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open fora longer period, SAMPLING AND TESTING SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-1993 4,7,11 N=18 4,7;11 = Blows per150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating 30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only © HW Penetration ocurred under the hammer and rod weight only HB Hammer double-bouncing on anvil OS Disturbed\sample BDS Bulk disturbed sample G Gas Sample Ww Waiter Sample FP Field permeability test over section noted FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength s, PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm PM Pressuremeter test over section noted PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sampte diameter in millimetres Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects) R=0 No visible evidence of contamination R=A No non-natural odours identified R=1 Slight evidence of visible contamination R=B Slight non-natural odours identified R=2 Visible contamination R=C Moderate non-natural odours identified R=3 Significant visible contamination R=D Strong non-natural odours identified ROCK CORE RECOVERY TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%) _ Length of core recovered 100 > Length of cylindrical core recovered 100 _ > Axial fengths of core > 100 mm «100 Length of core run * Length of core run * 7 Length of core run GAP Form No. 6 RL3
Page 55
ma ms on om) cs oo oes" x .d a RTI 11/055 Folio B428 METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS GRAPHIC LOG - TYPICAL SYMBOLS FOR SOILS FILL CLAY (CL, Cl OR CH) Ko =o 2 ©4 ORGANIC SOILS 0 a 22 24 GRAVEL (GP OR GW) I. &« | OL OR OHOR Pt) =< sou Sw) SAND (SP OR SW) o(\¢| COBBLES OR BOULDERS & * « “I SILT (ML OR MH) Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay. CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY Soil and Rock ts classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in AS1726 - 1993, Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods. Particle Size Plasticity Properties Major Division |Sub Division |Particle Size 40 BOULDERS > 200 mm cH cl High plasticity COBBLES 63 to 200 mm Medium clay = vm Coarse 20 to 63 mm g Low peau ¥ GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm 5 ony Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm . 20 High taut limit hod sit Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm 3 SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm a 10 Medium gula Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm CLIFIL Ctay/Sit limit sit ML - Low liquid limit silt SILT 0.002 to 0.075 rim 0 0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 CLAY < 0.99 2m Liquid Limit (%) MOISTURE CONDITION . AS1726 - 1993 Symbol Term Description D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery. M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere. W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere. CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993 Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT "N” # Strength VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0to4 Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4to 10 Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD | Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30 St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50 vst Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense above 85 Above 50 H Hard above 200 kPa # SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 — 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and equipment type. In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of the material. GAP Fonn No, 5 RLA
Page 56
ma FY
RTI 11/055 Folio B429
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH & WEATHERING
AND ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
Golder
Associates
STRENGTH
Point Load
Symbol Term Index, Is(59) Field Guide
(MPa)
EL Extremely < 0.03 Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties.
Low
VL Very 0.03 to 0.1 | Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick; can be peeled
Low with knife; too hard to cut a triaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 30 mm
can be broken by finger pressure.
L Low 0.1 to 0.3. | Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen ,
with firm blows of pick point; has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core
150 mm tong by 50 mm diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp edges of|
core may be friable and break during handling.
M Medium 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife; a piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter
, ; can be broken by hand with difficulty.
H High - 1to3 A piece of core 150 mm long by’50 mm diametemcannot be broken by hand
but can be broken with pick witha single firm blow;rock rings under hammer.
VH Very 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more-than. one blow; rock rings under
High hammer.
EH Extremely* { © >10°. «| Specimen requires’ many blows with.geological pick to.break through intact!
High material; rock ringsunder hammer.
ROCK STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
v Point Load Strength Index, IScsoy Axial test (MPa)
4 Point Load Strength Index, ls¢sq), Diametral test (MPa)
ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING
Symbol! Term Field Guide
Residual Soil developed, on extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and
RS es “substance fabric-are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume
Soil but the soil has not been significantly transported.
EW Extremely Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties - i.e. it either
Weathered disintegrates or can be remoulded, in water.
HW Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly
Distinctly discofoured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by leaching,
DW MW Weathered or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores.
sw Slightly -Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength relative
Weathered to fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining.
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS
Defect Type Coating or Infilling . Roughness
B Bedding parting Cn Clean Sl Slickensided
x Foliation Sn Stain sm Smooth
L Cleavage Vr Veneer Ro Rough
J Joint Ct Coating
SZ Sheared zone (Fault) Planarity Vertical Boreholes — The dip
cs Crushed seam (Fault) Pl Planar (inclination from horizontal) of the defect
DS Decomposed seam Un Undulating is given.
is Infilled seam St Stepped Inclined Borehofes — The inclination is
Ss Schistocity measured as the acute angle to the
Vv Vein core axis.
GAP Form No. 7
RLA
Page 57
— u i r RTI 11/055 Folio B430 Appendix B GeotechnicahLaboratory Test Results Golder Associates
Page 58
Lot OP]
RTI 11/055 Folio B431
Geotechnical Testing Authority
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
Quality of Materials Report
Golder Associates
J} Client: Report Number: G3005 - 130
| JJob Number: G3005 Report Date: 28/10/2003
Project: Laboratory Testing ‘Order Number:
r|Location Project 03632248, Attunga Heights Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 52846 Sample ID: Sample Location
~IDate Sampled: 16/10/2003 Item No: Test Pit 9
| Date Tested: 24/10/2003 Depth 0.9m
| Sampled By: Client
Sample Method:
{Material Source: Site
[ For Use As: Lot Number:
~ VRemarks: Spec\Number:
~ A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
[| Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75,00 mm =
[ 53.00 mm - \
37.50 mm -
26.50 mm ba
19.00 mm -
[| 13.2 mm :
9.50 mm :
6.70 mm .
[ 4.75 mm -
2.36.mm ~
1.18 min .
[| 0.600 mm -
0.425 roam :
™ 0.300 mm .
. 0.150 min -
a 0.075 rm 88
‘Atterberg Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification
- Minimum Maximum
Liquid: Limit (%) AS 1289.3.1.1 54
| ‘Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 31
| jPlasticity Index AS1289.3.3.1 23
Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289,3.4.1 13.5
[ 'P.I.x % Passing 0.425 mm :
JL.S. x % Passing 0.425 mm
[Ratio of % Passing (0.075 / 0.425)
APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
This Laboratory is accredited by the National -
| | Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The NAQ \ 5}
| test(s) reported herein have been performed in REP QUAL-1
: ~y accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett
Lj document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1554
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory -@* Roadworks & Subdivision Testina *@* Agareaate & Quarry Product Testina *@+ Earthworks Sunarvision @¢
Page 59
RTI 11/055 Folio B432 - 11 Production Ave 982 979 Bokarina Qld 4575 - 074982 979 PO Box 2 Buddina Qid 4575 ~ Telephone: (07) 5493 1733 4 , 7 . . Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019 Geotechnical Testing Authority Email: [email protected] — - e e : Quality of Materials Report rictient: Golder Associates Report Number: G3005- 131 | jJYob Number: G3005 Report Date: 28/10/2003 Project: Laboratory Testing Order Number: Location Project 03632248,Attunga Heights Page 1 of1 Lab No: 52847 Sample ID: Sample Location ~|Date Sampled: 16/10/2003 Item No: Test Pit 9 , p7|Date Tested: 24/10/2003 Depth 0.2m t Sampled By: Client Sample Method: Material Source: Site l For Use As: Lot Number: Remarks: Spec Number: ~~ A.S, Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification [| , Minimum Passing Maximum Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1 75.00 mm - [ j 53.00 mm * 37.50 mm . 26.50 mm = 19.00 mm = [ 13.2 mm : 9.50 mm - ! 6.70 mm. = [ 4.75 mn . 2.36 mm - 1 1.18 mre . [ 0.600 mm - 0.425 mm - ~ 0.300 mm ~ | 0.150.min - Ly 0.075 mini 57 ‘Atterberg Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification L Minimum Maximum Liquid Limit (%) AS 1289.3.1.1 46. | ‘Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 29 Plasticity Index AS1289.3.3.1 17 Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289,3.4.1 12.5 [ Pl. x % Passing 0.425 mm | LS x % Passing 0.425 mm [Ratio of % Passing (0.075 / 0.425) - APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number: L This Laboratory is accredited by the National ~\ | Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tH test(s) reported herein have been performed in REP QUAL-1 ~, accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett Li ® document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551 = °@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory :@+ Roadworks & Subdivision Testina -@+ Acareaate & Quarry Proditct Tastinn +@* Farthwarke Siinaniicinn @
Page 60
'4 982 979
074 982 979
Geotechnical Testing Authority
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qid 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qid 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
i Particle Size Distribution Report
| Ctient: Golder Associates Report Number, G3005 - 132
"|Job Number; 63005 Report Date: 28/10/2003
Project: Laboratory Testing Order Number: .
| Itocation _ Project 03632248,Attunga Heights Page 1 of 1
__|Lab No: 52853 Sample ID: Test Pit {ample Location
Date Sampled: 16/10/2003 Item No: Depth 0.8 - Derm
“|Date Tested: 27/10/2003
[ Sampled By: Client
" (Sample Method:
~(Material Source: Site
For Use As: Lot/Number:
“| Remarks: Spec Number:
8 AS. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
LL Minimum Passing Maximum
4 Test Method: AS1289;3.6,1
F 75,00 mm -
53.00 mm *
, 37.50 min 7
| 26.50 mri .
r 19.00 mm -
os 13.2 mm a
~ 9,50 mm 7
L 6.70. min a
4.75 mm 100
r 2.36 mm 100
L 1.18 mm ‘96:
- 0.600 mm 91
0.425 mm 85
| 0.300 mm 73
B 0.150 mm 30
+E 0.075 mm __25
| J j J J APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
LU AI Association of Testing Authoriues, australia, The Yoyo
test(s) reported herein have been performed in REP PSD-1
rt m™~ accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett
document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
-
;
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory *@* Roadwarks & Siibdivisinn Tactinn *@s Anaranate 8. Anarn: Dearint Trastin
Page 61
RTI 11/055 Folio B434
- 11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qid 4575
rm PO Box 2
Buddina Qid 4575
~ Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
= 7 o 7 Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Geotechnical Testing Authority Email: [email protected]
ui e e e e e
5 Particle Size Distribution Report |
Client: Golder Associates Report Number; G3005 - 133
‘“|Job Number: G3005 Report Date: 28/10/2003
-1|Project: Laboratory Testing / Order Number: Page tof 4
| [Location Project 03632248, Attunga Heights age to
{Lab No: 52848 Sample ID: Sample Location
" - 46/40/2003 Item No : Bore 7 (a
|Date Sampled: ‘ Depth 2.4m
~|Date Tested: 24/10/2003
[ Sampled By: Client
~ Sample Method:
-|Material Source: Site
[ For Use As: Lot-Number:
Remarks: Spec Number:
[ A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6,1
[| 75,00 mm .
53.00 mm -
[ 37.50 mnt -
26.50 mm 2
19.00 min :
[: 13.2 mm *
~ 9.50 mm .
6.70 mm .
wu
4.75 mm wt
: 2.36 mm 100
5 1.48 mm 100
| 0.600 mm 98
0.425 mm 95
0,300 mm 78
l 0.450 mm 70
t 0,075 mm 6
r APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
— This Laboratory is accredited by the National
i ~| Association of Testing Authorities, Australia, The 4 YN
test(s) reported herein have been performed in WN REP PSD-1
é » accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett
: document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@- Roadworks & Subdivision Testing *@* Aoareaate & Quarry Product Tastina «@+ Farthwarke Stinariician @
Page 62
RTI ILT7/055° Folio B435
4 982 979
1 B 074 982 979
.’ Geotechnical Testing Authority
14 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
|. Particle Size Distribution Report
tient: Golder Associates Report Number; G3005 - 134
[Job Number: G3005 Report Date: 28/10/2003
->|Project: oe Testing ; Order Number: Page {off
| :|Location roject 03632248,Attunga Heights
- Lab No: 52849 Sample ID: Bore 4 gp2™Ple Location
i Date Sampled: 16/10/2003 Item No: Depth 3.0m
Date Tested: 24/10/2003
. Sampled By: Client
Sample Method:
~~|Material Source: Site
[ For Use As: Lot/Number:
Remarks: Spec Number:
(| A.S, Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289:3.6.1
[| 75,00 mm ‘
53.00 mm :
[ 37.50 min :
26.50.mm *
19.00 min : .
[ 13.2 mm :
“ 9.50 mm .
'" 6.70 mim .
4.75 mm .
D 2.36 mm .
= 1.18 mm .
_ 0.600 rm 100
i 0.425 mm 99
0.300 mm 85
i 0.150 mm 6
“| 0.075 mm 2
[~ APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
a This Laboratory is accredited by the National
‘| Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The
test(s) reported herein have been performed in - , REP PSD-1
5S i accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett
a document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
=)
°@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory -@+ Roadworks & Subdivision Testinn +@+ Annranata 2 Onions Bradiint Tactinn ame Eathuinelin Oo
Page 63
RTI-IL/055 Folio B436
4 982 979
[ p 074 982 979
[ Geotechnical Testing Authority
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
[: Particle Size Distribution Report
[) Client: Golder Associates Report Number: G3005 - 135
“lJob Number; G3005 Report Date: 28/40/2003
Project: Laboratory Testing Order Number:
[’ Location Project 03632248,Attunga Heights Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 52850 Sample ID: Bore 4 Sample Location
[ Date Sampled: 09/10/2003 Item No : Depth 0.8 -0.9m
"|Date Tested: 24/10/2003
| Sampied By: Client
[ Sample Method:
. {Material Source: Site
[. For Use As: Cot Number:
Remarks: Spec Number:
(| A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
{ _75.00 mm *
53.00 mm .
[ 37.50 min
. 26.50. mimi .
“ 19.00 min :
[ 43.2 mm .
9.50 mm °
6.70 mim .
en
. 4.75 mm .
[ . . 2.36 mm .
. 1.18 mm ~100
0.600 mm 100
0.425 mm 98
0.300 mm 82
[ 0.150 mm 7
{ 0.075 mm 4
[- This Laboratory is accredited by the National APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
~ | Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The
test(s) reported herein have been performed in REP PSD-1
7 ~ accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett :
[ document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
rm
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratorv +@* Roadworks & Subdivision Tasting «@+ Annranate & Cuarn: Pradunt Tactina ome Farthumneen Qiinandint
Page 64
RTI 11/055 Folio B437
‘4 982 979
= b 074 9B2 979
[* Geotechnical Testing Authority
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
na e e ° e e
; Particle Size Distribution Report
I IClient: Golder Associates Report Number: G3005 - 136
Job Number: G3005 Report Date: 28/10/2003
| Project: Laboratory Testing Order Number:
1) ovat Project 03632248,Attunga Heights Page 1 of 1
| ,| Location 4 Miunga Fe'g
Lab No: 52851 Sample ID: Sample Location
i - 09/10/2003 ~—°—stem No: Bore 2
{Date Sampled: : Depth 0.5 - 0.7m
“Date Tested: 24/10/2003 ,
[ Sampled By: Client
Sample Method:
~/|Material Source: Site
[| For Use As: Lot-Number:
Remarks: Spec Number:
a A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
; Test Method: AS1289,3.6,1
[ ___75.00 mm .
53.00 mm :
[ 37.50 mri .
26.50 mni *
- 19.00 mm .
[ : 13.2 mm .
~ 9.50 mm *
6.70 mm .
7
4.75 mm °
[ 2.36 mm .
1.18 mm 100
| 0.600 mm 100,
[ 0.425 mm 98
0.300 mm _ 8
[. 0.150 mm 5
{ 0.075 mm 3
[ APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
This Laboratory is accredited by the National
~ Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The
test(s) reported herein have been performed in REP PSD-1
~, accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mei Burnett
[ document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
Tc
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory *@+ Roadworks & Subdivision Testina *@* Aaareaate & Quarry Product Testina *@+ Farthwarke Stinanvician @
Page 65
RTI 11/055 Folio B438
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
[~ Geotechnical Testing Authority
4
s e .
, California Bearing Ratio Report
myClient: Golder Associates Report Number : G3005 - 137
| Job Number ; 63005 Report Date : 28/10/2003
Project : Laboratory Testing Order Number :
lle ocation : Project 03632248, Attunga Heights Test Method : AS1289.6.1.1
—tLab No: 52852 Sample ID: - Sample Location
,--|Date Sampled: 16/10/2003 . Test Pit 9
Date Tested: 27/10/2003 MC Method : AS 1289.2.1.1 Depth 1.0 - 1.2m
“ Sampled By: Client
f7jSample Method: =>
Material Source: Site
_-|For Use As: . Lot Numiber: -
| |Remarks: Item Number: -
@ . .
Maximum Dry Density - MDD (t/m*) : 1.49
[ Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%) : 25.0
Compactive Effort : Standard
‘Nominated % Maximum Dry Density Compaction : 100.0
Ui ominates % Optimum Moisture Content Compaction: 100.0
Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m?) : 1.48
[ \Achieved Percentage of Maximum Dry Density (%)* 99
-jAchieved Moisture Content (%) : 24.6
Achieved Percentage of Optimum Moisture Content (%).: 98
[ est Condition (Soaked/Unsoaked) / Soaking Period-(Days) : Soaked / 4
Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg): 5.5 / 45 kg
™ ‘Dry Density after Soak (t/m*) : 1.40
__ Moisture Content after Soak (%) : 34.7
Density Ratio after Soak (%) : 94
{ Hea Moisture Content (%) : 29.2
Moisture Content (Top) after Penetration (%) : 41.8
Moisture Content (Remainingl) after Penetration (%) : 30.6
[ cee 2.5mm (%) : 1.0
CBR 5.0mm (%) : 0.5
‘Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) :
[ CBR Value (%) : 1.0
[soit Description: Silty Clay(CH)-high plasticity,yellow brown,fine grained sand
| APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
{ This Laboratory is accredited by the National
‘| Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The KY D>
test(s) reported herein have been performed in IREP CBR-1
” bh accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Mel Burnett
[ document shall not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
oo
°@N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory +@* Roadworks & Subdivision Testina *@+ Annranate & Carns Prndunt Tactinn ome Carthusarke &
Page 66
[
RTI 11/055 Folio B439
4.982 978
B 074 982 979
Geotechnical Testing Authority
11 Production Ave
Bokarina Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
e e .
[ California Bearing Ratio Report
Client : Golder Associates Report Number : G3005 - 138
[ Job Number ; 63005 ' Report Date : 28/10/2003
Project : Laboratory Testing Order Number :
[’ Location : Project 03632248, Attunga Heights Test Method : AS1289.6.1.1
~tLab No: 52853 Sample ID: - Sample Location
Date Sampled: 16/10/2003 Test Pit 10
[ Date Tested: 27/10/2003 MC Method : AS 1289.2.1.1 Depth 0.5 - 0.7m .
Sampled By: Client
l Sample Method: =~
| {Material Source: Site
._|For Use As: - Lot\Number: .
[ Remarks: item Number: .
Maximum Dry Density - MDD (tim?) : 1.92
[ Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%).: 10.0
Compactive Effort : Standard
Nominated % Maximum Dry Density Compaction : 100.0
I] Nominated % Optimum Moisture Content Compaction’: 100.0
Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m’) : 1.94
[| Achieved Percentage of Maximum Dry Densily (%): 101
Achieved Moisture Content (%) : 10.0
_|Achieved Percentage of Optimum Moisture Content (%) : 100
| Test Condition (Soaked/Unsoaked) / Soaking Petiod(Days) : Soaked / 4
Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg): 0.5 / 4.5 kg
™4Dry Density after Soak (t/m?) : 1.94
iu Moisture Content after Soak (%) : 11.7
Density Ratio after Soak (%) : 101
[ Field Moisture Content (%) : - 6.4
{Moisture Content (Top) after Penetration (%) : . 11.3
Moisture Content (Remainingl) after Penetration (%) : 10.7
[ oR 2.5mm (%) : 9
CBR 5.0mm (%) : 14
Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) :
Fe Value (%) : _ 14
Soil Description: Silty Clayey Sand(SC)-fine to medium grained,grey brown,low to medium plastic fines
UT APPROVED SIGNATORY Form Number:
t This Laboratory is accredited by the National
‘| Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The
test(s) reported herein have been performed in IREP CBR-1
[ ~ accordance with its terms of accreditation. This Me! Burnett
document shalt not be reproduced except in full. Nata Accred. No: 1551
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory *@* Roadworks & Subdivision Testina *@- Adarenate & Quarry Product Tastinn «@s Farthwarke Gimaniicinn me
Page 67
i
c
4
RTI 11/055 Folio B440
Associates
a MANSFIELD
GB Golder LABORATORY
Page | of $
1/51 Secam Street, Mansfield Qld 4122
P.O. Box 2034 Mansfield DC Qld 4122
Phone: (07) 3343 3166 Fax: (07) 3849 4705
Website: www.golder.com.au
A.B.N. 64 006 107 857
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Client: = Mr Harding ~
Address : Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads
Project: Housing
Location : BH 1 (0.8 - 0.9 m)
Report No. : R5573
Job No. : 03632248
Reg'n No. : 1853/03
Senders No. :
Date Received : 20/10/03
Sampled By: Golder
Type of test: Saturated Consolidated Drained
Device : Wykeham Farrance Model 25 300 (Single Shear)
Sample type : Remoulded at approximate 70 % Density index .
Specimen size :60 mm X 60 mm X 27 mm
150
125
100
& 75
8
&
s
2
° 50
25
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Normal Stress kPa
a, Normal Initial Moisture Initial Dry Inittat Consolidation Displacement | Moisture Content | Maximum Shear
Stage Stress (kPa) Content (*4) Density (t/m*) Saturation (%) at Start (%) at Failure (%) after test (%) Stress (kPa)
1 25 4.9 1.42 15 1.4 3.0 31.4 27
2 50 4.9 1.42 15 2.4 6.1 30.0 54
3 100 4.9 1.42 15 3.2 8.1 27.9 95
GOHESION 6 kPa ANGLE OF FRICTION 42 °
Failure Criteria : Maximum Shear Stress
Remarks :
Material Description : SAND (SP) light grey
Test Procedure : ASTM D3080 (thickness not measured during testing)
Prepared by We
| Checked by “3A,
This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing a
Authorities, Australia. The tes{(s) reported herein have been performed ~
In accordance with the terms of registration. This document shall not be
reproduced except in full without the prior approval of the laboratory, 1446
Authorised Signatory
Golder Form Number R21] Peak Shear
RL 0 - 28/07/03
Page 68
RTI 11/055 Folio B441 DIRECT SHEAR - STRESS STRAIN CURVE ~-°100kPa- ~~ 100 oo Strain (%) RO3.1 Checked By 4A Prepared By Nt
Page 69
rsa C4 rs]. = mT RTI 11/055 Folio B442 Page 2 of 4 : =~ : MANSFIELD 1/51 Secam Street, Mansfield Qld 4122 P.O. Box 2034 Mansfield DC Qld 4122 GF Golder LABORATORY Phone: (07) 3343 3166 Fax: (07) 3849 4705 7 lebsite: www.golder.com.au Associates A.B.N. 64 006 107 857 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client: Mr Harding ReportNo.: R5673 Address : Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads Job No. : 03632248 Project: Housing Reg'n No. : L1854/03 Location : BH 4a (2.0 m) Senders No. : Date Received : 20/10/03 Sampled By: Golder Type of test: Saturated Consolidated Drained Device : Wykeham Farrance Model 25 300 (Single Shear) Sample type : Remoulded at approximate 70 % Density Index Specimen size :60 mm X 60 mm X 29 mm 150 125 100 & 75 x a 5 8 Po ® 60 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Normal Stress kPa Normal Initial Moisture Initial Dry Initial Consolidation Displacement Moisture Content Maximum Shear Stage Stress (kPe) Content (%) Density (um*) Saturation (%) at Start (%) at Failure (%) after tast (%) Strass (kPa) 1 25 1.5 1.56 5 0.8 2.5 31.2 36 2 50 1.5 1.56 5 1.41 8.6 28.7 51 3 100 1.5 1.56 5 2.0 9.8 25.2 95 COHESION 1 kPa ANGLE OF FRICTION 40 ° Failure Criteria : Maximum Shear Stress Remarks : Material Description : SAND (SP) light brown Test Procedure : ASTM D3080 (thickriess not measured during testing) Prepared by Nf | Checked by 7d This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing NY] Authorities, Ausvela. re tests) reported herein have been eeorea ~ nh 4 3 re \. ument si . . reproduced exceptin fullwithoul ine priorapprovalofine labersteny ° 1446 Authorised Signatory........ °F 7 3 a Golder Form Number R21 Peak Shear RL O - 28/07/03
Page 70
—~—RTI_117055- Folio B443 DIRECT SHEAR - STRESS STRAIN CURVE f 120 1 100 +-----+------h-- (2g) sseqg Jeeys yo OFS bo fy) fo Leet Fe Co CL Strain (%) RO3.1 3h Checked By Prepared By at
Page 71
“-RTI-117055 Fottio B444
ma =]
m7 eq oD es
}
4
Page 4 of #
MANSFIELD 1/51 Secam Street, Mansfield Qld 4122
LABORATORY P.O. Box 2034 Mansfield DC Qld 4.122
Phone: (07) 3343 3166 Fax: (07) 3849 4705
Website: www.golder.com.au
A.B.N. 64 006 107 857
Client : Mr Harding
Project : Housing
TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST
ReportNo.: R 5573
Job No. : 03632248
Reg'n No. : L1855/03
Senders No. :
Location : TP 9 (0.6 - 0.8 m)
Date of Test : 21/10/03 - 24/10/03
Address : Attunga Heights, Nossa Heads
Date Received :20/10/03
Sampled By: Golder
Type of test: Saturated Consolidated Undrained Staged with Pore Pressure Measurements Strain Rate : 0.04 mm/min
Sample type : Undisturbed Specimen size : 47.4 mm dia. X 95.6 mm Back Pressure : 200 kPa
‘Initial Moisture Content : 29.7 % Initial Saturation : 92 %
Initial Dry Density : 1.44 tim Moisture Content after test : 32.2 %
iJ
&
S
wn
od
s
wn
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Normal Stress kPa
1 . Shi Max. P in (9
Sore _| svess tira) | Srese es) [pressuo nee) [Fees] Ettactive COHESION 42 kPa
; 2 “ 5 08 Effective ANGLE OF FRICTION 14 °
3 100 76 27 3.4 Failure Criteria : Maximum stress ratio
Remarks :Shear Failure (Shear plane at 45 ° after test)
Material Description : Silty CLAY (CH) light brown, high plasticity, micro-fissured, moist.
Test Procedure : BQLP 4 (AS 1289 6.4.2 equivalent)
Prepared by we
Checked by To,
This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing
Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed
in accordance with the terms of registration. This document shall not be
seproduced exceptin full without the prior approval of the laboratory.
e |
Authorised Signatory Te Darr Bry te yd
4446
Golder Form Number R19 Triaxial
RL 0 - 28/07/03
Page 72
——-RTI-11/055- Folio B445
Page * of ¥
Ph : (07) 3343 3166 Fax : (07) 3343 4705
1/51 Secam Street Mansfield Qid 4122
PO Box 2034 Mansfield DC Qld 4122
0
4
s
%
&
=
a ls 3
¢ le
5 f&
°° SS
5 13
3 |S
& |2 e
3 N
2
c
9 = = =
> 2 g s =
2 oc
as 8 s <§ 5
= 3 8 3 a
& o
_ Pay
es (OS
go og
a S
S< o 2
aa . ‘
ria }
ta ,
= ‘
gi |
= 2 es
we |S :
= :
a5: :
|g
Be |
ae 3 vhs
( ay
up : :
o eo 2 g s o °o o
° ~ ° (egy) ssang Joje1neq * ~ 8 a (eaifaunssard'2i0g ul a6teug ° ° ° 2
L3 £3 C3 2 ft Soe CFO fF Ce cos { Ki
RO1.1
oy
Checked by
Prepared by Nf
Page 73
= L 4 RTI 11/055 Folio B446 Appendix C Slope W Results Golder Associates
Page 74
CS See elle r —— oo — — —— — Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this pian either wholly or in part without written pemnission infringes copyright .© Golder Associates Pty Ltd. Elevation RL (m) 30 8 =k a 10 Description: Sitty Sand Unit Weight: 18 Cohesi Phir40 Description: Sandy Clay Description: Attunga Heights Comments: Section A-A (East)_Run1 Description: Silty Sand Unt Weight: 17 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 36 Factor of Safety = 0.84 oO Unit Weight: 18 Cohesion: 10 Phi: 32 | | | | | | 5 10 15 20 2 30 Relative Distance CLIENT . PROJECT Mr P Harding Attunga Heights omen AD/LRC | 14/11/03 | ™ SeenON AA — CHECKED SL DATE (Ul [02 ( East) RUN 1 SCALE PROJECT No FIGURE No As Shown A4 03632248 C1 Lvva OTTOM GSO/TT IL
Page 75
e — os ey | — — ion ES Contained on ins afawing isthe repre of Golder Assodates Pty ‘a Unatahorsed u Use or reproduction ofthis plan ether wholy or in part without written emission infinges copyright. © Golder Assodates Ply Ltd. eile Description: Attunga Heights Comments: Section A-A (East)_Run2 25 Bn Factor of Safety = 1.91 Description: Sity Sand ° Unit Weight: 18 Cohesion: 2 ae Phi: 40) S 2 Description: Sity Sand Unit Weight: 17 aol, Cohesion: 0 ~ 7 cS Description: Sandy Clay Oo Unit Weight: 18 = oe 10 © : LD 15 — Lu 10 }— : | | | | | | 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Relative Distance CLIENT . PROJECT Mr P Harding Attunga Heights oa AD/LRC | 14/11/03 | ™ oem mE 14/11 (03 SECTION AA ( East) RUN 2 SCALE As Shown A A PROJECT No 03632248 FIGURE No c 2 8PPa OTTOA GSGO/TT ILa
Page 76
&—al Mt
{ A & 2 c J
=| as —— —
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty Lid. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission inffinges copyright .© Golder Associates Pty Ltd.
Description: Attunga Heights
-Comments: Section A-A (West)_Run1
Factor of Safety = 1.37
°
23 t- Description: Sand+Roat Matter
ihesen 2 7
= Ont Weg
E al eae
aad
w
c
2
=
YD 15 }—
iw
10 |
5 |
0 5
Relative Distance
CLIENT “ PROJECT
Mr P Harding Attunga Heights
ee ADRC=| " -44/isi038= |
CHECKED PBC DATE (€(U (02 SECTION AA ( West) RUN 1
as" As Shown a4 "03632248 ee
6PPa OCTTOA GSO/TT ILa
Page 77
f
{ 4 Cs t 4 L " t 4 4 t J ‘ 4 * 4 ! 5
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty Lid: Unauthorised use or reproduction ofthis plan either wholy erin part without wntien permission infnnges copyngnt. Golder Assodates Pty Lid:
=
f c 7
—
Description: Attunga Heights
-Comments: Section A-A (West)_Run2
Bir (asst: San Rot Matter
aoa 2
— Deserigtion: Sand
Eat Fattof of Safety = 0.85 _ ae Cie 8 ie
_ S i
~
Cc
2
o
>
& 15}
i
10 |-
Description: Cdluvium
Unk Weight: 19
ohesion: 5
5 | | he 38 | | | |
0 5 10 15 20 5 % B 40
Relative Distance
4 PROJECT
Mr P Harding Attunga Heights
om _AD/LRC | “14/1103 | ™
CHECKED TCU DATE (€(4(02 SECTION AA ( West) RUN 2
SCALE As Shown A4 PROJECT No 03632248 FIGURE No C4
OSPA OTTOA GSO/TT ILa
Page 78
t 1 ad c a . 2 t 3 i J ‘ , \ i ‘ 2 ‘ 2 , a ‘ Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholy or in part without written permissicn infringes copyright .© Golder Associates Pty Ltd. — c = r — e =| Elevation RL (m) 8 = a 10 Description: Attunga Heights Comments: Section A-A (West)_Run3 Factor of Safety = 1.25 Oo Description: Sand+Root Matter Unit Weight: 17 Cohesion: 2 Phi: 32 Description: Sand As Shown A4 Description: Coluvium Unit Weight: 19 | | eo = | | | 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Relative Distance CLIENT 3 PROJECT Mr P Harding Attunga Heights ows AD/LRC |" 14/11/03 | ™ SECTION RA UWesn RUNS == Ss CHECKED Te DATE (€(t [02 ( e ) ‘SCALE PROJECT Ni FIGURE No 03632248 C5 TSta OTTOA GGO/TT Ile
Page 79
RTI 11/055 Folio B452 Appendix D “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report” Golder Associates
Page 80
~~ — i i Cc RTI 11/055 Folio B453 Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfil the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of ‘nique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include : the ¢lient’sgoals, objectives, and risk management preferencesy the general nature of the structure involved,\ its size, atid configuration; the location of the structure on the=site; and other planned or existing site improvementsysuch as access roads, parking lots, and underground “utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do ‘noi rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was : * not prepared for you, * not prepared for your projecty ¢ not prepared for the specific site explored, or * completed before important project changes were made. Typical change that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect : ¢ the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed froin a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, ¢ elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes — even minor ones - and Tequest an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical Engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for Problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed atthe time the study.was performed. Do not rely on_a™ geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by : the passage of time; by man-made.events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;\or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or “groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to(determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems, Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgement to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly ~ from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgement and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalise their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation, A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Page | of 2 GAP - Form No, 3 RL2
Page 81
my 4 RTI 11/055 Folio B454 Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognise that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors. liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly. problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes~of, bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnicalvengineer who prepared the report (a modest fee,may be required) and/or to conduct additional study’to obtain the specific types of information they need, or ‘prefer. «A prebid conference can also be valuable. \RBe sure coniractors have sufficient time to perform \additional_study? Only then might you be in a position to give coritractors the best information available to you, while requiring them ASFE to at least share ‘some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognise that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labelled “limitations”, many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognise their own responsibilities and: risks. Read these Provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipmenit, techniques,\and personnel used to perform’ a_geoenvironmental \study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that ‘reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate=any geoenvironmental _ findings, eonclusionssor recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you haye “hot yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk marlagement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE member geotechnical engineer for more information, PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017 emall: [email protected] www.aste.org Copyright 1998 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re-use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review of scholarly research. TIGER06983.5M Page 2 of 2 GAP - Form No. 3 RL2
Page 82
LIMITATIONS This Document has been provided by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (“Core”) subject to the following limitations: This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Core’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose. The scope and the period of Core’s Services are as described in C o r e ’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Core in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Core was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Core’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Core to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Core for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. Core may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Core to provide Services for the benefit of Core. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Core’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Core accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document. Limitations Page 1 of 1 Date: 01/10/2015 FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Printed Issue: 1.01
Used in these records
Attachment 5 - Geotechnical Assessment.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.7 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.