Original source · versioned page text
J001701-006-R-Rev1_Medihub_Geo
Geotechnical Investigation Report Medihub, Lot 22 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville Prepared for: Stockwell Design and Construction Peter Campbell Unit 7, 435 Montague Road West End QLD 4101 Email: [email protected] Report Number: J001701-006-R-Rev1 October 2022
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 27 pages
Page 2
Stockwell Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 1 4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Review of Available Information ................................................................................................. 3 4.2 Borehole Drilling.......................................................................................................................... 3 4.3 Seismic (Geophysical) Testing ................................................................................................... 3 4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 4 5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 4 5.1 Published Geological Information ............................................................................................... 4 5.2 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5 5.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 5 6.1 Excavation & Stability ................................................................................................................. 5 6.2 Basement Design........................................................................................................................ 6 6.3 Foundation Design ...................................................................................................................... 6 6.3.1 Site classification ..................................................................................................................... 6 6.3.2 High-level Footings.................................................................................................................. 6 6.3.3 Piled Footings .......................................................................................................................... 7 6.3.4 Footings - General................................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Drainage and Erosion ................................................................................................................. 8 6.5 Retaining Wall Design Parameters ............................................................................................. 8 6.6 Design CBR ................................................................................................................................ 9 6.7 Soil Aggressivity.......................................................................................................................... 9 6.8 Acid Sulfate Soils ...................................................................................................................... 10 7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates Appendix D Limitations J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page i
Page 3
Stockwell 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) for a proposed commercial development at Lot 22 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville (‘Medihub’). The work was carried out for Stockwell Design and Construction, in accordance with our proposal Q003643- 002-L-Rev1, dated 19 July 2022. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is understood to include a two-level building over a double-level basement car park (requiring about 6 m of bulk excavation), with an at-grade car park/driveway along the eastern boundary. The proposed development layout is shown on the attached Figure 1 (Appendix A), and in Image 1 below. Image 1: Extract from Buchan drawing A-DA-2000 (revision E) showing the proposed development. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site comprises Lot 22 on Hofmann Drive (refer Image 1 below) and covers an area of about 1,700 m2. It is bounded by Hofmann Drive to the west, remnant vegetation and Eenie Creek Road to the north, and retail development elsewhere. At the time of the investigation, the site mostly comprised a gravel carpark/laydown area, with short lawn grass around the perimeter. The site is generally flat, at about RL 10 m AHD. General site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown in Photograph 1. J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 1
Page 4
Stockwell Image 2: Extract from Norris Clarke & O’Brien survey drawing SP322201 (provided by Stockwell). Photograph 1: Site conditions at the time of the fieldwork (19 August 2022) looking approximately north. J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 2
Page 5
Stockwell
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Review of Available Information
To assess likely ground conditions, a review of published geological maps and available geotechnical
information was undertaken (refer Section 5.1).
4.2 Borehole Drilling
Fieldwork was conducted on 19 August 2022 under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer from Core.
Two boreholes (designated BH4 and BH5) were drilled on the proposed development footprint (refer
attached Figure 1; Appendix A).
The boreholes were drilled using a 4WD-mounted drilling rig utilising uncased solid flight augering, to 8 m
below ground level (BGL).
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was undertaken adjacent to/within the boreholes. Undisturbed
(U50 tube) sampling was conducted in suitable cohesive soils, with pocket penetrometer testing undertaken
in the ends of the U50 tubes.
Soil samples were recovered from the boreholes for subsequent laboratory testing (refer Section 4.4).
Borehole positions were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS unit.
Reports of Boreholes are attached in Appendix B, together with explanatory notes. Subsurface conditions
are discussed in Section 5.2.
4.3 Seismic (Geophysical) Testing
Geophysical testing in the form of multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) was undertaken on
19 August 2022 by geotechnical engineers from Core. This survey was undertaken to supplement the
borehole data.
MASW geophysical surveys use seismic surface (Rayleigh) wave phase and frequency data to estimate
shear-wave velocities of the subsurface materials.
One MASW survey line (denoted Line 1) was carried out across the proposed building footprint. The survey
comprises a single 1-Dimensional vertical sounding recorded at the centre of the geophone array; refer
Image 3. Vertical soundings were carried out at 4 m intervals by pulling the line.
The MASW acquisition comprised the use of a 24-channel array with 4.5 Hz vertical geophones spaced
horizontally at 1 m. The array was connected to a Geometrics Geode, with data recorded using the
Geometrics Seismodule Controller Software (SCS). A sampling rate of 0.5 ms and sample record length of 2
seconds was adopted. The seismic source was a 16 lb sledgehammer striking a steel plate. Vertical stacking
of the seismic source was carried out at multiple shot locations to increase the signal to noise ratio of the
frequency data. Data from multiple source offsets (i.e., shot locations) was gathered during at each sounding
location.
The acquired data was processed using the SurfSeis 6 software. Dispersion images were generated, which
show the frequency versus the percentage intensity of phase velocity, for each acquired field record. A
dispersion curve was then produced by picking the maximum intensity velocities (of the fundamental mode)
across the useful range of frequencies. The dispersion curves for the survey alignment were put through a
10-layer inversion algorithm to produce one-dimensional shear-wave velocity soundings.
The shear-wave soundings were then gridded using Golden Software’s Surfer 22 to produce a two-
dimensional shear-wave velocity section. Sounding positions have been denoted to show the parts of the
section that have been interpolated during the gridding process.
The quality of the produced MASW dispersion curves for each sounding was very good, with high signal-to-
noise (S/N) ratios, for the fundamental-mode dispersion energy, for the frequency range of between 14 Hz
and 55 Hz; which corresponds to a depth range of between about 1 m and 8 m.
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 3
Page 6
Stockwell
The seismic test results are provided as a subsurface section in the attached Figure 2 (Appendix A) and are
discussed in Section 5.2.
24 Channel Geophone Array at 1 m Centres.
Image 3: MASW acquisition schematic.
4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed at a NATA-accredited laboratory and comprised Atterberg
limits (1 of), shrink-swell (1 of) and single-point CBR testing (1 of).
Laboratory test certificates are attached in Appendix C. The classification testing generally confirms the field
soil classifications. Shrink-swell test results are discussed in Section 6.3.1 and CBR results in Section 6.5.
5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
5.1 Published Geological Information
Published information 1 indicates that the site is underlain by residual soils and weathered rock of the Late
Triassic to Jurassic age Tiaro Coal Measures (Duckinwilla Group). An extract of the geological map is shown
in Image 2.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes (described in Section 5.2) generally confirm the
published geology; and are similar to conditions previously encountered in this area.
Indicative site location
Image 3: Extract from published geology map.
1
Gympie Special Geology Map, Sheet 9445 and Part 9545, First Edition 1999, Department of Mines and Energy
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 4
Page 7
Stockwell
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
The boreholes generally encountered very stiff to hard residual clay. Some very stiff clay fill (or reworked
natural soil) was encountered in BH5 to 0.9 m BGL. In BH4 the residual clay tends to extremely weathered
rock from about 6 m BGL.
The seismic testing confirms the results of the borehole drilling and indicates inferred extremely weathered
rock from about 7 m to 8 m BGL.
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. This is in line with our previous experience in this area
where groundwater was also not encountered during drilling. However, groundwater seepage may have
been slow to develop through the low permeability clays within the boreholes. Our previous experience on
the commercial developments immediately to the south-west, as well as the residential development to the
north-east, is that groundwater was encountered at about RL 3 m to RL 4.3 m AHD (i.e. equivalent to about
5.7 m to 7 m BGL at Lot 22).
Groundwater levels on the site may vary depending on weather/climate and human influences (e.g. surface
drainage).
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Excavation & Stability
Excavation for the proposed double-level basement is expected to mainly encounter very stiff or hard clays.
Excavation of such materials should be achievable using conventional small to medium size earthmoving
equipment (i.e. 12 to 20 tonne excavators). Larger equipment will improve excavation productivity. Ripper
attachments may be required where weathered rock is encountered or within confined excavations.
The subgrade of the approximate 6 m deep basement excavation is expected to comprise very stiff/hard
residual clay or extremely weathered rock. Trafficability of this material should generally be good, except
when exposed to water. It would be prudent to allow for the placement of a 150 mm thick layer of aggregate
across the base of the excavation and elsewhere on the site where vehicle/machinery access is required, to
assist with access and trafficability in the event of rain and/or groundwater seepage.
Working platform assessments must be carried out by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) for heavy
machinery or equipment (e.g. crane or piling rig, if required) prior to trafficking and operations.
Groundwater inflow/seepage may be encountered during the basement excavation, depending on the
groundwater level at the time of the excavation. Based on the relatively low permeability of the residual
clays, such inflows could likely be managed through a series of sumps in the excavation base and pumping
out from these sumps. The excavation base should be graded to direct water to the sumps, and/or a system
of shallow drains could be considered. Discharge of captured groundwater will be subject to relevant
Council/State guidelines.
Subject to space limitations, the basement excavation could be temporarily battered, followed by wall
construction. Temporary batters should be no steeper than 1V:1H in the residual clays but must should be
assessed (particularly for possible fissured clays) by a geotechnical RPEQ. Steeper batters may be possible
in the lower portions of the excavation where weathered rock may be found, subject to inspection by a
geotechnical RPEQ. Batters in uncontrolled fill (if encountered) may need to be less steep (about 1V:2H).
If battering is not suitable, then a soldier pile wall with shotcrete infill could be considered (and could form the
permanent wall; refer Section 6.2).
Piles will likely need to be propped, braced or anchored to limit bending moments and deflections and to
provide control of soil movements behind the wall. These movements may be both lateral and vertical. Such
movement has the potential to damage adjacent adjoining in-ground services and structures (if any). A soil-
structure interaction analysis would need to be undertaken to assess such movement as part of the
temporary stability design. Temporary basement support must be designed by a suitably qualified and
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 5
Page 8
Stockwell
experienced engineer (RPEQ), and advice from specialist contractors should be sought regarding the design
and construction. The temporary support system adopted would need to prevent the loss of support to
adjacent buildings and other structures (if any), whilst also acting to limit groundwater seepage (if any) into
the excavation.
Shoring will also be required to enable safe personnel entry into trenches (with vertical sides) deeper than
1 m. The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable
to excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
6.2 Basement Design
An engineer-designed soldier pile wall with shotcrete infill could be used for temporary excavation stability
and could also form the permanent wall, as well as potentially carry vertical loads from the structure above.
Anchored supports or bracing will be required until the ground floor is constructed.
For preliminary design, walls supported by multiple rows of anchors or props could be designed using a
rectangular earth pressure distribution of 0.25γH kPa over the full height of the wall [where H is the total
vertical height of the wall in metres and γ is the bulk unit weight of the soil retained (suggested value
20 kN/m3)]. It is probable that the earth pressure will be below this value at the top and toward the base of
the wall. Core should be contacted if further details are required. Surcharge loading should be multiplied by a
lateral coefficient of 0.25 to calculate the resulting additional lateral pressure on the wall.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling (refer Section 5.3); however, given the proposed basement
depth (in the order of 6 m BGL), the presence of groundwater against the basement walls cannot be
discounted. A ‘wet’ basement design may be viable (subject to regulator approval) – possibly designed to
accommodate hydrostatic pressure to a nominated groundwater level (say 3 m BGL), with inflow/relief valves
into the basement for higher groundwater levels. In our experience, ‘wet’ basement designs are not favoured
by regulators (e.g. Council). A ‘dry’ (or ‘tanked’) basement design may therefore be required, designed to
withstand hydrostatic pressure from groundwater at a preliminary design level of 2 m BGL (e.g. about
40 kPa) provided relief valves are installed at this level.
Installation and monitoring of a groundwater standpipes to 6 m BGL are recommended to confirm the above
recommendations regarding groundwater/hydrostatic pressure. The standpipe can be installed during
proposed fieldwork on Lot 2 (proposed Retail outlets development) and monitoring will need to include a
significant wet period to provide meaningful results.
6.3 Foundation Design
6.3.1 Site classification
The site classification derived in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and
footings is not directly applicable to developments of this type but can provide an indication of the likely
magnitude of reactive (shrink and swell) movements associated with normal seasonal soil moisture
variations.
Due to the presence of fill the site is classified Class P. The existing soil profile on the site could be classified
as equivalent ‘Class ‘M’ in accordance with AS 2870-2011 The estimated characteristic ground surface
movement due to seasonal moisture variation (‘ys’ value) for this site is estimated to be in the order of 20 mm
to 40 mm.
It should be noted that the estimated order of movement is based on the existing soil profile (i.e. no cutting or
filling), and moisture content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only.
6.3.2 High-level Footings
Ground conditions at basement level are likely to comprise very stiff/hard residual clays (and possibly
weathered rock). A high-level pad, strip or raft footing system in this material is considered appropriate and
could be designed using an allowable bearing pressure (ABP) of 300 kPa. Settlement is estimated to be less
than 30 mm. Preliminary analysis of the raft suitability could be carried out using the geotechnical design
parameters provided in Table 1 below.
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 6
Page 9
Stockwell
Ancillary or isolated structures not part of the basement structure could be supported on high-level strip or
pad footings, with maximum 25 mm settlement, as follows:
Stiff natural clay: 100 kPa ABP
Very stiff natural clay: 200 kPa ABP
Hard natural clay: 300 kPa ABP
6.3.3 Piled Footings
If settlements/stresses are found to be excessive below peak loads in parts of the raft slab (e.g. under
columns or lift cores), piles may be required below peak loads. The proposed building design may also
require tension piles at selected locations outside of the building superstructure envelope to resist
hydrostatic/uplift pressures and overturning forces, or piles for ancillary structures.
Bored concrete or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles could be considered. Driven piles may not be suitable
due to vibration impacts on adjacent structures.
Indicative pile design parameters are provided in Table 1. Settlement of the piled footings is expected to be
in the order of 0.5% of the pile width. Ultimate geotechnical capacities (Rd,ug) determined from the
parameters provided must be multiplied by a geotechnical strength reduction factor (øg) in accordance with
Section 4 of AS 2159-2009 Piling – Design and installation to determine the design geotechnical strength
(Rd,g). The geotechnical strength reduction factor should be determined in accordance with AS 2159-2009
and is expected to be in the range of 0.45 to 0.55. An upper bound value may be adopted if supervision and
certification of pile construction is carried out by a geotechnical engineer. Ultimate (unfactored) geotechnical
parameters for pile design are shown below in Table 1.
For temporary basement retention (if required), the lateral capacity of a pile is provided by the passive
resistance of the surrounding soil. The soils to a depth 1.5 times the pile diameter below the excavated
surface should be ignored in the assessment of lateral capacity. The lateral capacity of piles may be
determined using various methods, and which generally require an estimation of the Young’s modulus (Es) of
the founding stratum.
Specialist piling contractors should be consulted regarding selection of suitable pile types, detailed design of
piles, the potential vibration effects caused by pile driving and suitable dynamic pile testing methods and
testing frequency.
Table 1: Recommended values for raft or pile design.
Unit Ultimate Ultimate
Undrained Elastic
weight Poisson’s skin base
Material type Cohesion Modulus
Ƴ Ratio friction resistance
(Cu) (kPa) (MPa)
(kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa)
Stiff Clay 18 50 8-20 20 NR
Very Stiff Clay 19 100 15-40 0.2-0.3 50 NR
Hard Clay/EW Sandstone 20 200 40-70 80 1,800
Notes:
1) NR – Not recommended
2) Skin friction should be discounted for sections of pile shafts where liners are in place.
3) Indicative modulus values taken from published paper, Site Characterisation, Terence Wiesner, Australian Geomechanics –
Dec 1999 and ‘Foundation Analysis & Design (Bowles, 4th Edition)
4) Below the groundwater level the submerged unit weight of the soil should be adopted.
6.3.4 Footings - General
To achieve the design parameters, founding materials must be dry and cleaned of any loose, disturbed or
saturated materials prior to pouring concrete. If any soil conditions encountered during footing excavation are
found to differ from those noted in the geotechnical investigation, Core should be notified immediately, and
further assessment carried out to determine if changes to footing design are required. The footings
excavations should be assessed by a geotechnical RPEQ to confirm founding material.
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 7
Page 10
Stockwell
Adequate site drainage should be carried out to ensure that stormwater runoff is directed away from the
building walls and footings. All proposed footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by
any adjacent excavations, batter slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building
or fill loads. To minimise the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least
below a plane extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls,
then rising up at 1V:1H. This requirement is illustrated in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1: Exclusion zone for base of footings.
6.4 Drainage and Erosion
Site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water, minimise water infiltration into the slope,
and to prevent ponding of water on subgrade areas during construction and also adjacent to foundations,
perimeter slabs, and driveways once construction is completed.
Roof water, including overflow from rainwater tanks, and water collected from hard surfaces (e.g. driveways)
must be directed by pipes or lined channels to a legal point of discharge.
Shallow subsurface cut-off drains should be installed upslope of building areas in order to intercept and
divert potential subsurface seepage. Diversion drains should be constructed above the crest of any cut or fill
embankments.
Any exposed soil on sloping ground must be protected from erosion (e.g. through re-vegetation).
6.5 Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Design for basement walls could be carried out using a triangular pressure distribution applicable to the wall
type (i.e. active pressures for a cantilever wall or ‘at rest’ pressures for a propped wall) and based on the
parameters in Table 4 below. These values assume that the walls are fully drained and no allowance is
included for construction loading, adjacent foundation loadings, the effect of sloping ground, or backfill
compaction stresses.
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 8
Page 11
Stockwell
Table 2: Retaining Structure Design Parameters.
Unit Friction
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
Weight Angle
Retained Material Ka Ko
(t/m3) (Degrees) (Cantilever (Non yielding Kp
Wall) wall)
Stiff Clay 1.8 27 0.41 0.58 2.46
Very Stiff Clay 1.9 29 0.36 0.53 2.77
Hard Clay 2.0 33 0.3 0.45 3.5
Notes:
Ka - active; Ko - at rest; Kp - passive
For yielding walls active state develops when: Deflection > 0.001H to 0.004H (granular soil), or deflection > 0.01H to
0.04H (cohesive soil).
Positive permanent drainage must be installed behind all walls unless they are designed for development of full
hydrostatic pressures (i.e. a ‘tanked’ basement).
6.6 Design CBR
CBR testing on a sandy clay sample (fill/reworked natural soil) returned a CBR value of 5%, with a swell
value of 1%. Based on our experience with similar materials, and on consideration of the test results, a
design CBR of 5% is recommended for the residual sandy clay subgrade.
The recommended design CBR value is applicable for properly drained subgrades only that are compacted
to a minimum dry density of 98% (standard). Properly drained subgrades should allow for open graded
drains that shed water and prevent ponding.
If exposed clay subgrades are exposed to rainfall or stormwater, softening (and resulting subgrade strength
less than nominated above) can occur and the material will become difficult to handle or moisture condition.
This can cause significant delays during construction and must be considered in the design/planning and site
management (e.g. timing of work and temporary/long term site drainage design).
Construction validation testing is recommended on pavement subgrades to confirm design parameters prior
to pavement construction.
6.7 Soil Aggressivity
The chemical composition of soil can provide an indication of the potential for long term damage to
foundations, buried pipelines, in-ground structures, services and other infrastructure. Soil texture is also
important in this regard, as granular soils allow oxygen exchange (oxidation) to occur more readily and are
also more permeable.
Australian Standard AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation provides the range of exposure
classification of the surface of concrete piles based on the range of chemical conditions in soil and
groundwater.
Our previous experience indicates that the residual clays encountered can be classified as ‘Mild’ in
accordance with the definitions given in AS 2159-2009 Table 6.4.2(C) Exposure Classification for Concrete
Piles – Piles in Soil.
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 9
Page 12
Stockwell
6.8 Acid Sulfate Soils
The development of acid sulfate soils (ASS) is commonly the result of marine or estuarine deposition of
sulfate and iron bearing sediments in the presence of an abundant source of readily decomposable organic
matter resulting in the deposition of pyrite. This pyrite is stable within the soil so long as anoxic conditions
prevail. Oxidation of this material produces acidic conditions and oxidation typically occurs as the material is
exposed above the water table by excavation, and by lowering the water table during dewatering processes.
The investigation found that the site is underlain by residual soils, which are not associated with ASS on the
basis of their geological origin. ASS were not encountered in the investigation, including below RL 5 m AHD.
The results of the investigation therefore indicate that testing or management of acid sulfate soils is not
warranted for this site.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
Should you require any further information please contact the undersigned. We draw your attention to the
document, Limitations, which is included in Appendix D.
Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Walter Mastenbroek
MEngPr (Civil) MSc (Env) BSc (Hons) MIEAust CPEng NER RPEQ 16149
Associate Director/Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Geoff Hurley
MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716
Managing Director/Principal Geotechnical Engineer
WM/GAH/wm
A.B.N. 75 603 384 050
J001701-006-R-Rev1 Page 10
Page 13
Stockwell Appendix A Figures J001701-006-R-Rev1
Page 14
© CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD, UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT, NORTHING (m) LEGEND 4 APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LocaTiON “!=*“°* APPROXIMATE SEISMIC LINE LOCATION PROPOSED LOT BOUNDARY Base plan drawn by Buchan Group. Drawing Tile - Basement 02. Drawing No.- A-DA-100-82. Rev No.-K. Dated 18 May 2022. Aerial Image sourced from Nearmag Pty Ltd, Image dated 15 July 2022. Annotations by Core Consultants Pty Ltd. EASTING (m) 504870 504930 core www.coreconsultants.com.au Sant STOCKWELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MEDIHUB (LOT-22) - HOFFMAN DRIVE & WALTER HAY DRIVE MD 25/08/2022 CEOEDEY one GEOTECHNICAL TEST LOCATION PLAN wm 26/08/2022 1:450 A3 J001701 003 | TM | FOO1 0 | SHEET 1 OF 1 Plot Date: 26 August 2022 Time: 11:05 AM By: CAD Path: J:\2022 - 11479\9001701 - Stockwell Subdivision-Eeenie Creek Road\PHASE 1000 - Geotechnical\Figures Drawings\J001701-GIS\J001701.aprx
Page 15
BH5 BH4
(Offset 15 m) (Offset 10 m)
Line 1: Shear-Wave Velocities (m/s)
-1
Depth Below Ground Level (m)
-2
-3 Inferred stiff to hard residual clay (vs 150 m/s to 300 m/s)
-4
-5
-6
Approximate basement excavation level
-7
300
300 300
-8 Inferred extremely weathered sandstone
(vs >300 m/s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Chainage (m)
Shear-wave Velocity (vs in m/s)
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
10 12 15 17 20 22 25 27 30 32 35 37 40 42 45 47 50
DRAWN CLIENT:
BH STOCKWELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CHECKED PROJECT:
WM
PROPOSED MEDIHUB
DENOTES LOCATION OF 1D SOUNDING Scale DATE LOT 22 HOFMANN DRIVE, NOOSAVILLE
24/08/2022
0 2 4 6 SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE: MASW SECTION: LINE 1
REFER TO FIGURE 1 FOR SECTION LOCATION
ORIGINAL PROJECT NO: FIGURE NO: REV:
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH CORE DOCUMENT J001701-006-R-Rev0.
SIZE A3 J001701 002 0
Page 16
Stockwell Appendix B Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes J001701-006-R-Rev1
Page 17
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH4
East 504850.0 m
North 7078495.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Stockwell Design and Construction Surface RL 10.00 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Medihub Contractor Core Consultants pty ltd Logged Date: 19/08/22
Location Lot 22 Hofmann Drive Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: WM
Job No. J001701 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 05/10/22
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
DCP TEST
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
M 9.98 0.00 m GM FILL Silty Sandy GRAVEL: fine to coarse grained, D VD
ASS samples taken CI sub-angular, grey; sand fine to coarse grained.
at 0.25 m intervals to
2m CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL) with silt with sand: medium St
L plasticity, brown mottled grey; sand fine to coarse grained;
trace gravel, fine, sub-rounded.
DS 0.50-0.70 m
0.70 U50 0.50-1.00 m
9.30 REC=0.22, PP= Pale red brown, brown, grey; tending to silty clay in parts, VSt
500kpa sand fine to medium grained, without gravel.
1
2
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J1701-RETAIL OUTLETS-HOFFMAN DRIVE WALTER HAY DRIVE.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 5/10/2022 12:17 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
M
*Augered to this depth before
recommencing test
3.00
3
7.00 DS 3.00-3.20 m CI Silty CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL) with sand: medium plasticity,
pale red brown, grey; sand fine to medium grained.
Not Encountered
*Augered to this depth before
ADT
4 w< recommencing test
PL
H
M-H 5
6.00
6
4.00 Trace sand: pale red brown, grey; tending to extremely
weathered material.
H 7
8.00
8
Hole Terminated at 8.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations.
Page 18
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH5
East 504850.0 m
North 7078498.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Stockwell Design and Construction Surface RL 10.00 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Medihub Contractor Core Consultants pty ltd Logged Date: 19/08/22
Location Lot 22 Hofmann Drive Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: WM
Job No. J001701 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 05/10/22
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
DCP TEST
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
10.00
0.10 0.00 m GM FILL Silty Sandy GRAVEL: fine to coarse grained,
M 9.90 ASS samples taken sub-angular, grey; sand fine to coarse grained. D VD
0.30 at 0.25 m intervals to
9.70 2m 0.03 m thick layer of remnant asphalt.
CI
L BDS 0.40-0.90 m Possibly FILL Sandy CLAY (REWORKED NATURAL) with silt
with gravel: medium plasticity, brown; sand fine to coarse
grained; gravel fine to medium grained, sub-angular to
sub-rounded.
VSt
0.90
9.10 CI CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL) with silt with sand: medium
1
1.10 plasticity, pale red brown, grey; sand fine to medium grained.
8.90
Grey, pale red brown; tending to silty clay in parts, observed
fissuring.
M
2
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J1701-RETAIL OUTLETS-HOFFMAN DRIVE WALTER HAY DRIVE.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 5/10/2022 12:17 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
*Augered to this depth before
recommencing test
3.00
3
7.00 CI Silty CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL) trace sand: medium plasticity,
grey, pale grey, pale red brown; sand fine grained.
Not Encountered
*Augered to this depth before
4.00
ADT
4 recommencing test
6.00 Pale red brown, grey. w<
PL
VSt /
H
5
DS 5.00-5.20 m
*Augered to this depth before
H recommencing test
5.80
4.20 CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL) with silt trace sand: medium to high
CH plasticity, dark red brown, grey; sand fine grained; observed
6
fissuring.
DS 6.80-7.00 m
7
8.00
8
Hole Terminated at 8.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations.
Page 19
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 Diatubre 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 equipment used
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate
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 shown at date 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, surface seepage or cave in
OBSERVED of the borehole/test pit.
GROUND WATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in less permeable strata.
ENCOUNTERED 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)
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 Dynamic cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quantity Designation (%)
Page 20
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT
REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL,CI, or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or SW) 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 AS 1726 - 2017. The material proper-
ties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
PARTICLE SIZE PLASTIC PROPERTIES
Major
Sub Division Particle Size
Division
Boulders >200 mm
Cobbles 63 - 200 mm
Gravel Coarse 20 - 63 mm
Gravel Medium 6.7 - 20 mm
Gravel Fine 2.36 - 6.7 mm
Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36 mm
Sand Medium 0.21 - 0.6 mm
Sand Fine 0.075 - 0.21 mm
Silt 0.002 - 0.075 mm
Clay <0.002 mm
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR COARSE GRAINED SOIL AS 1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Non-cohesive and free running
M Moist Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, tends to stick together
W Wet Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, soil sticks together, free water forms when handling
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
W<PL Moist dry of liquid limit Hard and friable or powdery
W = PL Moist near plastic limit Soils can be molded at a moisture condition approximately equal to the plastic limit
W >PL Moist, wet of plastic limit Soils usually weakened and free water forms on hands when handling
W = LL Wet near plastic limit
W > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
CONSISTENCY TERMS FOR AS1726—2017 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE GRAINED SOILS AS1726—2017
COHESIVE SOILS
Symbol Term Density Index % SPT ‘N’ #
Symbol Term Undrained Shear
VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
Strength
L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with
the observed behaviour of the material.
H Hard Above 200 kPa
Page 21
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH & WEATHERING AND
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION AS1726—2017
Symbol Term Uniaxial Point Load Field Guide
Strength Is (50)
Compressive
(MPa)
Strength (MPa)
VL Very Low 0.6 to 2 0.03 to 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick. Pieces up to 30 mm thick can
Strength be broken with finger pressure.
L Low Strength 2 to 6 0.1 to 0.3 Easily scored with knife. Indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm
blows of the pick point. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm may be broken by hand. Sharp
edges of core are friable and break during handling.
M Medium 6 to 20 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm can be broken by hand
Strength with difficulty.
H High Strength 20 to 60 1 to 3 A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick
with a single firm blow. Rock rings under hammer.
VH Very High 60 to 200 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow. Rock rings under hammer.
Strength
EH Extremely High Above 200 Above 10 Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material. Rock
Strength rings under hammer.
= Diametral Point Load Test = Axial Point Load Test
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL AS1726—2017
WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
RS Residual Soil (Note 1) Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
fabric of original rock are no longer visible but the soil has not been significantly transported.
XW Extremely Weathered Material is weathered to such an extent that is has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
(Note 1) fabric of original rock are still visible.
HW Highly Weathered (Note 2) The whole rock mass is discoloured, usually by iron staining or beaching to the extent that the colour of the
original rock is not recognizable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary miner-
als have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to
deposition of weathering products in pores.
MH Moderately Weathered The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the
(Note 2) colour of the original rock is not recognizable, but shows little or no change in strength from fresh rock.
SW Slightly Weathered Pock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength
from fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no signs of decomposition of individual minerals or colour change.
Note 1 The term ‘Extremely Weathered rock’ is misleading as the material has soil properties. The word ‘rock’ should be replaced with the name
of the original rock of the word ‘material’, eg. Extremely Weathered granite or Extremely Weathered material.
Note 2 Where it is not possible to distinguish between ‘Highly Weathered’ and ‘Moderately Weathered’ rock the term ‘Distinctly Weathered’ may
be used.
DEFECT TYPE/DESCRIPTION DEFECT PROFILE DEFECT ROUGHNESS
Symbol Description DESCRIPTION
B Bedding Parting V Vein
PL Planar
Symbol Description
J Joint HB/DB Handling/Drilling St Stepped
Break Sl Slickenside
Un Undulating
EW Extremely Weathered C Contact Sm Smooth
DEFECT INFILL DESCRIPTION
Seam
Symbol Description Ro Rough
FZ Fracture Zone L Cleavage Vertical Boreholes - The dip
Cn Clean: No visible
coating (inclination from horizontal) for the
CZ/S Crushed Zone/Seam X Foliation defect is given.
Sn Stain: Coated 1 to
3 mm Inclined Boreholes - The inclination
IS Infilled Seam S Schistocity is measured as the acute angle to the
Vr Veneer: < 1 mm core axis.
SZ/S Sheared Zone/Seam Ct Coating: 1 to 3
mm
Page 22
Stockwell Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates J001701-006-R-Rev1
Page 23
Material Test Report
Report Number: 202937.00-111 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 14/09/2022
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
Unit 1/18 Lysaght Street, Coolum Beach QLD 4573
Contact: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Number: 202937.00
Project Name: Proposed Development
Project Location: Material Testing, Maroochydore QLD
Client Reference: J001701 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Work Request: 19522
Sample Number: SS-19522D
Date Sampled: 19/08/2022
Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Dates Tested: 25/08/2022 - 09/09/2022
Laboratory Manager
Sampling Method: Sampled by Client
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: BH4, Depth: 0.5 - 0.7 m
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
2.36 mm 84
0.075 mm 59
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max
Sample History Oven Dried
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Liquid Limit (%) 64
Plastic Limit (%) 23
Plasticity Index (%) 41
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.2
Linear Shrinkage (%) 16.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling None
Report Number: 202937.00-111 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 2 of 4
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 24
Material Test Report
Report Number: 202937.00-111 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 14/09/2022
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
Unit 1/18 Lysaght Street, Coolum Beach QLD 4573
Contact: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Number: 202937.00
Project Name: Proposed Development
Project Location: Material Testing, Maroochydore QLD
Client Reference: J001701 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Work Request: 19522
Sample Number: SS-19522E
Date Sampled: 19/08/2022
Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Dates Tested: 25/08/2022 - 09/09/2022
Laboratory Manager
Sampling Method: Sampled by Client
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: BH5, Depth: 0.4 - 0.9 m
California Bearing Ratio (AS 1289 6.1.1 & 2.1.1) Min Max California Bearing Ratio
CBR taken at 2.5 mm 1.6
CBR % 5
Method of Compactive Effort Standard 1.4
Method used to Determine MDD AS 1289 5.1.1 & 2.1.1
Method used to Determine Plasticity Visual Assessment 1.2
Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) 1.91
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 14.0 1
Laboratory Density Ratio (%) 95.0
0.8
Laboratory Moisture Ratio (%) 100.5
Dry Density after Soaking (t/m3) 1.80
0.6
Field Moisture Content (%) 13.3
Moisture Content at Placement (%) 14.2 0.4
Moisture Content Top 30mm (%) 18.8
Moisture Content Rest of Sample (%) 15.7 0.2
Mass Surcharge (kg) 4.5
Soaking Period (days) 4 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Curing Hours 72.0
Swell (%) 1.0
Results 2.5 5
Oversize Material (mm) 19
Oversize Material Included Excluded
Oversize Material (%) 0.0
Report Number: 202937.00-111 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 3 of 4
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 25
Material Test Report
Report Number: 202937.00-111 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 14/09/2022
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
Unit 1/18 Lysaght Street, Coolum Beach QLD 4573
Contact: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Number: 202937.00
Project Name: Proposed Development
Project Location: Material Testing, Maroochydore QLD
Client Reference: J001701 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Work Request: 19522
Date Sampled: 21/08/2022
Dates Tested: 25/08/2022 - 05/09/2022
Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Sampling Method: Sampled by Client
Laboratory Manager
The results apply to the sample as received
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Location: Material Testing
Shrink Swell Index AS 1289 7.1.1 & 2.1.1
Sample Number SS-19522B SS-19522C
Date Sampled 19/08/2022 19/08/2022
Date Tested 05/09/2022 05/09/2022
Material Source Insitu Insitu
Sample Location BH2 BH4
(1.0 - 1.5 m) (0.5 - 1.0 m)
Inert Material Estimate (%) 0 7
Pocket Penetrometer before (kPa) 40 500
Pocket Penetrometer after (kPa) 40 490
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) 20.5 20.7
Shrinkage (%) 0.6 4.3
Swell Moisture Content Before (%) 20.4 24.6
Swell Moisture Content After (%) 20.4 25.9
Swell (%) -0.1 0.2
Shrink Swell Index Iss (%) 0.3 2.4
Visual Description ** **
Cracking UC UC
Crumbling ** No
Remarks ** **
Shrink Swell Index (Iss) reported as the percentage vertical strain per pF change in suction.
Cracking Terminology: UC Uncracked, SC Slightly Cracked, MC Moderately Cracked, HC Highly Cracked, FR Fragmented.
NATA Accreditation does not cover the performance of pocket penetrometer readings.
Report Number: 202937.00-111 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 4 of 4
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 26
Stockwell Appendix D Limitations J001701-006-R-Rev1
Page 27
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: 12/07/2018 FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Printed Issue: 1.02
Page 28
CLIENTCHOICE Awards CLIENTCHOICE Awards 2022 2022 ° ° 7 g BEST CONSULTING. BEST ENGINEERING FIRM ENVIRONMENTAL, FIRM