Original source · versioned page text
Geotech 95141.00.R.001
From the archive Stormwater Submission.zip, inside Operational Works Application OPW21/0272 Submission - DA Form 1 - Plans - Geotech Report - 32 Viewland Dr, Noosa Heads. File date in the archive: 2021-03-11 08:38.
Report on
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Youngcare Facility
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Prepared for
De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd
Project 95141.00
January 2021
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 32 pages
Page 2
Document History
Document details
Project No. 95141.00 Document No. R.001.docx
Document title Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Youngcare Facility
Site address 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Report prepared for De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd
File name 95141.00.R.001
Document status and review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Revision 0 Andre Dos Santos Brett Egen 6 January 2021
Distribution of copies
Status Electronic Paper Issued to
Revision 0 1 - [email protected]
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached
drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 6 January 2021
Reviewer 6 January 2021
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.au
1/28 Kessling Avenue
Kunda Park QLD 4556
FS 604853 Phone (07) 5351 0400
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Regional Geology ........................................................................................................................... 2
4. Field Work ...................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Field Work Methods .............................................................................................................3
4.2 Field Work Results ...............................................................................................................3
5. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 3
6. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 4
6.1 Site Preparation and Earthworks .........................................................................................4
6.2 Batter Slopes .......................................................................................................................5
6.3 Site Classification .................................................................................................................6
6.4 Foundations .........................................................................................................................6
6.5 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................8
6.6 Indicative Pavement and Slab-On-Ground ..........................................................................9
7. References ..................................................................................................................................... 9
8. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A About This Report
Appendix B Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan
Appendix C Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Appendix D Results of Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 4
Page 1 of 10
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Youngcare Facility
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
(DP) for the proposed Youngcare facility at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads.
The investigation was undertaken at the request of De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd following authorisation
to proceed received 27 November 2020, and was undertaken in general accordance with DP’s proposal
SSC200322 dated 23 November 2020.
It is understood that the proposed development will comprise a series of one and two storey specialist
disability accommodation dwellings, with associated driveway and car parking.
The aim of this investigation was to assess the following:
• subsurface conditions including groundwater;
• earthworks and site preparation, including excavatability, batter slopes, suitability of site soils for
reuse, compaction standards;
• foundation soil reactivity in accordance with AS 2870 (2011);
• suitable high level footing options, allowable bearing pressures and estimated settlements;
• suitable piled foundation types;
• ultimate end bearing and shaft adhesion pressures for axially loaded piles in compression;
• retaining wall design parameters; and
• indicative pavement design parameters.
The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of five bores followed by laboratory testing,
engineering assessment and reporting. Details of the field work and laboratory testing are presented in
this report, together, with comments on the items listed above.
This report must be read in conjunction with the notes entitled “About This Report” in Appendix A along
with any other attached explanatory notes and should be kept in its entirety without separation of
individual pages or sections.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 5
Page 2 of 10 2. Site Description The site is located at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads and is described as Lot 1 on RP226728 (refer Drawing 1, Appendix B). The site is square shaped and is heavily vegetated with semi-mature and mature trees, and has an access track that broadly runs through the centre of the site. Topographically, the site slopes gently downward towards the west. A photograph of typical site conditions at the time of the investigation is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the site, looking from the site entry off Viewland Drive 3. Regional Geology Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland’s 1:100,000 scale geological mapping indicates the site is located in an area underlain by Pleistocene aged dune sand typically comprising “quartz sand”. The subsurface conditions encountered during the field work comprised sand, which is in general agreement with the above described geology. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 6
Page 3 of 10 4. Field Work 4.1 Field Work Methods The field work was undertaken on 3 December 2020 and comprised the drilling of five bores (designated Bores 1 to 5). The bore locations were set out by an experienced geotechnical engineer with reference to site features with the locations recorded using a hand-held GPS device. The approximate bore locations indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The bores were drilled to 3.0 m depth using a 4WD mounted Jacro 200 drilling rig utilising continuous flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests were carried out to assess the relative density of the subsurface conditions. On completion, the bores were observed for groundwater seepage and then backfilled with spoil which was tamped into the holes. The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel who logged the bores, and collected samples for visual and tactile assessment and for subsequent laboratory testing. Strata identification was undertaken through observation of cutting returns and recovered samples. 4.2 Field Work Results The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are given in detail on the borehole logs in Appendix C, together with notes defining the classification methods and descriptive terms used. The depths were measured below existing surface levels at the time of investigation. In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores comprised sand to the termination of the bores at 3.0 m depth. The relative density of the sand was typically very loose to loose initially, grading medium dense typically within the upper 1 m. No groundwater seepage was encountered in the bores at the time of investigation. It should be noted, however, that groundwater depths and ground moisture conditions are affected by climatic conditions and soil permeability, and will therefore vary with time. 5. Laboratory Testing Selected disturbed samples recovered from the bores were tested in the laboratory for engineering properties of plasticity and particle size distribution for classification purposes. The results of this testing are summarised in Table 1 with material test reports in Appendix D. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 7
Page 4 of 10
Table 1: Results of Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing
Bore Depth Material FMC Plasticity Particle Size Distribution %
No. (m) (%)
LL PL PI LS Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 1.4-1.8 SAND 2.5 - - NP - 0 97 3
5 0.4-0.8 SAND 2.3 - - NP - 0 96 4
Where FMC = Field Moisture Content, LL = Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, PI = Plasticity Index, LS = Linear Shrinkage,
NP = Non Plastic
6. Comments
6.1 Site Preparation and Earthworks
It is recommended that the following site preparation and earthworks procedures be carried out where
the proposed development will consist of new fill, slab-on-ground construction and/or pavement
construction. Site preparation measures are detailed below:
• All earthworks should be carried out in accordance with AS 3798 (2007).
• Any deleterious, soft, wet or highly compressible material or topsoil material rich in organics or root
matter should be stripped and removed. No topsoil or organic material was recorded at the bore
locations, but a shallow root zone associated with vegetation may be expected.
• The stripped surface should be rolled with at least six passes of a minimum 12 tonne deadweight
roller (or as large as practicable), with a final test roll pass accompanied by careful visual inspection
to detect the presence of any soft or loose spots. Areas demonstrating excessive movement under
test rolling will be required to be either tyned, dried and recompacted or removed and replaced with
select fill well compacted in layers. Treatment should be to a standard sufficient so that the
subgrade passes test rolling and that compaction can be achieved in the first layer of filling. The
extent of treatment is best assessed at the time of construction, but large areas of excavation
should not proceed without geotechnical advice to assess other options.
• Depressions formed by the removal of vegetation should have all disturbed, weakened soil cleaned
out and then backfilled with select fill well compacted in layers.
• It is recommended that where filling is to be carried out over sloping ground (exceeding 8H:1V in
slope), the slope should be benched to allow for the filling to be 'keyed' into the existing slopes.
These procedures will provide greater stability of the filling and allow for adequate compaction to
be achieved throughout the full depth of the filling. Filled batters should also be overfilled and then
cut back to the required design batter angles in order to maximise compaction of the material in the
batter faces.
• Based on the ground conditions encountered, excavations in the site soils could be undertaken
using conventional small to medium sized earthmoving equipment, such as drotts, backhoes or 5 t
to 15 t (or larger) excavators.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 8
Page 5 of 10
• It is considered that the majority of materials won from excavations on site where free of organic
and deleterious material will generally be suitable for reuse as bulk fill provided the moisture content
of the soils on placement approximates the OMC.
• Imported fill material, if required, should be a good quality select fill material of low plasticity and
well graded with a maximum particle size of 75 mm. The use of clayey imported fill material will
increase the estimated ground surface movements due to moisture variation and the site
classification.
• Approved structural fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 0.2 m ‘loose’ thickness, with each
layer compacted to a minimum density index of 75% or a minimum dry density ratio of 98% relative
to Standard compaction. Unbound pavement gravel should be compacted to a minimum dry density
ratio of 100% relative to Standard compaction.
• Field density testing should be carried out to confirm the standard of compaction has been achieved
and the placement moisture content. The frequency of testing should be in accordance with
AS 3798. Level 1 inspection and testing of fill must be undertaken where the fill is to support
buildings or pavements.
The above procedures will require geotechnical inspection and testing services to be employed during
construction by an experienced and competent geotechnical testing authority. It is recommended that
earthworks inspection and testing services that will be required during earthworks construction be
carried out by DP.
6.2 Batter Slopes
Very loose to loose sands have the potential to ‘collapse’ unexpectedly in a trenching situation. All
excavations will need to be battered for stability and prior to personnel entering the excavation.
Temporary excavations less than 1 m depth may remain vertical for short periods of time, provided
moisture conditions are favourable at the time of construction and provided there are no loads, services,
structures or traffic located within close distance to the crest of the excavation. Formwork may be
required to prevent loose material slumping into open excavations.
Temporary unsurcharged batter slopes should be no steeper than 2.5H:1V. Where groundwater
seepage is encountered, batter slopes will need to be considerably flatter.
The above temporary batter slopes are suggested with respect to slope stability only, and do not allow
for lateral stress relaxation which may result in movement of nearby inground services or shallow
footings. If such services are settlement-sensitive, and are located near the crest of the excavation, then
the excavation may have to be positively supported.
Long term slopes may need to be flattened to 3H:1V or less, in order to allow vehicle access for
maintenance of grass. It is recommended that all batters incorporate crest and toe drainage. The batters
should also be covered with topsoil and vegetation to provide long term erosion protection.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 9
Page 6 of 10
6.3 Site Classification
Site classification of foundation soil reactivity strictly only applies to residential buildings up to two-
storeys and to other buildings of similar size, loading and flexibility as defined in accordance with
AS 2870.
Given the presence of very loose to loose sand with a bearing capacity of less than 100 kPa the site
would be classified as ‘Class P’ (problem site).
The results of the laboratory testing indicate the sand is non-reactive to changes in soil moisture content.
Subsequent surface movement analysis indicates that the characteristic reactive surface movements
(ys) value for the site in its current state is estimated to be less than 20 mm, consistent with a ‘Class A’
conditions. Higher ground surface movements could be experienced where imported clayey material is
used as structural fill.
If ‘abnormal’ soil moisture conditions are experienced at the site, which could result in adverse
foundation performance, more extensive foundation works would be required. ‘Abnormal’ soil moisture
conditions are defined in AS 2870 (Clause 1.3.3) and in summary comprise:
• Unusual moisture caused by drains, channels, ponds, dams or tanks;
• Recent removal of large trees;
• Growth of trees too close to a structure;
• Excessive or irregular watering of gardens adjacent to the structure;
• Lack of maintenance of site drainage;
• Failure to repair plumbing leaks.
It should be noted that no assessment of the effect of soil moisture change by trees has been made in
estimating the above ys values (either with respect to the removal of established trees prior to
development of building pads, or the proximity of established or new trees to proposed buildings).
Reference to the requirements in AS 2870 should be made by the building designer in this regard. It
should be further noted that the presence or removal of trees can result in additional surface movement,
due to tree-induced suction changes and tree-induced centre heave. Such tree-induced movement is
not included in the ys calculations used to classify the site.
6.4 Foundations
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores comprised very loose to loose sand underlain by
medium dense sand at depth (typically within the upper 1 m).
The upper very loose to loose sand is unlikely to be adequate to support high level strip and pad footings
for the proposed development. In addition, loose sand is susceptible to significant settlements.
Densification of the loose sand could allow for high level strip and pad footings to be considered.
Alternatively, a piled foundation will be required to support heavy loads.
High level footings founding in the upper very loose to loose sand would be limited to a maximum
allowable bearing capacity of 50 kPa.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 10
Page 7 of 10
In order to improve the bearing capacity in the upper sand, where high level footings are being
considered, the upper loose sand would need to be densified. The base of all footings should be
individually compacted using a vibrating plate compactor to achieve a minimum density index of 70%. If
the sand is dry, it should be saturated and left for a short period prior to vibration. Should any loose
areas be encountered in the footing excavations the density of these areas would need to be improved.
Close supervision and testing by an experienced geotechnical engineer from DP during compaction is
suggested to ensure adequate uniformity of compaction is achieved. Testing using a dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) is recommended to check compaction using accepted density index correlation
tables.
The densification of the upper sand would allow high level strip and pad footings to be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa.
Experience indicates that properly designed and constructed high level footings sized using the above
allowable bearing pressure are likely to undergo settlements in the order of 1% to 2% of the footing
width.
Where footings are located adjacent to underground services, the footings should extend to below invert
level for a distance of 1 m out from the trench. Beyond 1 m from the trench, the footings should be taken
to below an imaginary line drawn up at 45 degrees from the invert level. These requirements do not
override minimum structural footing base levels.
Alternatively, where development loads exceed the above allowable bearing pressure and estimated
settlements, a suitable deep foundation will be required. Given the presence of upper very loose to
loose sand encountered in the soil profile, selection of pile type and method of construction will need to
be considered. Most pile types could be considered, although bored piles would be prone to collapse in
the sand.
The ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) of piles can be calculated using the unfactored, ultimate shaft
adhesion and end bearing values given in Table 2. The Rd,ug values given will need to be multiplied by
a suitable geotechnical strength reduction factor (Ø g) to obtain the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g)
of piles.
If working stress methods are used in the pile design, the R d,ug values given in Table 2 will need to be
divided by a factor of safety of 2.5 to calculate the maximum single pile working load.
Table 2: Ultimate (Unfactored) Pile Design Parameters
Material Ultimate Unfactored Ultimate Unfactored
Shaft Adhesion* End Bearing*
(kPa) (kPa)
Very loose to loose sand NR NR
Medium dense sand 5 450
Notes: * Geotechnical strength reduction factor or factor of safety needs to be applied to these parameters
NR = Not Recommended
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 11
Page 8 of 10
The upper 1 m should be ignored in pile capacity estimates to allow for load development and
disturbance of soils.
Experience indicates that properly designed and constructed piles sized using the above parameters
appropriately factored are likely to undergo settlements in the order of 1% of the pile diameter.
6.5 Retaining Walls
The design of flexible and rigid retaining walls could be undertaken using a triangular pressure
distribution and the earth pressure parameters given in Table 3. Flexible walls are those which are free
to rotate or tilt (such as cantilevered walls) and should be designed using active (Ka) earth pressure
coefficient. Rigid walls are those which are restrained against rotation or tilt (ie. single anchored/propped
walls) and should be designed using the at-rest earth pressure (Ko).
Passive resistance (Kp) at the toe of the wall should be ignored in the zone where future disturbance
(eg. services trenches) could occur.
Table 3: Earth Pressure Coefficients (non-sloping crest backfill)
Material Unit Friction Active At Rest Passive
Weight Angle Ka Ko Kp
(kN/m3) (degrees)
Very loose to loose sand 17 28 0.35 0.50 NR
Controlled granular fill*, medium
18 33 0.30 0.45 3.3
dense sand
Notes: * Assumes fill material compacted under ‘Level 1’ inspection and testing.
NR = Not Recommended
Allowance should be made for hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the retaining wall. It is
recommended that all retaining walls be drained for full height in order to minimise hydrostatic pressure
build-up behind the wall. Additional guidelines on wall drainage are provided in Appendix G of
AS 4678 (2002).
Also, allowance for surcharge loads and sloping crest should be made as appropriate. The effect of
surcharge should be included by multiplying the vertical pressure developed by the surcharge by the
appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient as given in Table 3.
It is recommended that a factor of safety of 2 be adopted for overturning and sliding stability, and 1.5 for
global stability in the design of all retaining walls.
For limit state design methods, the ultimate parameters provided in Table 3 will need to be factored in
accordance with AS 4678. Guidance on the selection of material strength partial factors is provided in
Section 5.2 of AS 4678 and is dependent upon the nature and state of the insitu soil or fill material.
Preference should be given to adopting thin soil layers and using small hand-controlled compaction
equipment during backfilling against retaining walls. This is in order to limit the stress applied to the walls
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 12
Page 9 of 10
during construction. Should heavy compaction be required, then wall stresses will be well in excess of
Ko and temporary propping should be used.
6.6 Indicative Pavement and Slab-On-Ground
Based on the DCP testing, insitu CBR values for the upper very loose to loose sand (albeit
uncompacted) at the current relative density and moisture conditions is typically less than 3%.
Provided site and subgrade preparation is carried out in accordance with this report and allowing for
minor variations in subgrade type and strength, it is recommended that a design CBR value of 5% or a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 35 kPa/mm be adopted for the upper sands.
Rigid pavements should be designed using a soil modulus of 25 MPa for short term loads and 20 MPa
for long term loads.
For composite subgrades (ie. where imported filling is less than 1m) the Japan Road Association method
of assessing a weighted subgrade strength should be used:
CBRW = (DF x CBRF0.33 + (1-DF) x CBRS0.33)3
where: CBRW = weighted subgrade CBR (%)
DF = depth of filling (m)
CBRF = CBR of filling material (%)
CBRS = CBR of natural subgrade (%)
On-ground building floor slabs (ie. floating slabs) should be detailed so they can accommodate potential
ground movements, including settlements. Differential settlements could be expected to vary across the
site, depending on the floor loads, as well as the thickness and consistency of the near surface soils.
Dowelling of floor slabs will minimise differential movements between adjacent slabs.
7. References
AS 2159. (2009). Piling - Design and Installation. Standards Australia.
AS 2870. (2011). Residential Slabs and Footings. Standards Australia.
AS 3798. (2007). Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments. Standards
Australia.
AS 4678. (2002). Earth-retaining structures. Standards Australia.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx
32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 13
Page 10 of 10 8. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has prepared this report for the proposed Youngcare facility at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. The assessment of atypical safety hazards arising from this advice is restricted to the components set out in this report and based on known project conditions and stated design advice and assumptions. While some recommendations for safe controls may be provided, detailed ‘safety in design’ assessment is outside the current scope of this report and requires additional project data and assessment. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Youngcare Facility 95141.00.R.001.docx 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads January 2021
Page 14
Appendix A About This Report [OCR of page images] Appendix A About This Report
Page 15
Introduction • A localised, perched water table may lead to
These notes have been provided to amplify DP's an erroneous indication of the true water
report in regard to classification methods, field table;
procedures and the comments section. Not all are • Water table levels will vary from time to time
necessarily relevant to all reports. with seasons or recent weather changes.
They may not be the same at the time of
DP's reports are based on information gained from construction as are indicated in the report;
limited subsurface excavations and sampling, and
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will
experience. For this reason, they must be mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to
regarded as interpretive rather than factual be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must
documents, limited to some extent by the scope of first be washed out of the hole if water
information on which they rely. measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by
Copyright installing standpipes which are read at intervals
This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty over several days, or perhaps weeks for low
Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a
for which it was commissioned and in accordance particular stratum, may be advisable in low
with the Conditions of Engagement for the permeability soils or where there may be
commission supplied at the time of proposal. interference from a perched water table.
Unauthorised use of this report in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.
Reports
The report has been prepared by qualified
Borehole and Test Pit Logs personnel, is based on the information obtained
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this from field and laboratory testing, and has been
report are an engineering and/or geological undertaken to current engineering standards of
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and interpretation and analysis. Where the report has
their reliability will depend to some extent on been prepared for a specific design proposal, the
frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or information and interpretation may not be relevant
excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,
sampling or core drilling will provide the most DP will be pleased to review the report and the
reliable assessment, but this is not always sufficiency of the investigation work.
practicable or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
represent only a very small sample of the total interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion
subsurface profile. of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and
recommendations or suggestions for design and
Interpretation of the information and its application construction. However, DP cannot always
to design and construction should therefore take anticipate or assume responsibility for:
into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other The potential for this will depend partly on
than 'straight line' variations between the test borehole or pit spacing and sampling
locations. frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy
by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to
Groundwater
commercial pressures.
Where groundwater levels are measured in
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
boreholes there are several potential problems,
investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
namely:
• In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time the hole is left open;
July 2010
Page 16
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site
during construction appear to vary from those
which were expected from the information
contained in the report, DP requests that it be
immediately notified. Most problems are much
more readily resolved when conditions are
exposed rather than at some later stage, well after
the event.
Information for Contractual Purposes
Where information obtained from this report is
provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including the
written report and discussion, be made available.
In circumstances where the discussion or
comments section is not relevant to the contractual
situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a
specially edited document. DP would be pleased
to assist in this regard and/or to make additional
report copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.
Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical
and environmental aspects of work to which this
report is related. This could range from a site visit
to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on
site.
July 2010
Page 17
Appendix B Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan [OCR of page images] Appendix B Drawing 1 — Test Location Plan
Page 18
Site
Viewlan
d Drive
Location Plan
1
4
N
2
5
3
LEGEND:-
Bore Location and Number
NOTE:-
1. Test locations are approximate only and are
shown with reference to existing site features.
2. Image obtained from Metromap. Date of
imagery 06-08-2020.
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd
TITLE: Test Location Plan PROJECT No: 95141.00
Douglas Partners
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
OFFICE: Sunshine Coast DRAWN BY: JST Proposed Youngcare Facility DRAWING No: 1
SCALE: As shown DATE: December 2020 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads REVISION: 0
Page 19
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
[OCR of page images]
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Page 20
Sampling reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing
Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting or softening of samples by groundwater.
to allow engineering examination (and laboratory
testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Non-core Rotary Drilling
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with
information on colour, type, inclusions and, water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill
depending upon the degree of disturbance, some rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill
information on strength and structure. cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can
be determined from the cuttings, together with
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin- some information from the rate of penetration.
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it Where drilling mud is used this can mask the
to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively cuttings and reliable identification is only possible
undisturbed state. Such samples yield information from separate sampling such as SPTs.
on structure and strength, and are necessary for
laboratory determination of shear strength and
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally Continuous Core Drilling
effective only in cohesive soils. A continuous core sample can be obtained using a
diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm
internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
Test Pits achieved (which is not always possible in weak
Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
an excavator, allowing close examination of the in- very reliable method of investigation.
situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth
of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe
and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential Standard Penetration Tests
disadvantage of this investigation method is the Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a
larger area of disturbance to the site. means of estimating the density or strength of soils
and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in
Large Diameter Augers Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing
Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.
short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in
diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50
rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of
intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is
disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture normal for the tube to be driven in three
content. Identification of soil strata is generally successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value
much more reliable than with continuous spiral is taken as the number of blows for the last 300
flight augers, and is usually supplemented by mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
occasional undisturbed tube samples. rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be
practicable and the test is discontinued.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The test results are reported in the following form.
The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm • In the case where full penetration is obtained
diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are with successive blow counts for each 150 mm
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
testing. This is a relatively economical means of 4,6,7
drilling in clays and sands above the water table. N=13
Samples are returned to the surface, or may be • In the case where the test is discontinued
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but before the full penetration depth, say after 15
they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for
from the sides of the hole. Information from the the next 40 mm as:
drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs 15, 30/40 mm
or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
July 2010
Page 21
The results of the SPT tests can be related
empirically to the engineering properties of the
soils.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /
Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests
Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are
carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground
using a standard weight of hammer falling a
specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil
the number of blows required to penetrate each
successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally
there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be
extended in certain conditions by the use of
extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are
commonly used.
• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer
dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This
test was developed for testing the density of
sands and is mainly used in granular soils and
filling.
• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod
with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven
using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS
1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed
initially for pavement subgrade investigations,
and correlations of the test results with
California Bearing Ratio have been published
by various road authorities.
July 2010
Page 22
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of The proportions of secondary constituents of soils
soils and rocks used in this report are generally are described as follows:
based on Australian Standard AS1726:2017, In fine grained soils (>35% fines)
Geotechnical Site Investigations. In general, the
Term Proportion Example
descriptions include strength or density, colour,
of sand or
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
gravel
And Specify Clay (60%) and
Soil Types
Sand (40%)
Soil types are described according to the
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading Adjective >30% Sandy Clay
of other particles present: With 15 – 30% Clay with sand
Trace 0 - 15% Clay with trace
Type Particle size (mm) sand
Boulder >200
Cobble 63 - 200 In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)
- with clays or silts
Gravel 2.36 - 63
Term Proportion Example
Sand 0.075 - 2.36
of fines
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
And Specify Sand (70%) and
Clay <0.002 Clay (30%)
Adjective >12% Clayey Sand
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
With 5 - 12% Sand with clay
subdivided as follows:
Trace 0 - 5% Sand with trace
Type Particle size (mm) clay
Coarse gravel 19 - 63
In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)
Medium gravel 6.7 - 19 - with coarser fraction
Fine gravel 2.36 – 6.7 Term Proportion Example
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36 of coarser
Medium sand 0.21 - 0.6 fraction
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.21 And Specify Sand (60%) and
Gravel (40%)
Adjective >30% Gravelly Sand
Definitions of grading terms used are: With 15 - 30% Sand with gravel
Well graded - a good representation of all Trace 0 - 15% Sand with trace
particle sizes gravel
Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the specified range The presence of cobbles and boulders shall be
Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular specifically noted by beginning the description with
particle size ‘Mix of Soil and Cobbles/Boulders’ with the word
Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular order indicating the dominant first and the
particle size with the range proportion of cobbles and boulders described
together.
May 2019
Page 23
Cohesive Soils Estuarine soil – deposited in coastal estuaries;
Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the Marine soil – deposited in a marine
basis of undrained shear strength. The strength environment;
may be measured by laboratory testing, or Lacustrine soil – deposited in freshwater
estimated by field tests or engineering lakes;
examination. The strength terms are defined as
follows: Aeolian soil – carried and deposited by wind;
Colluvial soil – soil and rock debris
Undrained transported down slopes by gravity;
Description Abbreviation
shear strength Topsoil – mantle of surface soil, often with
(kPa) high levels of organic material.
Very soft VS <12
Fill – any material which has been moved by
Soft S 12 - 25 man.
Firm F 25 - 50
Stiff St 50 - 100
Very stiff VSt 100 - 200 Moisture Condition – Coarse Grained Soils
Hard H >200 For coarse grained soils the moisture condition
Friable Fr - should be described by appearance and feel using
the following terms:
Dry (D) Non-cohesive and free-running.
Cohesionless Soils Moist (M) Soil feels cool, darkened in
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are colour.
classified on the basis of relative density, generally Soil tends to stick together.
from the results of standard penetration tests Sand forms weak ball but breaks
(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
easily.
penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below: Wet (W) Soil feels cool, darkened in
colour.
Relative Abbreviation Density Index Soil tends to stick together, free
Density (%) water forms when handling.
Very loose VL <15
Loose L 15-35
Medium dense MD 35-65 Moisture Condition – Fine Grained Soils
Dense D 65-85 For fine grained soils the assessment of moisture
content is relative to their plastic limit or liquid limit,
Very dense VD >85 as follows:
‘Moist, dry of plastic limit’ or ‘w <PL’ (i.e. hard
and friable or powdery).
Soil Origin
‘Moist, near plastic limit’ or ‘w ≈ PL (i.e. soil can
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
be moulded at moisture content approximately
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
equal to the plastic limit).
Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
‘Moist, wet of plastic limit’ or ‘w >PL’ (i.e. soils
of the underlying rock;
usually weakened and free water forms on the
Extremely weathered material – formed from hands when handling).
in-situ weathering of geological formations.
‘Wet’ or ‘w ≈LL’ (i.e. near the liquid limit).
Has soil strength but retains the structure or
fabric of the parent rock; ‘Wet’ or ‘w >LL’ (i.e. wet of the liquid limit).
Alluvial soil – deposited by streams and rivers;
May 2019
Page 24
Introduction
These notes summarise abbreviations commonly Orientation
used on borehole logs and test pit reports. The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
Drilling or Excavation Methods h horizontal
C Core drilling v vertical
R Rotary drilling sh sub-horizontal
SFA Spiral flight augers sv sub-vertical
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia Coating or Infilling Term
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia cln clean
co coating
he healed
Water inf infilled
Water seep stn stained
Water level ti tight
vn veneer
Sampling and Testing
Coating Descriptor
A Auger sample
ca calcite
B Bulk sample
cbs carbonaceous
D Disturbed sample
cly clay
E Environmental sample
fe iron oxide
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
mn manganese
W Water sample
slt silty
pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
Shape
S Standard Penetration Test
cu curved
V Shear vane (kPa)
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
Description of Defects in Rock un undulating
The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on Roughness
the logs. po polished
ro rough
Defect Type sl slickensided
B Bedding plane sm smooth
Cs Clay seam vr very rough
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault Other
J Joint fg fragmented
Lam Lamination bnd band
Pt Parting qtz quartz
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
May 2017
Page 25
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock
General Sedimentary Rocks
Asphalt Boulder conglomerate
Road base Conglomerate
Concrete Conglomeratic sandstone
Filling Sandstone
Soils Siltstone
Topsoil Laminite
Peat Mudstone, claystone, shale
Clay Coal
Silty clay Limestone
Sandy clay Metamorphic Rocks
Gravelly clay Slate, phyllite, schist
Shaly clay Gneiss
Silt Quartzite
Clayey silt
Igneous Rocks
Sandy silt Granite
Sand Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Clayey sand Dacite, epidote
Silty sand Tuff, breccia
Gravel Porphyry
Sandy gravel
Cobbles, boulders
Talus
May 2017
Page 26
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Youngcare Facility EASTING: 509335 PROJECT No: 95141.00
LOCATION: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7080555 DATE: 3/12/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-brown, trace of
silt, dry, very loose to loose
0.5
- moist, loose to medium dense
D
- medium dense
0.9
1 1
- light grey
1.4
D
1.8
2 2
3 3.0 3
Bore discontinued at 3.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: ADS CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 27
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 2
PROJECT: Proposed Youngcare Facility EASTING: 509349 PROJECT No: 95141.00
LOCATION: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7080529 DATE: 3/12/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-brown, trace of
silt, dry, very loose to loose
- moist
1 1
- loose to medium dense
- light grey, medium dense
2 2
3 3.0 3
Bore discontinued at 3.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: ADS CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 28
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 3
PROJECT: Proposed Youngcare Facility EASTING: 509349 PROJECT No: 95141.00
LOCATION: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7080511 DATE: 3/12/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-brown, trace of
silt, dry, loose
- moist, medium dense
- light grey
1 1
2 2
3 3.0 3
Bore discontinued at 3.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: ADS CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 29
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 4
PROJECT: Proposed Youngcare Facility EASTING: 509328 PROJECT No: 95141.00
LOCATION: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7080552 DATE: 3/12/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-brown, trace of
silt, dry, loose
- moist, loose to medium dense
- light grey, medium dense
1 1
2 2
3 3.0 3
Bore discontinued at 3.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: ADS CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 30
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 5
PROJECT: Proposed Youngcare Facility EASTING: 509337 PROJECT No: 95141.00
LOCATION: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads NORTHING: 7080522 DATE: 3/12/2020
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-brown, trace of
silt, dry, very loose to loose
- moist, loose 0.4
D
0.8
- light grey
1 1
- medium dense
1.8
2 2
D
2.4
3 3.0 3
Bore discontinued at 3.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: ADS CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 31
Appendix D Results of Laboratory Testing [OCR of page images] Appendix D Results of Laboratory Testing
Page 32
Material Test Report
Report Number: 95141.00-1 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 18/12/2020
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
Ground Floor, 61 Park Road, Milton QLD 4064
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Kris Starker
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Number: 95141.00
Project Name: Proposed Youngcare Facility
Project Location: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Work Request: 11550 Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Number: SS-11550A Assistant Laboratory Manager
Date Sampled: 03/12/2020 NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Dates Tested: 03/12/2020 - 17/12/2020
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: Bore 1, Depth: 1.4 - 1.8 m
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
0.075
0.425
0.6 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
0.3
0.6
(mm)
0.425 mm 99 100
0.3 mm 79 90
0.15 mm 5
80
0.075 mm 3
Percent Passing
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 70
Sample History Oven Dried 60
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Liquid Limit (%) Not Obtainable 50
Plastic Limit (%) Not Obtainable 40
Plasticity Index (%) Non Plastic
30
Moisture Content (AS 1289 2.1.1)
Moisture Content (%) 2.5 20
10
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 95141.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 1 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 33
Material Test Report
Report Number: 95141.00-1 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sunshine Coast Laboratory
Issue Number: 1
1/28 Kessling Avenue Kunda Park QLD 4556
Date Issued: 18/12/2020
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Client: De Luca Corporation Pty Ltd
Fax: (07) 5351 0499
Ground Floor, 61 Park Road, Milton QLD 4064
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Kris Starker
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Number: 95141.00
Project Name: Proposed Youngcare Facility
Project Location: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Work Request: 11550 Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Number: SS-11550B Assistant Laboratory Manager
Date Sampled: 03/12/2020 NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 828
Dates Tested: 03/12/2020 - 17/12/2020
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Sample Location: Bore 5, Depth: 0.4 - 0.8 m
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
0.075
0.425
0.6 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
0.3
0.6
(mm)
0.425 mm 99 100
0.3 mm 82 90
0.15 mm 7
80
0.075 mm 4
Percent Passing
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 70
Sample History Oven Dried 60
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Liquid Limit (%) Not Obtainable 50
Plastic Limit (%) Not Obtainable 40
Plasticity Index (%) Non Plastic
30
Moisture Content (AS 1289 2.1.1)
Moisture Content (%) 2.3 20
10
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 95141.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 2 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.