Council archive · source document
RFI - Revised Geo-Environmental Investigation · MCU25/0020
Very large file (12.7 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
Geo-environmental Investigation
Proposed Residence
11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads
4 June 2025 | Ref. 25040-001-Rev1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of pages 2 to 48 (of 67)
Page 2
Document Review
Doc No. Revision Prepared By Reviewed By Date Issued
001 0 Michael Cocks Ashley Davey 11 March 2025
001 1 Michael Cocks Ashley Davey 4 June 2025
Doc No. Revision Method of Delivery Issued To
001 1 Electronic Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd
([email protected])
Prepared By Reviewed By
Michael Cocks BEng (Civil/Geotechnical) NER RPEQ 27540 Ashley Davey BEng (Geological) RPEQ 8159
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Director/Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 i
Page 3
Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soils (ASS) investigation for a proposed residential development at 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads. The investigation, conducted by Tectonic for Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd, involved drilling boreholes at two locations, in situ soil strength testing, and laboratory testing for ASS. This report outlines the investigation results and provides recommendations on earthworks, footings, retention systems, groundwater management, and the extent and severity of ASS. The proposed development consists of a two-storey house over a two level basement and includes an arc-shaped pool in the north-eastern corner, near the existing canal revetment wall. Excavations for the basement will range from about 7 m deep generally up to 8 m deep for a car lift pit. Shoring is planned around the perimeter of the basement. Subsurface conditions were found to consist of loose to medium dense, silty sand fill, containing gravel and deleterious materials (e.g. cobbles, building debris etc.) to depths of 2.3 m to 3 m below ground level (BGL). Below this, mostly medium dense to very dense sands were present, overlying stiff clays at depth. A firm sandy/silty clay layer was encountered between 4.8 m and 5.5 m BGL in both boreholes, with some loose sands above. Groundwater seepage was encountered at depths of 1.8 m to 2 m BGL, with a standing groundwater level of 1.8 m BGL recorded at the completion of the investigation. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with weather and tidal variations. After excavation to the design basement level, the subgrade is expected to comprise medium dense to dense sand/indurated sand. A geotechnical RPEQ must inspect the foundation subgrade to determine whether any over-excavation is required to form a stable working platform and foundation for the building. An internal dewatering system, such as sand spears or wells, will be required to manage seepage and prevent ‘boiling’ of the subgrade. It should be possible to manage the groundwater extraction system such that the impact on the surrounding, external groundwater table is negligible. The design of basement walls (temporary and permanent) and floor must account for hydrostatic pressures. Settlement analysis has been carried out using Settle 3D and considered a flexible footing system founded on medium dense sand at around 7 m BGL. Our analysis indicates that elastic and consolidation settlements would range up to the order of 30 mm. It is anticipated that a well stiffened raft slab footing system could be designed to support the proposed building provided that the estimated total and differential settlements can be accommodated. Should the anticipated settlements, or other considerations, preclude the use of a high-level raft footing solution, a piled footing system would be required. Laboratory test results indicate that the soils above 4 m BGL have minimal acid generating capacity given that the recorded Acid Neutralising Capacity exceeded the net acidity, presumably due to previous lime treatment. As such, these soils do not require specific ASS management. However, the soils excavated below 4 m BGL, up to 7 m to 8 m BGL, would likely include ASS for which an ASS management plan would be required and is included herein. Groundwater extracted would be expected to require quality adjustment prior to off-site release to stormwater. Effective treatment of groundwater to achieve suitable release criteria requires reasonable spatial and temporal consideration. An experienced dewatering sub-contractor should be consulted to ensure appropriate outcomes can be achieved. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 ii
Page 4
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Proposed Development ....................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Site Description ......................................................................................................................................................3
4. Method of Investigation ......................................................................................................................................6
4.1 Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Environmental Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................... 6
5. Investigation Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Regional Geology ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 7
5.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.4 Aggressivity Laboratory Test Results................................................................................................................. 9
6. Engineering Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 10
6.1 Revetment Wall Global Stability........................................................................................................................ 10
6.2 Earthworks ................................................................................................................................................................. 10
6.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability................................................................................................... 10
6.2.2 Excavations .............................................................................................................................................. 11
6.2.3 Material Re-Use ..................................................................................................................................... 11
6.2.4 Filling ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
6.3 Temporary and Permanent Retention ............................................................................................................ 12
6.3.1 Temporary Batters ................................................................................................................................ 12
6.3.2 Temporary and Permanent Retention Systems ......................................................................... 13
6.4 Building Foundations ............................................................................................................................................ 14
6.4.1 Settlement Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 14
6.4.2 Footing Options..................................................................................................................................... 16
6.4.3 Raft Footing Design ............................................................................................................................. 16
6.4.4 Piled Footing Design............................................................................................................................ 16
6.4.5 General ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
6.4.6 Site Classification .................................................................................................................................. 17
6.4.7 Earthquake Design Considerations ................................................................................................ 18
6.5 Permanent Drainage.............................................................................................................................................. 18
7. Acid Sulfate soil assessment ............................................................................................................................. 19
7.1 Information on Acid Sulfate Soil ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.2 Desktop Study.......................................................................................................................................................... 20
7.2.1 Geology and Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 20
7.3 Regional ASS Mapping ......................................................................................................................................... 20
7.4 ASS Investigation Results..................................................................................................................................... 21
7.5 Risk Characterisation ............................................................................................................................................. 21
8. Acid Sulfate Soil Management......................................................................................................................... 21
8.1 Training and Orientation...................................................................................................................................... 22
8.2 Management of Disturbed Material ................................................................................................................ 22
8.2.1 Verification Testing............................................................................................................................... 22
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 iii
Page 5
8.2.2 Record Keeping ..................................................................................................................................... 23
8.3 Management of Groundwater & In Situ ASS ............................................................................................... 23
8.4 Water Quality Management ............................................................................................................................... 24
9. Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Tables
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Profiles............................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring.................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Summary of Aggressivity Laboratory Results ....................................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Retaining Structure Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 14
Table 5: Estimated Settlements Under Raft Slab ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 6: Water Quality Release Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 24
Text Figures
Text Figure 1: Proposed layout plan (upper) and cross-sectional view (lower) courtesy CCD ........................... 2
Text Figure 2: 2025 aerial image of the site and surrounds (courtesy of Nearmap imagery) ............................. 3
Text Figure 3: Oblique drone image of the site looking west, drilling borehole BH2 ............................................ 4
Text Figure 4: Oblique drone image of the site and surrounds, looking east........................................................... 4
Text Figure 5: Views along the existing revetment wall crest, looking south (LHS) and north (RHS) .............. 5
Text Figure 6: Easterly view of the site, drilling borehole BH1 ........................................................................................ 5
Text Figure 7: Extract from Laguna Bay Surface Geology Map ....................................................................................... 7
Text Figure 8: Settle 3D output of Total Settlement ......................................................................................................... 15
Text Figure 9: Zone of influence diagrams – footings to be founded below these lines.................................... 17
Text Figure 10: Extract from Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3261) ............ 20
Appendices
Appendix A Borehole Logs & Explanatory Notes
Appendix B ASS Summary Table B1 & Environmental Laboratory Test Certificates
Appendix C Limitations
Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 iv
Page 6
1. Introduction This report details the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soils (ASS) investigation undertaken for a proposed residence at 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads. The investigation was performed by Tectonic for Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd, generally in accordance with Proposal P25064-Rev0 dated 7 February 2025. The investigation comprised a site walkover and drilling of boreholes at two locations, in situ soil strength testing and environmental laboratory testing. This report summarises the results of the investigation and provides geotechnical recommendations regarding earthworks, footings, temporary and permanent retention and groundwater management, together with an assessment of the extent and severity of ASS, and an ASS management plan. 2. Proposed Development Architectural drawings supplied to Tectonic (Ref. Chris Clout Design [CCD], Project Name. River Oasis, Sheet Nos. C0.0 to C5.5 [20 sheets], Issue Preliminary Concept, dated 30 May 2025) indicate that the proposed new residence will comprise a two-storey building over a two level basement. Construction will likely comprise rendered masonry, with suspended concrete upper floors and roof. An arc shaped pool will be positioned adjacent to the lower floor level in the north-eastern corner of the site, being setback about 2 m from the existing canal revetment wall. Concrete steps are also proposed off the eastern edge of the house down to the revetment wall. Plans suggest that a pontoon is also proposed as part of the works. The architectural design indicates that excavations for the basement level will generally be about 7 m deep, however will range up to about 8 m deep for a car lift pit. Excavations for the pool are indicated to range up to about 1.5 m deep, with negligible filling proposed across the site. It is understood that engineered shoring is proposed around the full perimeter of the basement. Preliminary information provided by SCG indicates that serviceability loads (contact pressures) beneath the basement floor slab would be in the order of about 55 kPa. Text Figure 1 overleaf provides a layout plan and cross-sectional view of the proposed development. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 1
Page 7
Text Figure 1: Proposed layout plan (upper) and cross-sectional view (lower) courtesy CCD Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 2
Page 8
3. Site Description
The site is formally described as Lot 2 on SP281580, covering an area of about 622 m2, and having
frontage to Ravenwood Drive along the western boundary. An open water canal is present to the rear
(east), which ultimately connects to the Noosa River. Similar residential properties surrounded the site,
most of which had jetties jutting out into the canal. At the time of the investigation the site was vacant
with a coverage of grass.
To the east, a concrete revetment wall about 1 m high fronts the canal. The western and central parts of
the site were relatively level, with a batter dipping easterly down to the revetment wall at about 10°. At
the time of the assessment, an intertidal beach extended in front of the wall, covering most of the
structure. However, the northern edge of the wall remained exposed, and the beach tapered off towards
a stormwater outlet near the site boundary. Locally, a channel approximately 0.5 meters deep was
observed directly beneath the outlet. Further east, the beach sloped downwards into the canal at an
angle of 6° to 10°, beyond which further observations were not possible.
Although the revetment wall was generally covered by the intertidal beach area, visible parts appeared to
be in straight alignment with no obvious signs of distress which would be attributed to global slope
instability.
It is understood that a previous double storey residence over a single level basement was constructed
sometime after 2018, and was demolished in 2024 due to significant structural distress. Conversations
with the client suggest that this was due to inadequate structural design and dewatering of the lower
level, however, no further details were provided.
A recent aerial image of the site and surrounds is shown in Text Figure 2 below.
Subject site
Text Figure 2: 2025 aerial image of the site and surrounds (courtesy of Nearmap imagery)
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 3
Page 9
Architectural drawings and publicly available information indicate that the ground surface across the
proposed building area typically varies between about RL 2 m and RL 2.5 m AHD, then drops down to
about RL 0 m to 1 m AHD adjacent to the canal.
Text Figures 3 to 6 below and overleaf illustrate site conditions at the time of the investigation.
Stormwater outlet
Text Figure 3: Oblique drone image of the site looking west, drilling borehole BH2
Text Figure 4: Oblique drone image of the site and surrounds, looking east
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 4
Page 10
Text Figure 5: Views along the existing revetment wall crest, looking south (LHS) and north (RHS)
Text Figure 6: Easterly view of the site, drilling borehole BH1
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 5
Page 11
4. Method of Investigation 4.1 Fieldwork Two boreholes (designated BH1 and BH2) were drilled across the site using a tracked vehicle mounted rotary drill rig owned and operated by MK Drilling. Boreholes were drilled using a combination of solid flight augering and cased washboring to target depths of 15 m and 16.5 m below ground level (BGL). To enable an assessment of in situ soil strength, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted at regular intervals. SPTs were substituted for undisturbed (U50 tube) samples in firm clays. Shear vane and pocket penetrometer testing were undertaken in undisturbed samples. Soil samples for ASS testing were collected at 0.25 m depth intervals from both boreholes to depths of 4 m BGL. A Class 18 PVC-U standpipe with factory slotted screen for the lower 1.5 m was installed in borehole BH1, to a depth of 4 m BGL, encased in sand to about 1 m BGL, then sealed with bentonite above. Following installation, the standpipe was purged of drilling fluid. At the completion of fieldwork the groundwater level was measured, with samples collected to conduct field and laboratory testing. Results of the groundwater monitoring are discussed in Section 5.3. Borehole BH2 was capped near the surface using an ‘octo-plug’ and backfilled using compact drilling spoil. Excess drilling fluid was spread across nearby site areas. Investigation fieldwork was completed by experienced geotechnical engineers from Tectonic on 18 February 2025. The engineers were responsible for logging subsurface profiles in accordance with AS1726 Geotechnical site investigations, supervising in situ testing, and recovering samples. The positions of the boreholes were recorded using a handheld GPS, with a typical reported accuracy of ±3 m. Reports of the boreholes, along with explanatory notes, are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 Environmental Laboratory Testing A total of 32 soil samples returned from the field investigation were dispatched to Eurofins MGT (Eurofins), a NATA accredited environmental laboratory located in Murrarrie, Brisbane. All samples were screened for ASS potential by measurement of field pH (pHF) and pH after oxidation (pHFOX) using 30 % hydrogen solution. Six samples also underwent quantitative analysis by the Total Actual Acidity (TAA) and Chromium Reducible Sulfur (CRS) suite in accordance with ASS Method 23F (TAA) and 22B (CRS) laboratory procedures. The pH was measured in KCl suspension by the analytical laboratory on samples submitted for testing. ASS laboratory test results are discussed in Section 7. One groundwater sample, recovered from the standpipe in borehole BH1, was tested for a range of parameters relevant to design of the construction dewatering system. Groundwater test results are discussed in Section 5.3. Two soil samples were also tested for aggressivity towards concrete and steel structures. Aggressivity test results are discussed in Section 5.4. Environmental test certificates are attached in Appendix B. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 6
Page 12
5. Investigation Findings
5.1 Regional Geology
The 1:100,000 Series Laguna Bay Surface Geological Map (Sheet 9545, Compiled 11 July 2018) indicates
that the site is immediately underlain by historic reclamation fill, inferred to be associated with the
adjacent canal construction (Ref. extract in Text Figure 7). Natural soils below are indicated to be
Quaternary age, active stream channel and low terrace deposits comprising “sand, gravel, silt and clay”,
which are inferred to be underlain at depth by sedimentary strata (mostly sandstone and siltstone)
associated with the late Triassic to Jurassic age Tiaro Coal Measures.
Approx. Site location
Text Figure 7: Extract from Laguna Bay Surface Geology Map
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes is given below, with more detailed
descriptions provided in the borehole reports in Appendix A.
Relatively consistent subsurface materials were encountered in the boreholes, summarised as follows:
Existing Fill – mostly loose to medium dense, silty sand, with varying gravel, cobble and deleterious
material (e.g. metal, organics, cobbles pipe fragments etc.) content to depths between 2.3 m and 3 m
BGL; then
Alluvial/Estuarine Materials – mostly medium dense to very dense sands, including indurated sand
(‘coffee rock’) to depths between 13.2 m and 13.6 m BGL, then mostly stiff clays to the borehole
termination depths. It is noted that a firm sandy/silty clay layer was intersected in both boreholes
between about 4.8 m and 5.5 m BGL, with some loose natural sands above. A deeper firm clay layer
was also encountered in borehole BH1 between about 13.2 m and 14 m BGL.
A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes is given in Table 1 overleaf.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 7
Page 13
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Profiles
Medium
Stiff
Dense
Location Fill Firm Clays Loose Sands (or Stiffer)
(or Denser)
Clays
Sands
4.8 – 5.5 & 5.5 – 13.2
BH1 (m BGL) 0 – 3.0 3–4 14.0 – 16.5TD
13.2 – 14 (8.3 – 9.0*)
5.2 – 13.8
BH2 (m BGL) 0 – 2.3 4.8 – 5.2 2.3 – 4.8 13.8 – 15.0TD
(7.2 – 10.2*)
Notes: 1. Depths and levels noted at time of investigation (18 February 2025)
2. (*) denotes very dense indurated sand
3. TD denotes borehole terminated at target depth
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage and inflow was encountered during solid flight augering at depths between
1.8 m and 2 m BGL. A standing groundwater level of 1.8 m BGL was measured in the standpipe installed
in borehole BH1 at the completion of fieldwork. Groundwater levels are anticipated to fluctuate with
prevailing weather conditions and are likely to be strongly influenced by the tidal surface water level in
the adjacent Noosa River/Weyba Creek, possibly rising closer to the ground surface. The groundwater
level and results from testing of a sample recovered from the standpipe in borehole BH1 are summarised
in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring
Parameter Units BH1
Depth m BGL 1.8
pH (at 25°) pH unit 10
Electrical Conductivity (at 25°) mS/cm 1.4
Redox mV 180
Acidity as CaCO3 mg/L <10
Sulfate (as S04) mg/L 120
Chloride mg/L 470
Aluminium mg/L 36
Aluminium (filtered) mg/L 7.5
Iron mg/L 24
Iron (filtered) mg/L 1.1
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 8
Page 14
Testing indicates that the groundwater is alkaline and brackish. The unusually alkaline result for the
groundwater may be due to previous lime treatment of the fill materials (Ref. Section 7.4).
Chloride and sulfate levels are consistent with an estuarine groundwater system, however, the titratable
acidity levels were lower than expected which may be due to previous lime treatment as outlined above.
The filtered (dissolved) alluvium and iron concentrations of 7.5 mg/L and 1.1 mg/L, respectively, are well
above the acceptance criteria for release of water into the environment (Ref. Section 7.6). During
dewatering for the basement excavation, appropriate water quality treatment will be required to bring
iron and aluminium levels down to acceptable limits prior to discharge, and also manage pH and
turbidity. The advice of an experienced dewatering (and water quality treatment) sub-contractor should
be sought.
5.4 Aggressivity Laboratory Test Results
Table 3 below summarises the results of aggressivity laboratory testing conducted on two selected soil
samples recovered from the boreholes. The aggressivity laboratory certificates are presented in
Appendix B, with the ASS certificates.
Table 3: Summary of Aggressivity Laboratory Results
Location & Aggressive Soil Suite
Depth Material Chloride Sulphate Resistivity
EC (µS/cm) pH
(m BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (ohm.cm)
BH1
Silty SAND 1100 6.3 1400 220 900
7 – 7.45
BH2
Silty SAND 94 6.8 6.8 31 11,000
3.25 – 3.5
Soil aggressiveness test results have been assessed against Table 6.4.2(C) and Table 6.5.2(C) of AS 2159
2009 Piling Design and Installation. The results generally indicate ‘mild’ classifications for concrete
structures based on the samples tested for soils conditions ‘A’, with a ‘non-aggressive’ classification for
steel structures based on the sample tested from borehole BH2. Due to the low resistivity value, the
sample tested from borehole BH1 indicated a ‘severe’ exposure classification for steel structures.
Due to the proximity to the tidal Noosa River, ‘severe’ and ‘very severe’ classifications would be expected
for concrete and steel elements subjected to the ‘splash zone’ (e.g. revetment structures), respectively.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 9
Page 15
6. Engineering Assessment
6.1 Revetment Wall Global Stability
Design drawings indicate that the proposed residence and pool will be setback at least 2 m horizontally
from the existing revetment wall fronting the canal. The proposed development is expected to have a
‘non-worsening’ impact on the global stability of the existing revetment wall based on the following:
No surcharge loads (including filling, etc.) are to be exerted on the existing revetment wall unless
assessed and approved by a geotechnical RPEQ, who must also assess global stability of the wall.
Where structures and/or filling are within the zone of influence of the revetment wall (Ref. Section
6.4.5), load transfer below the zone by shallow piles or the like would be necessary.
Excavations for the basement level are expected to range between about 7 m and 8 m deep.
Therefore, all footings and associated building loads will be founded well below the zone of
influence of the revetment wall.
6.2 Earthworks
Architectural drawings indicate that excavations for the basement level will generally range between
about 7 m and 8 m deep. It is understood that engineered shoring is proposed around the fill perimeter
of the basement. Filling must not be undertaken unless assessed and approved by a geotechnical RPEQ,
in order to check any impacts from such on settlement and global stability.
6.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability
After excavation to the design basement level, the subgrade is expected to comprise medium dense to
very dense sand/indurated sand. Following bulk excavation, the exposed subgrade must be assessed by
a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical RPEQ to determine the depth of any over-excavation
required to achieve a stable working platform and foundation for the building. This may be based upon
visual appraisal via a static proof roll, say using a minimum 4 tonne roller, and/or testing such as by the
dynamic cone penetration method.
Select removal of unsuitable materials and replacement with rock fill (R&R) may be required to achieve a
stable building foundation subgrade, and a working platform for general construction works. This would
be particularly important if a raft footing system is adopted (Ref. Section 6.4). The temporary retention
system should be designed to tolerate deeper excavations to account for possible R&R.
Replacement materials must comprise good quality granular fill (e.g. ‘150 minus’ rock fill) compacted as
outlined in Section 6.2.4.
Depending on prevailing weather and tidal conditions at the time of construction, groundwater may be
present at shallow depth and could lead to subgrade heaving and strength loss under trafficking by
construction equipment. Lighter, tracked plant should therefore be used for earthworks where possible,
and heavy vehicles (particularly wheeled plant) should avoid trafficking directly on the subgrade.
Care must be taken with the use of vibratory equipment to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on
surrounding structures, and that vibration does not cause groundwater to ‘pump’ into and weaken the
subgrade. The impacts from ground vibration must be closely monitored and managed during
construction. It would be prudent to conduct a dilapidation survey of nearby structures before
commencement of construction.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 10
Page 16
Although relatively good trafficability should be encountered during ‘dry’ weather conditions and with
effective groundwater dewatering on the expected natural sand subgrades, the soils could be subject to
strength loss from repetitive vehicle loading (particularly from rubber tyred plant), mainly if they are
saturated. Thus, the measures outlined below may be required:
Grade the base of the excavation (minimum 1V:100H) to achieve positive drainage to a dewatering
point(s) (e.g. sump-pump), with collected waters then pumped to a suitable discharge outlet (after
treatment to a suitable quality).
Place non-woven geosynthetic filter fabric (e.g. Bidim A34 or equivalent) across the subgrade to
prevent ‘pumping’ of ‘fines’ (silt materials) into the rock fill working platform. The grade of
geosynthetic to be used will be dependent upon the particle size of the selected granular material
used (see below).
Construct a minimum 150 mm thick granular working platform to the design subgrade level. We
suggest the use of ‘150 minus’ rock fill with a thin capping layer of CBR 15% material to provide a
smooth working surface.
Specific design will need to be carried out to determine working platform requirements for any heavy
plant (e.g. mobile cranes or piling rigs).
Construction areas external to the basement should be graded to enable flow of stormwater to a control
point(s) for pumping out and/or treatment, if necessary, prior to off-site release.
6.2.2 Excavations
Excavations for the basement to depths in the order of about 7 m to 8 m BGL are expected to encounter
mostly loose to medium dense sands, with some firm clays. Excavations to the design level should be
achievable using conventional earthmoving plant (e.g. excavators with toothed buckets).
Groundwater seepage and inflow was encountered during the investigation at depths between 1.8 m and
2 m BGL, with the standing groundwater table recorded in the standpipe installed in borehole BH1 at a
depth of 1.8 m BGL. Based on the close proximity of the site to the Noosa River, groundwater levels will
likely fluctuate with tidal levels on a damped cycle and may rise closer to the surface following periods of
prolonged or heavy rainfall. Due to the presence of groundwater at shallow depth in natural sands and
considering that the basement excavations will extend up to most site boundaries, battering is generally
not expected to be possible. Temporary shoring of the excavation will be required and is discussed in
Section 6.3.2.
6.2.3 Material Re-Use
Soils excavated for the basement where free of any deleterious materials (e.g. organics, building debris
etc.) are expected to comprise mostly silty sands. The sandy soils should generally be suitable for re-use
on or off site as structural fill if spread out in thin layers and allowed to dry out to optimum moisture
content for compaction (noting the limits on filling described above). Internal dewatering prior to bulk
excavation would be prudent to enable easier handling of excavated materials for off-site transport and
re-use, particularly if groundwater is shallow at the time of construction.
It should be noted that compaction of such relatively poorly graded natural sands as structural fill
generally requires the use of vibratory compaction equipment (typically a smooth drum roller).
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 11
Page 17
6.2.4 Filling Based on the supplied architectural drawings, and the proposed construction methodologies, no filling works are anticipated as part of the development, although controlled filling may be required for over- excavation of unsuitable materials exposed in the foundation subgrade if a raft footing system is adopted. It is recommended that any imported fill for the project comprise good quality, low reactivity materials (e.g. non-descript crushed rock, ‘clean’ sands, or similar), that comply with the following: Minimum CBR of 10 % Maximum plasticity index of 15 % Shrink-swell index ≤ 1 % Maximum particle size of 100 mm Fill material should be placed in 200 mm thick (loose thickness) layers and be compacted by repeated rolling using a minimum 4 tonne roller (vibration on if safe to do so) to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 98 % of the maximum Dry Density Ratio (DDR), based upon the Standard Compaction method, or a Dry Density Index of at least 75 %. Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum of two tests per vertical lift is recommended where structural fill heights are to exceed 300 mm. Further details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments. Level 1 geotechnical inspection and testing of all structural fill is recommended, with density testing at a Type 3 frequency. Due to the close proximity of structures on surrounding blocks and underground services, care will need to be taken with any activities which may cause excessive ground vibrations (e.g. fill compaction and excavations). It would be prudent to conduct a dilapidation survey of nearby structures before commencement of construction, and to monitor ground vibrations during construction works. When in proximity to settlement sensitive structures or services, only static compaction rolling should be conducted, particularly if excessive ground vibrations are encountered, and/or to prevent pumping of pore water leading to subgrade heaving/strength loss over the subgrade generally. 6.3 Temporary and Permanent Retention Excavations for the basement and floor slab are expected to range between about 7 m and 8 m BGL. Given that the planned basement footprint extends close to site boundaries, excavations will cover most of the site. Some form of temporary shoring will be required to support the excavation. 6.3.1 Temporary Batters Temporary batters in loose to medium dense sands above the groundwater table may be formed at 1V:1.5H provided that they are not subjected to surcharge loads (e.g. from surrounding buildings) and are protected from saturation by rainfall. Flatter temporary batters would be required where affected by groundwater seepage or rainfall. Excavations below the groundwater table will require temporary shoring and dewatering to actively lower groundwater below the base of the excavation, and to control groundwater inflow. Where the above temporary batters cannot be achieved (e.g. due to spatial restraints etc.), retention will be required (refer to Section 6.3.2). Any excavations required adjacent to existing structures or infrastructure will need to be specifically designed to ensure that the structures are not undermined. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 12
Page 18
6.3.2 Temporary and Permanent Retention Systems
Given that the planned basement footprint extends close to the site boundaries, excavations will cover
most of the site. Allowing for the footprint extents some form of temporary shoring will be required to
support the excavations. Suitable shoring methods for the ground conditions encountered could include
secant (over-lapping) piles and mud diaphragm walls.
Temporary shoring should penetrate into the underlying dense (or denser) indurated sands/coffee rock,
to minimise flows up through the base of the excavation. Deeper ‘key in depths’ may be required,
depending on detailed design of the temporary shoring system. Care would need to be taken with
shoring to manage potential vibration impacts on nearby structures. It would be prudent to conduct a
dilapidation survey of such adjacent structures prior to commencement of the site works.
Considering the potential for adverse impacts on nearby structures due to settlement, and potential
environmental impacts due to significant dewatering of the groundwater table; the proposed temporary
retention system should be designed to support at least partial hydrostatic pressure. Given our
observations of groundwater levels and ASS conditions, we recommend that the external groundwater
level should not be dewatered deeper than 1.5 m BGL.
An internal dewatering system (e.g. a series of sand spears or wells connected to an extraction pump) will
likely be required to pick up any seepage that migrates through the shoring system, and up through the
sands across the basement excavation floor. This would be to prevent ‘boiling’ of the basement
subgrade. It should be possible to manage the groundwater extraction system such that the impact on
the surrounding, external groundwater table is negligible. To minimise the volumes of extracted
groundwater and the associated treatment requirements, it would be prudent to adjust the depths of
wells/spears and pumping rates such that the stabilised groundwater level below the excavation floor is
optimised (i.e. dewatering is not carried out to an excessive depth).
To minimise inflow rates and reduce the risk of external dewatering care must be taken to ensure the
temporary shoring wall is ‘water-tight’. Special attention would need given to the detailing such as
ensuring that the shoring elements overlap.
Subject to the recommendations outlined above, and the advice of a suitably experienced
shoring/dewatering contractor (including hydrogeological assessment of the proposed dewatering),
negligible impacts are anticipated on surrounding buildings and infrastructure due to the following:
Temporary retention will be utilised around the entire excavation perimeter.
External dewatering will not be undertaken below 1.5 m BGL, with the internal dewatering system
optimised such that dewatering is not undertaken to an excessive depth.
The upper soil layers primarily consist of sands, and groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate in
response to weather conditions and tidal cycles. As such, the internal dewatering system is not
anticipated to cause significant changes in the surrounding groundwater levels or induce soil
shrinkage or swelling.
Due to the relatively shallow depth that groundwater was encountered during the investigation, the
proposed basement will need to be designed as a ‘tanked’ structure. The design of the proposed
basement walls and floor will therefore need to include allowance for hydrostatic pressures. This would
need to include allowance for the highest astronomical tide and potential flood/storm surge levels,
together with predicted rises due to climate change. It may be possible to incorporate a permanent
pressure relief system for the basement; however, due to ongoing requirements for treatment of
extracted groundwater, such a system is not likely to be feasible.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 13
Page 19
Design for temporary and permanent retaining structures could be carried out using the pressure
distribution applicable to the wall type and based on the parameters listed in Table 4. These values do
not include allowance for hydrostatic pressures nor transient (e.g. construction) or adjacent footing
loadings.
Table 4: Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Lateral earth pressure coefficients
Unit Friction
Retained material weight angle Ka Ko
(kN/m3) (Degrees) (Cantilever (Non-yielding Kp
wall) wall)
Firm Clay 17 23 0.44 0.61 2.28
Loose Sand 17 30 0.33 0.5 3.0
Medium Dense Sands 18 34 0.28 0.44 3.54
Dense to Very Dense
19 38 0.24 0.38 4.20
Sands
The advice of a suitably experienced, specialist contractor must be sought regarding feasibility, design
and installation of the preferred retention and dewatering system for this site. It will be necessary to
conduct numerical analysis to optimise the retention system. Temporary and permanent retention
design must be designed and certified by a suitably qualified and experienced RPEQ engineer.
6.4 Building Foundations
6.4.1 Settlement Analysis
For the proposed two storey building with double level basement, SCG has indicated that contact
pressures beneath a possible raft slab would be in the order of about 55 kPa. To assess the geotechnical
feasibility of supporting the building on a stiffened raft footing system at basement floor level,
settlement analysis has been carried out using Settle 3D. The analysis considered a flexible footing
founded on medium dense sand at about 7 m BGL and assumed that, if required, over-excavation and
replacement of any loose/firm materials would be undertaken near the basement level, as outlined in
Section 6.2.1. Our analysis indicates that elastic and consolidation settlements would be in the order of
the values provided in Table 5 overleaf.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 14
Page 20
Table 5: Estimated Settlements Under Raft Slab
Description 2 Storey Building + Double Basement
Approximate Elastic Settlement < 10 mm
Approximate Consolidation Settlement Up to 15 mm
(in addition to above)
Approximate Secondary Settlement Up to 15 mm
Approximate Total Settlement Up to 30 mm
The elastic (immediate) settlements should mostly occur during the construction and initial loading
phase; however, ongoing consolidation and secondary settlement will occur over the design life of the
building, which should be considered in the design. Further analysis should be carried out once
structural design details and building loads are finalised to confirm the above estimates remain valid.
Settlement parameters were based on published and empirical correlations with in-situ test results from
the boreholes. An output from the Settle 3D modelling is presented in Text Figure 8.
It should be noted that concentrated wall/column loads or peak perimeter pressures exceeding 55 kPa
(soil contact pressure) could substantially increase settlement and thus, piled footings may be required in
these areas.
Text Figure 8: Settle 3D output of Total Settlement
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 15
Page 21
6.4.2 Footing Options For the anticipated approximate gross distributed building foundation pressure of up to 55 kPa under the building, the adoption of strip and pad footings is not recommended as the settlement of foundation soils would be excessive. Therefore, footing options that may be considered for the proposed building include a well stiffened raft slab or piles. Discussion on raft slab and piled footing systems is given in Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 respectively. 6.4.3 Raft Footing Design It is anticipated that a well stiffened raft slab footing system could be adopted to support the proposed building provided that total and differential settlements, as estimated and given in Table 5, can be accommodated. The raft would need to be designed to evenly distribute building loads throughout the slab, including concentrated column loads. SCG has indicated that gross pressures beneath the basement floor slab would be in the order of about 55 kPa. Analysis indicates that settlements should generally within the feasible limits for a well stiffened raft slab footing system. Further analysis should be carried out once structural design details are finalised to confirm the above estimates remain valid. This should also include finite element analysis to resolve soil/structure interaction with input from the structural designer to accurately calculate stresses/displacements and subgrade/slab reactions. Resistance to uplift from hydrostatic pressures should also be considered by the design RPEQ. Piles or tie down anchors to resist uplift may be required. Should the anticipated settlements preclude the use of a well stiffened raft slab, piled footings would be required (Ref. Section 6.4.4). As outlined above, concentrated wall/column loads or peak perimeter pressures exceeding 55 kPa would also need to be transferred using piled footings. Excavations for the basement are expected to expose mostly medium dense to very dense sands/indurated sands. The raft subgrade must be inspected by a geotechnical RPEQ to confirm the foundation materials and allowable bearing pressure, and to advise on treatment of any unsuitable zones (if encountered). 6.4.4 Piled Footing Design Where anticipated settlement cannot be tolerated in a stiffened raft solution or in areas with concentrated/elevated peak pressures, a piled footing system would be required. Considering the likely order of column loads to be supported, piles would could be socketed into the dense to very dense sands at about 7 m BGL. Piles may be designed using an allowable end bearing pressure of 1 MPa in dense or very dense sands. It is envisaged that steel screw piles could be adopted for the development. The use of bored piles, without the use of steel liners and dewatering equipment, would be precluded by the presence of shallow groundwater and loose sands near surface. Driven piles would likely not be suitable given the suburban environment (e.g. noise disturbance) and potential vibratory effects on adjacent structures (residences and underground services). Grout injected CFA piles could also be considered. If steel screw piles are adopted, it will be important to ensure close supervision of installation, as piling may not encounter sufficient drilling resistance (from torque measurement) in dense sands at the suggested founding depth, and piles could extend to much greater depth than necessary. It is therefore recommended that site specific dynamic load pile testing should be conducted. Where tension or compression capacity developed in the footings is critical for the future structure (e.g. resistance to uplift forces etc.), then cyclic load tests (including measurement of deflections under Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 16
Page 22
tension and compression cycles) should also be undertaken prior to construction. Kentledge for static
testing, or simulated cyclic loads, should prove the piles to a minimum of two times the expected
working load within tolerable deflections.
The advice of a specialist piling contractor must be sought regarding an assessment of suitable pile
types, pile design, and associated constructability considerations. The most cost-effective piling solution
depends on a combination of pile type, diameter and length. Piling companies are best equipped to
make this assessment based on the costs of the various options. Piling companies should make their
own assessment of anticipated founding levels and required pile lengths. Footings for proposed
jetties/pontoons must be assessed by a specialist piling contractor. It is envisaged that a barge mounted
piling rig would be required for working within the canal beyond the revetment wall.
Settlements of piles founded as above under working or serviceability loadings would not be expected to
exceed 1% of pile diameter (e.g. less than 10 mm for pile diameters less than 1 m) provided any
CFA/bored pile bases and sockets are cleaned of disturbed material and cuttings.
6.4.5 General
All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by (or affect) any adjacent
excavations, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building loads. Footings should
found at least below a plane extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/excavations/retaining
walls, then rising up at 1V:1H, as illustrated in Text Figure 9.
Where footings are located within a horizontal distance of 1.5H (H being the batter height) of any cut or
fill batter crest, these footings must be founded at a depth level with the toe of the batter.
Text Figure 9: Zone of influence diagrams – footings to be founded below these lines
If any soil conditions encountered during construction are found to differ from those noted in the
geotechnical investigation, Tectonic should be notified immediately and an inspection carried out to
determine if changes to footing design are required.
Please note that steel/concrete structures would need to be designed for durability as outlined in
Australian Standard AS2159-2009 Piling – Design and Installation. Refer to the discussion on soil
aggressivity given in Section 5.4.
6.4.6 Site Classification
Site classification for footing design is determined in accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and
Footings and depends on the depth of cut / fill undertaken at a site, variations in the natural soil depths,
and the reactivity of the in situ materials and any imported fill materials.
Although the site classification would be strictly Class P as per AS2870 due to the presence of existing fill
and loose sands, the potential relative movements between the building and surrounding ground (i.e. at
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 17
Page 23
plumbing connection points) would not be expected to exceed 40 mm if the building is supported on a raft. Thus, an equivalent Class M is recommended for plumbing design purposes in this case. 6.4.7 Earthquake Design Considerations In accordance with Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007 Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia, Section 4.2, this site would be classified as “Class Ce” (shallow soil site). 6.5 Permanent Drainage Design of the proposed basement walls and floor would need to include allowance for hydrostatic pressures. The standing groundwater level was recorded at 1.8 m BGL in the standpipe installed in borehole BH1 at the completion of fieldwork, however, groundwater could rise closer to the ground surface following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall, high tides and flooding. Depending on matters such as the extent of drainage installed and hydrological analysis, the designer must make an assessment of hydrostatic pressure to be accounted for in the design of the basement. The use of a passive pressure relief system could be considered to enable a reduction in the allowance for hydrostatic uplift in basement construction. This could comprise a drainage network connected to a series of standpipes or one-way valves that allow groundwater seepage to flow into a sump-pump collection system, once groundwater rises above a predetermined level (and for which the basement has been designed to resist the relevant hydrostatic forces). A drawback of such a system would be the need for water quality treatment prior to off-site discharge, and the on-going maintenance required and may not be accepted by Council. As such a fully tanked basement structure will likely be required. Design of basement tanking, and any pressure relief system, must be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced structural RPEQ. Permanent site drainage should be installed to ensure that stormwater runoff is directed away from building walls and footings (e.g. perimeter paths/drains and swales where space allows), discharging into the existing stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding streets or canal to the east. A surface dissipation device such as rock weir must be installed at the stormwater outlet(s), where not discharging into a constructed pit. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 18
Page 24
7. Acid Sulfate soil assessment
7.1 Information on Acid Sulfate Soil
ASS is common in low-lying coastal areas of Queensland, typically in Holocene to Pleistocene age alluvial
and estuarine sediments located below RL 5 m AHD. Such areas are often characterised by the presence
of estuaries, swamps, floodplains, salt marshes and mangroves. The affected soils contain iron sulfides,
most frequently pyrite, which when exposed to air, oxidises to form sulfuric acid.
There are two basic types of ASS. These are actual acid sulfate soil (AASS), which is soil in which pyrite
has already oxidised and sulfuric acid is present in the soil, and potential acid sulfate soil (PASS), where
pyrite is present but has not been oxidised.
When these soils are maintained in their natural setting (generally anaerobic conditions below the
groundwater table or sea level), the iron sulfides (PASS) are unable to oxidise, therefore the ASS remains
in a stable state. However, where disturbances such as civil construction or development expose ASS to
aerobic conditions, the iron sulfides are able to oxidise and form sulfuric acid, resulting in the soil
becoming acidic. Existing acidity attributed to the oxidation of ASS (AASS) may also be present because
of previous exposure of ASS material either by human interference or by natural processes. This acidity
has the potential to mobilise metals which are naturally present in the soil, thereby producing a leachate
contaminated by both high levels of acidity and metals. The chemical reactions can also strip the
leachate of dissolved oxygen. Such leachate, if released into the environment, can have significant
adverse effects including degradation of the water quality in receiving areas, fish disease/kills, reduced
crop productivity, corrosion of built structures and health related issues.
In view of these potential effects, it is critical that any development that occurs within an area likely to
contain ASS is planned, managed and monitored appropriately so as to minimise or remove the risk of
adverse environmental outcomes. Development involving ASS must comply with the requirements of
state and local regulations pertaining to ASS, this includes Noosa Council’s Planning Policy and its
attendant guidelines.
This shall be achieved through the following overall development outcomes:
Development ensures that the release of acid and associated metal contaminants into the
environment is avoided by either:
Not disturbing ASS when excavating or otherwise removing soil or sediment, extracting groundwater
or filling land; or
Treating and, if required, undertaking ongoing management of any disturbed ASS and associated
drainage waters.
Other forms of acidity may be present in soil that is not sulfuric in nature, thus not produced or
associated with the occurrence of ASS. These can be commonly termed ‘acidic non-ASS.’ While these
soils are not regulated to the same extent as ASS, it is prudent to operate within the requirements of
Queensland environmental law and manage the acidity in line with best practice management criteria, as
set out within the Queensland ASS Technical Manual if these types of soil are going to be disturbed.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 19
Page 25
7.2 Desktop Study
7.2.1 Geology and Groundwater
The mapped regional geological setting is detailed in Section 5.1 of this report and comprises recent
reclamation fill, and Quaternary age interlayered alluvial/estuarine deposits. The site-specific geology is
detailed in Section 5.2 where it can be seen that mostly silty sands (natural and fill), with minor sandy
clays, are expected to the proposed excavation depths.
Groundwater encountered during the investigation was at about 1.8 m BGL (with the potential to
become shallower following rainfall and high tide events). External dewatering will not be carried out
below 1.5 m BGL. An internal dewatering system (e.g. a series of sand spears or wells connected to an
extraction pump) will likely be required to pick up any seepage that migrates up through the sands
across the basement excavation floor. It should be possible to manage the groundwater extraction
system such that the impact on the surrounding, external groundwater table is negligible.
7.3 Regional ASS Mapping
An extract from the Queensland Government’s Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-
SEA-I-A0 3261) covering the region is shown in Text Figure 10. The mapping classifies the site as ‘SDL’
(purple shading), which is described as “disturbed land…likely to contain ASS”, and that only a “limited
field investigation” has been undertaken as part of the mapping program.
It should be noted that ASS risk mapping does not definitively indicate the presence nor absence of ASS
at a particular site, but rather provides an indication of terrain where ASS is likely to occur. The presence
or absence of ASS at a site may only be confirmed by completion of a site investigation, involving an
appropriate degree of site assessment and quantitative analysis.
Approx. Site location
Text Figure 10: Extract from Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3261)
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 20
Page 26
7.4 ASS Investigation Results
A total of 32 samples were recovered and assessed by pH field screen analyses. Existing soil pH (pHF)
ranged from 6.5 to 11, indicating mostly alkaline to slightly acidic conditions are present at the site. It is
noted that the alkaline conditions may be a result of previous ASS treatment of the fill materials
(i.e. addition of lime during the canal construction works), which was also evidenced by Acid Neutralising
Capacity (ANC) being present in all of the quantitative laboratory test results.
Quantitative laboratory analyses were completed on six samples using the Chromium Reducible Sulfur
(CRS) suite of testing to quantify the severity and nature of any acidity or potential acidity present in the
soil profile. Actual acidity was assessed using Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA), and potassium-chloride
extractable sulfur (SKCl) was used to assess the nature of the measured actual acidity. Potential acidity
was measured by the CRS method which specifically measures inorganic oxidisable sulfur. These
methods are set out in the QASSIT guidelines and associated ASS management documents. Based on
the nature of the proposed disturbance, an action criterion of 0.03%S (18 mol H+ per tonne) was
adopted for comparison with the combined actual and potential acidity results.
It is noted that the potential acidity exceeded the action criteria in two of the six samples tested, both of
which were in existing fill materials recovered from borehole BH1. However, all of the samples tested
returned ANC values exceeding the combined net acidity, which is inferred to be due to previous ASS
treatment.
The combined actual and potential acidity therefore did not exceed the action criteria in any samples.
ASS laboratory test results are summarised in Table B1 in Appendix B along with laboratory certificates.
7.5 Risk Characterisation
Laboratory test results indicate that the site soils above 4 m BGL have minimal acid generating capacity
given that the existing ANC levels exceeded the net acidity levels. As such, these soils do not require
specific management strategies under Queensland’s ASS legislation and guidelines. However, the soils
excavated below 4 m BGL, up to 7 m to 8 m BGL, would likely include ASS for which an ASS management
plan would be required and is included herein.
8. Acid Sulfate Soil Management
The primary objective of this management plan is to provide a framework to allow the proposed works
to proceed without adverse environmental impacts related to the disturbance of ASS. To successfully
achieve this objective, the following issues shall be addressed:
Confirmation of lime treatment rates for soils excavated from 4 m up to 8 m BGL by laboratory
characterisation testing.
Mitigation of risk associated with ASS present in disturbed soil (via neutralisation of disturbed soil
and successful verification testing);
Containment, testing and treatment (where necessary) of any water collected during the excavation
and/or during the treatment processes; and
Limitation of any alteration to the existing groundwater conditions and appropriate treatment of any
collected groundwater before re-use, offsite discharge or disposal.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 21
Page 27
8.1 Training and Orientation Appropriate training should be provided to all Contractor staff involved in earthworks on the site, to be delivered as part of site induction. Sessions should be conducted prior to the commencement of earthworks and at other such regular intervals as required to ensure staff are fully aware of the requirement for field management of ASS and associated waters, the management strategies to be implemented, and their roles and responsibilities in achieving the desired management outcomes. 8.2 Management of Disturbed Material The soils where excavated or otherwise disturbed as part of development works must be treated to neutralise the net acidity present. Excavated soil shall be mixed with a neutralising agent (fine agricultural lime) as follows: Fill and natural sand encountered to 4 m BGL – no treatment required. Materials excavated 4 m BGL and 8 m BGL – rate to be determined by characterisation testing. Due to the spatial limitations, excavated soil from 4 m to 8 m BGL would need to be transferred to a designated storage stockpile offsite while laboratory characterisation testing is completed. Characterisation testing shall be undertaken at a rate of 1 test per 200 m3 of soil excavated from 4 m to 8 m BGL. Each characterisation sample will be taken by compositing excavated material from no less than six subsample locations (including at depth) from the stockpile. The laboratory test regime for characterisation testing will involve the CRS suite. All materials (including volumes of soil and storage locations) must be recorded and tracked by the Contractor. Material must be stored in a fashion that will allow treatment, if necessary, together with suitable drainage management at the storage site to ensure that any surface water runoff and leachate is able to be captured and effectively treated to ensure that no waters are released without meeting the required site release criteria described in Table 7. Following excavation of the basement, a lime guard layer will be applied to the subgrade soil at rate of 5 kg lime per m2, prior to construction of the blinding slab, or basement floor. A guard layer must also be applied at a rate of 5 kg lime per m2 across the offsite stockpile subgrade. Recommended liming rates assume the use of fine-grained agricultural lime with a purity of not less than 90%, a soil bulk density of 1.7 tonnes per cubic metre, and a factor of safety of 1.5 to allow for incomplete mixing and the reactivity of the lime. 8.2.1 Verification Testing To verify treatment of excavated ASS material from 4 m to 8 m BGL, verification testing will be carried out at a rate of 1 test per 500 m3 of treated soil. Each verification sample will be taken by compositing treated material from no less than six subsample locations (including at depth) from treated soil within the treatment area. The laboratory test regime for validation testing will involve the measurement of pH, net acidity (the sum of actual, potential and residual acidity) and acid neutralising capacity (ANC). Where the pH post treatment is greater than 6.5 and the ANC is not less than 1.5 times the net acidity, then the validation shall be deemed successful. If analysis of any verification sample/s indicates unsuccessful treatment, re-treatment of the represented soil will be required prior to completion of another series of verification testing. This procedure should be repeated until successful treatment has been verified. Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence 4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 22
Page 28
8.2.2 Record Keeping
To help demonstrate that appropriate quantities of lime have been used as specified to neutralise the
ASS, quantities of lime delivered to the site, verified by delivery dockets, will be maintained by the
Contractor. The lime usage shall quantify volumes of soil treated.
8.3 Management of Groundwater & In Situ ASS
Excavation below the groundwater table, such as that proposed for this site, has the potential to result in
localised lowering of the water table caused by dewatering. This process is referred to as groundwater
drawdown and can create a time variable cone of depression around the excavation, the scale of which is
dependent on the type and method of dewatering used, and the nature of the aquifer containing the
groundwater. The cone of depression is the volume of soil around the disturbance which was previously
saturated (below the water table), but due to the dewatering becomes unsaturated (at least for a short
time period during construction).
This lowering of the water table may lead to two potential problems:
Settlement of the land adjacent to the excavation which may lead to subsidence; and
Exposure of in situ PASS within the cone of depression, thereby causing oxidation of these soils and
subsequent generation of acidity, having potential adverse effects on groundwater conditions.
The proposed construction is expected to utilise a engineered shoring retention system around the full
basement perimeter to provide temporary batter support for construction, and to minimise groundwater
inflows. So that the retention system can achieve an effective groundwater ‘cut-off’, it is recommended
that the retention system penetrates into the underlying dense (or denser) sands/coffee rock at around 7
m BGL. Furthermore, the retention system shall be designed to allow for the development of some
hydrostatic pressure to minimise external (e.g. spear point) dewatering.
Design and construction of a retention system as described above should result in negligible drawdown
of the groundwater table outside the excavation and mitigate the risk of ground settlement and/or
oxidation of possible in situ ASS in areas adjacent to the works.
It is anticipated that groundwater flows would be encountered through the base of the excavation during
construction, however such inflows should be handled using shallow well or spear points. These
groundwater inflows shall be treated and discharged together with any surface water runoff
accumulating during the construction period.
To further mitigate potential for risk associated with short-term dewatering, the following management
strategies should be undertaken to mitigate any potential issues:
Depth of dewatering shall be limited to within 1 m from the base of proposed excavation.
Quality of any groundwater inflows into excavations shall be monitored to ensure in situ acidification
is not occurring. Monitoring will involve pH testing of inflows daily during dewatering periods. It
should be noted that groundwater in the area may be naturally acidic (pH 5.0 to 6.0). If the
monitored pH levels fall more than 1.0 unit over the course of construction monitoring, or is
consistently below pH 4.0, then an ASS specialist should be engaged to determine whether there has
been any significant environmental impact, why the pH has dropped and how the works may
progress without undue environmental risk.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 23
Page 29
Once basement excavation has achieved the final design level a reinforced concrete structural slab and
perimeter walls will be constructed to seal the basement and achieve a ‘tanked structure’, whereby no
permanent dewatering will be required (during operation).
8.4 Water Quality Management
Erosion and sediment control measures are expected to be applied in accordance with current industry
best practice to contain and control site runoff waters during construction.
Extracted groundwater and captured stormwater shall be monitored and maintained within a pH range
of 6.5 to 8.5. No uncontrolled release of waters will be allowed to occur during construction. The
performance criteria detailed in Table 6 must be met prior to release. The Contractor shall be
responsible for ensuring relevant water quality criteria are met prior to discharge.
Table 6: Water Quality Release Criteria
Indicator Release Limit
pH 6.5 to 8.5
Total Suspended Solids < 50 mg/L
Dissolved Aluminium < 0.3 mg/L
Dissolved Iron < 0.2 mg/L
No visible litter, sheen or odour washed from the
Litter/Gross Pollutants site or deposited in waters downstream of any
discharge
Groundwater extracted during construction would be expected to require quality adjustment prior to off-
site release to stormwater. At a minimum, this is expected to involve buffering (increasing) of the pH to
within the range 6.5 to 8.5 by the addition of a suitable agent, followed by the addition of a flocculant,
and sufficient settling/contact times to reduce turbidity and metal loads. Effective treatment of
groundwater to achieve suitable release criteria requires reasonable spatial and temporal consideration.
An experienced dewatering contractor should be consulted to ensure appropriate outcomes can be
achieved.
9. Limitations
Your attention is drawn to the document Limitations, which is included in Appendix C of this report. The
statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of
this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated
with the services provided by Tectonic for this project.
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 24
Page 30
NoosalRiver PROJECT aoa APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATIONS PROPOSED RESIDENCE 11 RAVENWOOD DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS DRAWING TITLE NOTES SITE PLAN BASEMAP COURTESY OF NEARMAP, DATED 21 JANUARY 2025 PROJECT NO. DOC NO. FIGURE NO. REVISION 25040 001 1 0
Page 31
Appendix A
Borehole Logs & Explanatory Notes
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 25
Page 32
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 1 of 2
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 25040
Client: Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd Commenced: 18/2/2025
Project Name: Proposed Residence Completed: 18/2/2025
Hole Location: 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads Logged By: LC
Hole Position: 508415.0 m E 7081057.0 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MCC
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin DB8 Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: MK Drilling
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification Piezometer
Penetration
Pocket Construction
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
ASS_0.0-4.0m Silty SAND (TOPSOIL), fine to medium VL
@0.25m_intervals grained, grey
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained,
Groundwater [email protected]
Bentonite
grey, dark grey, with organics M L
1
Gravelly Silty SAND (FILL), fine to coarse
M to
SPT grained, grey brown, fine to coarse sized
W
4,11,12 gravel, trace deleterious materials (e.g. metal,
N=23 pipe etc.)
AD/T
Groundwater [email protected]
2
MD
Sand
3
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 25040.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 10/3/2025 14:34 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
SPT SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, brown,
1,3,5 (NATURAL)
N=8 W
L to
MD
4
SPT becoming pale grey to grey
3,6,7
N=13 MD
CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, grey, fine to
5 medium grained sand w>
F 50
PL
U50_5.5-5.7m SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, grey
SPT
1,8,13
N=21 6 becoming dark grey to dark brown
MD
RD
7
SPT
11,21,30 W
N=51 tending to indurated sand
D
8
SM Indurated SAND, fine to coarse grained, dark
SPT grey, weakly cemented
VD
29,30/100mm
N*>60
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS- Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System Fr - Friable
Page 33
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 2 of 2
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 25040
Client: Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd Commenced: 18/2/2025
Project Name: Proposed Residence Completed: 18/2/2025
Hole Location: 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads Logged By: LC
Hole Position: 508415.0 m E 7081057.0 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MCC
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin DB8 Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: MK Drilling
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification Piezometer
Penetration
Pocket Construction
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, dark
brown
10
SPT
6,14,18
N=32
11
W VD
SPT
14,15,18 becoming light brown
N=33
12
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 25040.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 10/3/2025 14:34 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
RD
13
SPT
7,5,2
N=7 CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, grey, fine to 50
medium grained sand 70
F
14
tending to silty clay
St 100
SPT 120
0,0,6 w> 200
N=6 CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, grey to pale grey, PL
15 fine to coarse grained sand, (OLDER
ALLUVIUM) VSt
CH Silty CLAY, high plasticity, pale grey
16 St
SPT
4,6,9 100
N=15 150
Hole Terminated at 16.50 m
Target depth
17
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS- Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System Fr - Friable
Page 34
Borehole No.
BH2
Page 1 of 2
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 25040
Client: Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd Commenced: 18/2/2025
Project Name: Proposed Residence Completed: 18/2/2025
Hole Location: 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads Logged By: LC
Hole Position: 508398.0 m E 7081055.0 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MCC
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin DB8 Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: MK Drilling
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Shear
Penetration
Pocket
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description Structure and
Penetrometer Vane
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, Additional
Moisture
UCS Test
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour Observations
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa) (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
50 100150200
ASS_0.0-4.0 Silty SAND (TOPSOIL), fine to medium VL 0.00: TOPSOIL
@0.25m_intervals grained, grey 0.10: FILL
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained,
grey
Slight [email protected]
1 M
trace fine to coarse sized gravel, trace
cobbles up to 60mm
SPT with organics
3,2,2
N=4
2 L
SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, brown to 2.30: NATURAL
pale brown
Groundwater [email protected]
3
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 25040.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 10/3/2025 14:34 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
SPT
1,3,3
N=6
W
AD/T
4
SPT SP SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey
1,3,5
N=8 L to
MD
CH Silty CLAY, high plasticity, brown, trace fine w= 50 40
5 grained sand F
U50_5.0-5.5m PL
SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, dark
brown
SPT
6,13,8 tending to indurated sand
N=21
6
W MD
7
SPT
13,30,30/110mm
N*>60 SM Indurated SAND, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, weakly cemented
8
M VD
RD
SPT
19,30,30/140mm
N*>60
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS- Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System Fr - Friable
Page 35
Borehole No.
BH2
Page 2 of 2
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 25040
Client: Sunshine Beach Noosa Developments Pty Ltd Commenced: 18/2/2025
Project Name: Proposed Residence Completed: 18/2/2025
Hole Location: 11 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads Logged By: LC
Hole Position: 508398.0 m E 7081055.0 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MCC
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin DB8 Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: MK Drilling
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Shear
Penetration
Pocket
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description Structure and
Penetrometer Vane
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, Additional
Moisture
UCS Test
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour Observations
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa) (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
50 100150200
SM Indurated SAND, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, weakly cemented (continued)
M VD
10
SPT
5,8,11 SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, brown,
N=19 light brown
11
SPT
5,11,15
N=26
12 W MD
RD
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 25040.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 10/3/2025 14:34 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
13
SPT
6,14,11 becoming grey, pale grey
N=25
CH Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey
14
w=
St 130
PL
SPT
4,4,6 120
N=10 tending to sandy clay, becoming pale grey 110
15 CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, grey, pale grey,
fine to coarse grained sand, tending to clayey
sand
Hole Terminated at 15.00 m
Target depth
16
17
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS- Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System Fr - Friable
Page 36
TERMS USED ON LOGS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AD* Auger Drilling RD Rotary Blade or Drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
*V V-Bit RT Rotary Tri-cone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*T TC-Bit RA Rotary Air HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
HA Hand Auger HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
ADH Hollow Auger BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
WATER
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,
OBSERVED surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in
ENCOUNTERED less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open
for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
5,4,10 N=14 5,4,10 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/65mm 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
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U50 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Electronic cone penetration test
CPTu Electronic cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
Rev1
August 2024
Page 37
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON LOGS
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil is classified and described in borehole and test pit logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 2017.
The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Sub Division Particle Size
Division
BOULDERS > 200 mm
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm
Coarse 19 to 63 mm
GRAVEL Medium 6.7 to 19 mm
Fine 2.36 to 6.7 mm
Coarse 0.6 to 2.36 mm
SAND Medium 0.21 to 0.6 mm
Fine 0.075 to 0.21
SILT 0.002 to 0.075
CLAY < 0.002 mm
NOTE: The U line is an approximate upper bound for most materials.
Data which plot above the U line may represent unusual/problem soil
behavior, or unreliable data and should be considered carefully.
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 2017
Coarse Grained Soils
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere
Fine Grained Soils
Symbol Description
w < PL Moist, dry of plastic limit, (hard and friable or powdery)
w = PL Moist, near plastic limit, (soils can be moulded at a moisture content 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 liquid limit
w > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 2017, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Rev3
November 2024
Page 38
METHOD OF ROCK DESCRIPTION
USED ON LOGS
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Rock is classified and described in borehole and test pit logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 2017.
The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
STRENGTH
Point Load
Symbol Term Index, Is(50) Field Guide
(MPa)
VL Very 0.03 to 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick; can be peeled
Low with knife; too hard to cut a triaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 30 mm
can be broken by finger pressure.
L Low 0.1 to 0.3 Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen
with firm blows of pick point; has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core
150 mm long by 50 mm diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp edges of core
may be friable and break during handling.
M Medium 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife; a piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter
can be broken by hand with difficulty.
H High 1 to 3 A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter cannot be broken by hand but
can be broken with pick with a single firm blow; rock rings under hammer.
VH Very 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow; rock rings under
High hammer.
EH Extremely >10 Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact
High material; rock rings under hammer.
Relationship between Is(50) and UCS (unconfined compressive strength) will vary with rock type and strength, and
should be determined on a site-specific basis. UCS is typically 10 to 30 x Is(50), but can be as low as 5.
ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and
Residual
RS substance fabric are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume
Soil but the soil has not been significantly transported.
Extremely Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties - i.e. it either
EW
Weathered disintegrates or can be remoulded, in water.
Whole of rock is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the
extent that the colour of the original rock is not recognizable. Rock strength
Highly
HW is significantly changed by weathering. Porosity may be increased by
Weathered
leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in
Distinctly
DW pores.
Weathered
Whole of rock is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the
Moderately extent that the colour of the original rock is not recognizable; but shows little
MW
Weathered or no change of strength from fresh rock.
Slightly Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength relative
SW
Weathered to fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining.
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS
Defect Type Coating or Infilling Roughness
CS/CZ Crushed seam/zone (Fault) Ca Calcite Po Polished
DB Drilling break Clay Clay Sm Smooth
EW Extremely weathered seam Cn Clean Sl Slickensided
HB Handling break Co Coating ( > 1mm) Ro Rough
IS/IZ Infilled seam/zone Fe Iron oxide VRo Very rough
Op Open
J Joint
Qz Quartz
Pt Parting St Stain Planarity
SS/SZ Sheared seam/zone (Fault) Vn Veneer (<1mm) Cu Curved
Vn Vein X Carbonaceous Dis Discontinuous
Ir Irregular
Pl Planar
St Stepped
Un Undulating
Rev5
August 2024
Page 39
Appendix B
ASS Summary Table B1 &
Environmental Laboratory Test Certificates
Geo-environmental Investigation Proposed Residence
4 June 2025 | 25040-001-Rev1 26
Page 40
Table B1 - Summary of ASS Laboratory Testing Ref: 25040
Titratable
Chromium Reducible NET
Location & Depth pHF AASS pHFOX PASS Reaction pH KCl Actual SKCl SNAS ANC_bt Required Lime Rate
Soil Type Sulfur ACIDITY
(m) liklihood1 likelihood2 Acidity
3
pH Unit pH Unit 1 to 4 pH Unit mole H+ / t %S %S mole H+ / t mole H+ / t mole H+ / t mole H+ / t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m
0 - 0.25 6.9 L 3.2 M 4
0.25-0.5 6.5 L 2.8 H 4
0.5-0.75 6.9 L 2.8 H 4
0.75-1.00 5.8 L 2.2 H 4
1.00-1.25 7.5 L 3 M 4
1.25-1.5 8.6 L 6 M 4
1.5-1.75 Silty SAND (FILL) 11 L 8.7 M 4 8.9 <2 0.02 0.083 52 N/A 65 <2 0 0
1.75-2.0 11 L 11 L 4
BH1
2.0-2.25 12 L 11 L 4 0 0
2.25-2.5 12 L 11 L 4 11 <2 0.07 0.035 22 N/A 770 <2
2.5-2.75 12 L 12 L 4
2.75-3.0 11 L 11 L 4
3.0 - 3.25 11 L 8.7 M 4 10 <2 0.03 0.016 10 N/A 320 <2 0 0
3.25 - 3.5 11 L 8 M 3
Silty SAND
3.5 - 3.75 (NATURAL)
11 L 8.4 M 3
3.75 - 4.0 11 L 11 L 4
0 - 0.25 4.2 M 2.7 M 4
0.25-0.5 5.4 L 3.1 M 4
0.5-0.75 8.4 L 5.3 M 4
0.75-1.00 8.4 L 4.8 M 4 8.9 <2 0.01 0.005 3.3 N/A 97 <2 0 0
1.00-1.25 8.2 L 5 M 3
Silty SAND (FILL)
1.25-1.5 8.6 L 6.1 M 4
1.5-1.75 8.7 L 6.6 M 4
1.75-2.0 8.6 L 6.6 M 4
BH2
2.0-2.25 8.7 L 6.9 L 4
2.25-2.5 8.7 L 6.8 L 4 9.5 <2 0.02 0.019 12 N/A 210 <2 0 0
2.5-2.75 8.8 L 6.8 M 3
2.75-3.0 8.6 L 6.8 L 3
3.0 - 3.25 Silty SAND 8.8 L 6.4 M 4
3.25 - 3.5 (NATURAL) 9 L 6.7 M 3 9.1 <2 <0.005 <0.005 <3 N/A 22 <2 0 0
3.5 - 3.75 8.7 L 6.1 M 3
3.75 - 4.0 8.7 L 5.9 M 3
Notes: 1. Actual Acid Sulfate Soil (AASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading)(pHF > 5). Medium (M & yellow shade)(pHF 5 ≤ pHF > 4) and High (H & red shade)(pHF ≤ 4).
2. Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading, where pHFOX is > 4 and ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is < 2 pH units). Medium (M & yellow shade, where ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH
units OR pHFOX is ≤4) and High (H and red shade)(change from pHF to pHFOX is ≥2 pH units AND pHFOX is <3)
3. Reaction 1 = Nil to slight reaction, 2 = Moderate reaction, 3 = Strong reaction (persistant froth), 4 = Extreme reaction.
4. Shaded (Green) ANC results are those where 50% of ANC outweighs the net acidity.
5. Shaded TAA & SCR results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 18 mol H+/t or 0.03 %S (> 0.03%S Yellow; > 0.1%S Orange; > 1.0%S Red).
6. Required Lime Rate is calculated from the net Acid-Base Account (ANC has not been corroborated) with a factor of safety = 1.5 and bulk density of 1.7 t/m³. N/R = Not Required
Page 41
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Site Number 20794 & 2780
924 David Low Way Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
NATA is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual Recognition
Marcoola Arrangement for the mutual recognition of the
equivalence of testing, medical testing, calibration,
QLD 4564 inspection, proficiency testing scheme providers and
reference materials producers reports and certificates.
Attention: Michael Cocks
Report 1189604-S
Project name 25040
Project ID 11 RAVENWOOD DRIVE
Received Date Feb 19, 2025
BH1 0.75-1.00
Client Sample ID BH1 0.0-0.25 M BH1 0.25-0.5 M BH1 0.5-0.75 M M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047930 B25-Fe0047931 B25-Fe0047932 B25-Fe0047933
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.9 6.5 6.9 5.8
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
BH1 1.00-1.25
Client Sample ID M BH1 1.25-1.5 M BH1 1.5-1.75 M BH1 1.75-2.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047934 B25-Fe0047935 B25-Fe0047936 B25-Fe0047937
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 7.5 8.6 11 11
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.0 6.0 8.7 11
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 8.9 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - <2 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - < 0.003 - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.083 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 52 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - 0.020 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - 0.33 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - 0.10 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - 65 - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 1 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 42
BH1 1.00-1.25
Client Sample ID M BH1 1.25-1.5 M BH1 1.5-1.75 M BH1 1.75-2.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047934 B25-Fe0047935 B25-Fe0047936 B25-Fe0047937
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 74 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1 - -
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % - 13 - -
Client Sample ID BH1 2.0-2.25 M BH1 2.25-2.5 M BH1 2.5-2.75 M BH1 2.75-3.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047938 B25-Fe0047939 B25-Fe0047940 B25-Fe0047941
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 12 12 12 11
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 11 11 12 11
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 11 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - <2 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - < 0.003 - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.035 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 22 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - 0.070 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - 3.8 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - 1.2 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - 770 - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 2 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 43
Client Sample ID BH1 2.0-2.25 M BH1 2.25-2.5 M BH1 2.5-2.75 M BH1 2.75-3.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047938 B25-Fe0047939 B25-Fe0047940 B25-Fe0047941
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 37 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 31 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 55 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - 45 - -
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % - 14 - -
Client Sample ID BH1 3.0-3.25 M BH1 3.25-3.5 M BH1 3.5-3.75 M BH1 3.75-4.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047942 B25-Fe0047943 B25-Fe0047944 B25-Fe0047945
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 11 11 11 11
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 8.7 8.0 8.4 11
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units 10 - - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t <2 - - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S < 0.003 - - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S 0.016 - - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t 9.8 - - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S 0.030 - - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S N/A - - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S N/A - - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S N/A - - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t N/A - - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor 2.0 - - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 1.6 - - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S 0.52 - - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t 320 - - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 - - -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S < 0.02 - - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t < 10 - - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 - - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 49 - - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g < 0.005 - - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % 100 - - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % < 0.1 - - -
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % 20 - - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 3 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 44
BH2 0.75-1.00
Client Sample ID BH2 0.0-0.25 M BH2 0.25-0.5 M BH2 0.5-0.75 M M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047946 B25-Fe0047947 B25-Fe0047948 B25-Fe0047949
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.2 5.4 8.4 8.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.7 3.1 5.3 4.8
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - - 8.9
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - - <2
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - - < 0.003
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - - 0.005
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - - 3.3
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - - 0.010
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - - N/A
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - - 2.0
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - - 0.48
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - - 0.16
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - - 97
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - - 1.5
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S - - - < 0.02
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - - < 10
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - - <1
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - - 110
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - - 3.7
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - - 97
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - - 3.2
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % - - - 7.3
BH2 1.00-1.25
Client Sample ID M BH2 1.25-1.5 M BH2 1.5-1.75 M BH2 1.75-2.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047950 B25-Fe0047951 B25-Fe0047952 B25-Fe0047953
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 8.2 8.6 8.7 8.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.0 6.1 6.6 6.6
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 4 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 45
Client Sample ID BH2 2.0-2.25 M BH2 2.25-2.5 M BH2 2.5-2.75 M BH2 2.75-3.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047954 B25-Fe0047955 B25-Fe0047956 B25-Fe0047957
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 9.5 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - <2 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - < 0.003 - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.019 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 12 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - 0.020 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - 1.1 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - 0.34 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - 210 - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 150 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1 - -
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % - 15 - -
Client Sample ID BH2 3.0-3.25 M BH2 3.25-3.5 M BH2 3.5-3.75 M BH2 3.75-4.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047958 B25-Fe0047959 B25-Fe0047960 B25-Fe0047961
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 8.8 9.0 8.7 8.7
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.4 6.7 6.1 5.9
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 comment 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 9.1 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - <2 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - < 0.003 - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 5 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 46
Client Sample ID BH2 3.0-3.25 M BH2 3.25-3.5 M BH2 3.5-3.75 M BH2 3.75-4.0 M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047958 B25-Fe0047959 B25-Fe0047960 B25-Fe0047961
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025 Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - < 0.005 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - <3 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - < 0.005 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - 0.11 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - 0.04 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - 22 - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 20 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1 - -
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % - 17 - -
Chloride 5 mg/kg - 6.8 - -
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) 10 uS/cm - 94 - -
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) 0.1 pH Units - 8.8 - -
Resistivity* 0.5 ohm.m - 110 - -
Sulphate (as SO4) 30 mg/kg - 31 - -
BH1 SPT 7.-
Client Sample ID 7.45 M
Sample Matrix Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B25-Fe0047963
Date Sampled Feb 18, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % 16
Chloride 5 mg/kg 1400
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) 10 uS/cm 1100
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) 0.1 pH Units 6.3
Resistivity* 0.5 ohm.m 9.0
Sulphate (as SO4) 30 mg/kg 220
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 6 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 47
Sample History
Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction is reported.
If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.
Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test Brisbane Feb 20, 2025 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7060 Determination of field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC) Brisbane Feb 20, 2025 6 Week
- Method: LTM-GEN-7070
% Moisture Melbourne Feb 19, 2025 14 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Chloride Melbourne Feb 21, 2025 28 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4090 Chloride by Discrete Analyser
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) Melbourne Feb 21, 2025 7 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4030 Conductivity
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25 °C as rec.) Melbourne Feb 21, 2025 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7090 pH in soil by ISE
Sulphate (as SO4) Melbourne Feb 21, 2025 28 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4110 Sulfate by Discrete Analyser
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 7 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1189604-S
Page 48
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd Eurofins ARL Pty Ltd Eurofins Environment Testing NZ Ltd
ABN: 50 005 085 521 ABN: 91 05 0159 898 NZBN: 9429046024954
Melbourne Geelong Sydney Canberra Brisbane Newcastle Perth Auckland Auckland (Focus) Christchurch Tauranga
6 Monterey Road 19/8 Lewalan Street 179 Magowar Road Unit 1,2 Dacre Street 1/21 Smallwood Place 1/2 Frost Drive 46-48 Banksia Road 35 O'Rorke Road Unit C1/4 Pacific Rise 43 Detroit Drive 1277 Cameron Road
Dandenong South Grovedale Girraween Mitchell Murarrie Mayfield West Welshpool Penrose Mount Wellington Rolleston Gate Pa
VIC 3175 VIC 3216 NSW 2145 ACT 2911 QLD 4172 NSW 2304 WA 6106 Auckland 1061 Auckland 1061 Christchurch 7675 Tauranga 3112
web: www.eurofins.com.au
+61 3 8564 5000 +61 3 8564 5000 +61 2 9900 8400 +61 2 6113 8091 +61 7 3902 4600 +61 2 4968 8448 +61 8 6253 4444 +64 9 526 4551 +64 9 525 0568 +64 3 343 5201 +64 9 525 0568
email: [email protected] NATA# 1261 NATA# 1261 NATA# 1261 NATA# 1261 NATA# 1261 NATA# 1261 NATA# 2377 IANZ# 1327 IANZ# 1308 IANZ# 1290 IANZ# 1402
V2
Site# 1254 Site# 25403 Site# 18217 Site# 25466 Site# 20794 & 2780 Site# 25079 Site# 2370 & 2554
Company Name: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Feb 19, 2025 6:25 PM
Address: 924 David Low Way Report #: 1189604 Due: Feb 25, 2025
Marcoola Phone: 07 5478 9642 Priority: 3 Day
QLD 4564 Fax: Contact Name: Michael Cocks
Project Name: 25040
Project ID: 11 RAVENWOOD DRIVE
Eurofins Analytical Services Manager : Paige Howarth
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Conductivity (at 25 °C)
Iron
Iron (filtered)
pH (at 25 °C)
Redox Potential mV (relative to Ag/AgCl)
Sample Comment
Sulphate (as SO4)
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Aggressivity Soil Set
Moisture Set
Moisture Set
ANC)
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA # 1261 Site # 1254 X X X X
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 & 2780 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BH1 0.0-0.25 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047930 X
M
2 BH1 0.25-0.5 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047931 X
M
3 BH1 0.5-0.75 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047932 X
M
4 BH1 0.75-1.00 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047933 X
M
5 BH1 1.00-1.25 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047934 X
M
6 BH1 1.25-1.5 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047935 X X X
M
7 BH1 1.5-1.75 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047936 X
M
8 BH1 1.75-2.0 Feb 18, 2025 Soil B25-Fe0047937 X
M
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 8 of 15
Date Reported: Feb 25, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600
The text continues on page 49.
Used in these records
RFI - Revised Geo-Environmental Investigation.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 12.7 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.