Original source · versioned page text
Reference Document - RAL25/0020 & OPW25/0194 (As Published)
NOOSA COUNCIL REFERENCE DOCUMENT RAL25/0020 & OPW25/0194 Report on Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Subdivision 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin Prepared for MAJP Consulting Project 237894.00 18 October 2025
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 49 pages
Page 2
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
douglaspartners.com.au
2 Mallet Street, Kunda Park, QLD 4556
(07) 5351 0400
Document History
Details
Project No. 237894.00
Document Title Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Site Address 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin
Report Prepared For MAJP Consulting
Filename 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
Status and Review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Revision 0 Caroline Jarrett Brett Egen (RPEQ8597) 18 October 2025
Distribution of Copies
Status Issued to
Revision 0 [email protected]
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all
attached drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions
and inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 18 October 2025
Reviewer 18 October 2025
Douglas Partners acknowledges Australia’s First Peoples as the Traditional Owners of the Land and Sea
on which we operate. We pay our respects to Elders past and present and to all Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples across the many communities in which we live, visit and work. We recognise and
respect their ongoing cultural and spiritual connection to Country.
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page No
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
3. Regional Geology and Acid Sulfate Soil Conditions ............................................................................. 2
3.1 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Field Work ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Field Work Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................................... 3
5. Laboratory Testing...................................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Shrink-Swell Index ......................................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution ........................................................................................... 4
5.3 Compaction and Soaked CBR ............................................................................................................... 5
5.4 Dispersion ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
5.5 Acid Sulfate Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 5
6. Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
6.1 Trafficability ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
6.2 Site Preparation and Earthworks ........................................................................................................ 6
6.3 Excavation ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Batter Slopes ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Soil Reactivity and Site Classification ................................................................................................ 8
6.6 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.7 Retaining Walls.............................................................................................................................................. 10
6.8 Pavements ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
6.9 Acid Sulfate Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 12
7. References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
8. Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 4
Appendix A: About This Report
Appendix B: Test Location Plan
Appendix C: Sampling, Testing and Excavation Methodology
Soil Descriptions
Boreholes Logs
Appendix D: Laboratory Results
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 5
Page 1 of 15
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Subdivision
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners
Pty Ltd (Douglas) for the proposed subdivision at 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin (the ‘site’).
The investigation was undertaken at the request of MAJP Consulting on behalf of Novato Group
Pty Ltd ATF Tewantin Unit Trust following authorisation to proceed received on 3 September
2025.
The aim of the investigation was to assess the following:
• subsurface conditions including groundwater;
• earthworks, stripping and site preparation, unsuitable soils, excavatability and workability of
potential cut materials, dispersion, suitability of site soils for reuse, compaction standards;
• foundation soil reactivity in accordance with AS2870(2011);
• indicative footing options, allowable bearing pressures and estimated settlements to the
depths investigated;
• geotechnical parameters for retaining wall design;
• assessment of subgrade CBR values for pavement design;
• presence and severity of acid sulfate soils (ASS); and
• management and treatment of ASS.
The investigation comprised the drilling of six bores, followed by laboratory testing. Details of the
field work and laboratory testing are presented in this report, together with comments on the
items listed above.
This report must be read in conjunction with the notes entitled “About This Report” in Appendix A
along with any other explanatory notes and drawings, and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual pages or sections.
2. Site Description
The site for the proposed subdivision is located at 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, and is described
as Lot 42 on RP867323. The site is broadly rectangular in shape, bounded by Gympie Street to the
south, surrounded by residential development (refer to Drawing 1, Appendix B).
At the time of the investigation, the site was occupied by a single storey dwelling and a detached
shed located in the southern portion of the site. The ground surface was generally covered with
well maintained grassed lawns with landscaped areas and scattered trees across the site. The
photograph in Figure 1 indicates typical site conditions at the time of investigation.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 6
Page 2 of 15 The site gently slopes in a northerly direction from the southern boundary at approximately RL 5 AHD down to the northern boundary at approximately RL 3 AHD. Figure 1: Typical site conditions, viewing south across the site 3. Regional Geology and Acid Sulfate Soil Conditions 3.1 Regional Geology Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland’s detailed surface geology mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Late Triassic to Early Jurassic aged Myrtle Creek Sandstone described as typically comprising “Deeply weathered quartzose sandstone, siltstone, shale conglomerate, coal” boarding close with nearby Quaternary aged swamp and heath deposits in coastal areas to the north. The natural subsurface conditions encountered during the field work typically comprised localised sandy silt, and silty, sandy clays inferred to be possibly residual, which is considered consistent with the deeply weathered profile described above. Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 7
Page 3 of 15 3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides or sulfidic materials, often located over extensive low-lying coastal areas which are generally geologically young, alluvial or estuarine sediments (ie. late Holocene age), predominately below RL 5 AHD. Reference to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines – Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 Redcliffe to Teewah, indicates that the site is considered as “land between the 5m AHD contour and the outer limit of Holocene, estuarine ASS (ie land <5m AHD), with low probability of ASS occurrence.” The presence or otherwise of ASS was determined through laboratory testing. The results of laboratory testing are discussed in Sections 5.5 and 6.9 in this report. 4. Field Work 4.1 Field Work Methods The field work was carried out on 8 September 2025 and comprised the drilling of six bores (designated as Bores 1 to 6). The bore locations were set out with reference to site features, with the bore locations and surface level recorded afterwards using a high precision differential global positioning system (DGPS) receiver relative to GDA2020 and AHD. It is important to note that Douglas is not a registered surveyor, hence the coordinates and elevations are considered to be approximate. The approximate bore locations are indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The bores were drilled to 3.0 m depth with a 4WD ute mounted Drillman GT10-KD drilling rig using continuous flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) and pocket penetrometer (pp) testing was carried out to assess the relative density and strength consistency of the subsurface soils. On completion of drilling following observation for any groundwater seepage, the bores were backfilled with drill spoil which was tamped into the holes. The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel who operated the drilling rig, logged the bores, and collected samples for visual and tactile assessment and subsequent laboratory testing. Strata identification was undertaken through observation of cutting returns and recovered samples. Field descriptions and samples were checked by a geotechnical engineer, with the borehole logs corrected where appropriate to reflect the available laboratory test results. 4.2 Field Work Results The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are described in detail on the borehole logs in Appendix C, together with notes which define the classification methods and descriptive terms used. The depths were measured below existing surface levels at the time of investigation. In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores typically comprised surficial topsoil and/or sandy gravel fill, overlying localised sandy silt/silty sand and silty, sandy clays. The subsurface conditions are further described below: Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 8
Page 4 of 15
• Topsoil/Fill: Firm to stiff sandy clay topsoil was encountered in the bores, except Bore 5, to
between 0.1 m and 0.2 m depth. Underlying the topsoil in Bores 3 and 6 and from the surface
in Bore 5, relatively ‘very dense’ sandy gravel fill was encountered to between 0.2 m and 0.3 m
depth.
• Sandy Silt/Silty Sand: Underlying the topsoil and/or the sandy gravel fill material, firm sandy
silt was encountered in Bores 1, 3 and 5 along the eastern portion of the site to between 0.9 m
and 1.15 m depth.
• Silty, Sandy Clays: Underlying the above mentioned soils, silty and sandy clays were
encountered in the bores. The strength consistency of the clays was generally very stiff, stiff
locally in Bores 2, 4 and 6. The clays continued to bore termination at 3.0 m depth.
No groundwater seepage was observed in any of the bores at the time of drilling or prior to
backfilling. However, it is noted that the sandy silt was described as being ‘moist to wet’ in Bore 3.
It should be noted that groundwater depths and ground moisture conditions are affected by
climatic conditions, soil permeability, drainage conditions and human influence; and will
therefore vary time.
5. Laboratory Testing
5.1 Shrink-Swell Index
Shrink-swell index tests were carried out on ‘undisturbed’ samples from the bores. The results of
the testing are summarised in Table 1 with material test reports in Appendix D.
Table 1: Results of Shrink-Swell Index Testing
Bore Depth Material Shrinkage Swell Shrink-Swell Index
No. (m) (%) (%) (% per ΔpF)
1 0.8-1.03 Silty Sandy CLAY 2.1 0.0 1.2
4 0.7-1.09 Silty Sandy CLAY 5.4 0.0 3.0
5.2 Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution
Samples recovered from the bores were tested in the laboratory for engineering properties of
plasticity and particle size distribution for classification purposes. The results of this testing are
summarised in Table 2 with material test reports in Appendix D.
Table 2: Results of Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing
Bore Depth Material Plasticity Particle Size Distribution (%)
No. (m)
LL PL PI LS Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
(%) (%) (%) (%)
3 0.4-0.8 Sandy SILT/Silty SAND 18 - NP 2.5 8 56 36
6 1.0-1.21 Silty Sandy CLAY 50 23 27 11.0 20 22 58
Where LL = Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, PI = Plasticity Index, LS = Linear Shrinkage, NP = Non-Plastic
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 9
Page 5 of 15
5.3 Compaction and Soaked CBR
Standard compaction and single point soaked California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were
undertaken on a bulk sample recovered from Bore 3. The sample was first screened over the
19 mm sieve, as required by the test standard, and was then compacted to 98% Standard dry
density ratio at near to optimum moisture content (OMC). The sample was soaked for a minimum
of four days under a 4.5kg surcharge.
The results of the testing are summarised in Table 3 with a material test report in Appendix D.
Table 3: Results of Compaction and CBR Testing
Bore Depth Material FMC Standard Compaction CBR
No. (m) (%)
MDD OMC Swell CBR
(t/m3) (%) (%) (%)
3 0.4-0.8 Sandy SILT/Silty SAND 14.6 1.97 10.5 0.0 4.5
Where FMC = Field moisture content, MDD = Maximum Dry Density, OMC = Optimum moisture content
5.4 Dispersion
An Emerson class dispersion test was undertaken on a sample recovered from Bore 3. The results
of the testing are summarised in Table 4 with a material test report in Appendix D.
Table 4: Results of Emerson Class Dispersion Testing
Bore Depth Material Emerson Class Number
No. (m)
3 0.4-0.8 Sandy SILT/Silty SAND 5
The results of the testing indicate that the silty sand material tested to be slightly dispersive.
5.5 Acid Sulfate Soils
Samples were recovered from Bores 1, 2 3 and 6 at 0.25 m intervals and were screened by
measurement of pH after the addition of distilled water (pH f) and peroxide (pHfox). The pHf test
provides a preliminary indication of past oxidation of sulfides resulting in the presence of actual
acid sulfate soils (AASS). The pHfox test provides a preliminary indication of the presence of
unoxidised sulfides and therefore, potential acid sulfate soils (PASS).
Based on the results of the screening tests, selected samples were subjected to more rigorous
acid base accounting (chromium reducible sulfur – SCR) analytical testing to quantitatively assess
the presence or absence of ASS. The results of this testing are discussed further in Section 6.9.2
and detailed report sheets are provided in Appendix D.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 10
Page 6 of 15
6. Comments
6.1 Trafficability
The field work for this investigation was carried out using a 4WD ute mounted drilling rig. At the
time of the investigation the site was trafficable for the drill rig.
The trafficability conditions across the site should not be underestimated particularly during and
following periods of prolonged rainfall. Following periods of wet weather, it is expected that
moisture will tend to be perched in the upper silt/sand material above any shallow clays and may
temporarily rise close to the ground surface. It should be noted that the sandy silt/silty sand
material in overly moist to wet conditions are sensitive to vibrations or trafficking from heavy
equipment, pumping moisture up to near the surface and subsequently losing strength and
becoming ‘boggy’. These conditions will cause problems with trafficability and workability.
Conditioning of wet sandy silt/silty sand material is typically difficult to achieve particularly during
periods of prolonged and intermittent rainfall events, where the moisture content of the
subsurface soils are continually allowed to be kept saturated from surface infiltration (eg. rain) as
well as subsurface seepage. Drying out using surface and subsurface drains may take
considerable time of favourable weather conditions with little or no rainfall before any positive
effect is achieved. Unfavourable, cooler climatic conditions (eg. winter) will also make the drying
out process more difficult and slower to achieve. Wet material which cannot be reasonably
worked or moisture conditioned would be considered unsuitable and may need to be removed
and spoiled from site.
In areas of high traffic (eg. access tracks, haul roads etc.) or where filling is proposed, significant
works to ‘bridge’ over these weakened soils using overburden gravel material, or rock fill, would
be required if weather conditions are unfavourable.
6.2 Site Preparation and Earthworks
It is recommended that the following site preparation and earthworks procedures be carried out
where the proposed development will consist of any new filling, slab-on-ground and/or pavement
construction:
• Any ‘uncontrolled’ fill, deleterious, soft, wet or highly compressible material or topsoil material
rich in organics or root matter should be stripped and removed.
• Assess the moisture content of the subgrade and adjust (if required) to be within 2% of OMC,
where OMC is the optimum moisture content at Standard compaction.
• The stripped surface should be rolled with at least four passes of a minimum 12 tonne
deadweight roller (or as large as practical), with a final test roll pass accompanied by careful
visual inspection to detect the presence of any soft or loose spots. Areas demonstrating
excessive movement under test rolling will be required to be either tyned, dried and
recompacted or removed and replaced with select fill well compacted in layers. Treatment
should be to a standard sufficient so that the subgrade passes test rolling and that
compaction can be achieved in the first layer of filling. The extent of treatment is best
assessed at the time of construction, but large areas of excavation should not proceed
without geotechnical advice to assess other options.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 11
Page 7 of 15
• Depressions formed by the removal of existing structures, underground elements,
vegetation etc. should have all disturbed, weakened soils excavated out and then backfilled
with approved fill well compacted in layers to the same requirements as for the overlying
layers of fill.
• It is considered that the majority of materials won from excavations on site where free of
organic and deleterious material will generally be suitable for reuse as bulk fill provided the
moisture content of the soils on placement approximates the OMC.
• Imported fill material, if required, typically should be a good quality select fill material of low
to medium plasticity and well graded with a maximum particle size of 75 mm.
• Approved structural fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 0.3 m ‘loose’ thickness, with
each layer compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 95% relative to Standard
compaction. Unbound pavement gravel should be compacted to a minimum dry density
ratio of 100% relative to Standard compaction. Where fill has significant clay content,
moisture content within the fill should be maintained within 2% of OMC during and after
compaction until covered with subsequent layers.
• Care should be taken not to use over-wet clayey soils as this can lead to problems associated
with trafficability and workability. Clayey soils should also not be over-compacted (ie. not
more than 102% Standard) or placed too dry of OMC, as this can lead to future swelling and
softening with changes to moisture content or inundation from water.
• Field density testing should be carried out to confirm the standard of compaction has been
achieved and the placement moisture content. The frequency of testing should be carried
out in accordance with AS 3798 (2007) and distributed reasonably evenly throughout the full
depth and area of filling.
• Level 1 inspection and testing of filling must be undertaken where the fill is to support
buildings or pavements. It is also recommended that Level 1 inspection and testing be
adopted for all trench backfill greater than 1.5 m deep in areas to support buildings or
pavements as settlement of deep trench backfill can have significant impact on these works.
The above procedures will require geotechnical inspection and testing services to be employed
during construction by an experienced and competent geotechnical testing authority with an
experienced geotechnical engineer to overview the work and provide further advice where
required. It is recommended that earthworks inspection and testing services that will be required
during construction be carried out by Douglas.
6.3 Excavation
It is estimated that the excavation of soils encountered on site could be undertaken using small
to medium sized earthmoving equipment, such as drotts or D6 dozer, backhoes or 8-15t (or larger)
excavators.
The use of pneumatic tools or hydraulic rock breakers will be required to assist in the excavation
of any existing concrete slabs and/or footings (if encountered).
It should be recognised that the excavatability estimates are based on materials encountered at
the bore locations only and that conditions may prove more difficult (or easier) for excavatability
beyond the bore locations and the depths excavated as part of this investigation. This information
is also based on past experience and reference to published literature and should only be taken
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 12
Page 8 of 15
as a broad guide as many factors influence excavatability including plant condition and operator
expertise.
6.4 Batter Slopes
Near vertical temporary excavations less than 1.5 m depth in dry, stiff or stronger clays are likely
to be suitable for the short term footing construction or installation of underground services
provided there are no sensitive services or structures, or vehicular trafficked areas close to the
excavation crest.
It should also be noted that excavations in firm silt and loose sands have the potential to ‘collapse’
unexpectedly in a trenching situation, particularly where groundwater seepage is encountered.
Battering or formwork will be required to prevent loss of material and slumping into the
excavations.
All excavations in firm silt, or excavations greater than the above mentioned depths will need to
be benched, battered or positively supported for stability and prior to personnel entering the
excavation.
Suitable unsurcharged temporary and permanent batter slopes up to 3 m high are presented in
Table 5. Specific advice should be sought from Douglas for batter slopes greater than 3 m in
height. Where groundwater seepage is encountered, or where there are any additional loadings,
batter slopes will need to be considerably flatter.
Table 5: Batter Slopes (unsurcharged, up to 3 m in height)
Safe Batter Slope (H:V)
Material
Short Term Long Term
Firm silt 2.5:1 3:1
Controlled fill*, stiff (or stronger) clays 1:1 2:1
Notes: * Depends on fill material type and level of compaction. Assumes a clayey fill material compacted under ‘Level 1’
Inspection and Testing.
The above temporary batter slopes are suggested with respect to slope stability only, and do not
allow for lateral stress relaxation which may result in movement of nearby inground services or
shallow footings. If such services or footings are settlement sensitive and are located near the
crest of the cut face, then the excavation may have to be positively supported.
Long term slopes may need to be flattened to 3H:1V or less, in order to allow vehicle access for
maintenance of grass. It is recommended that all batters incorporate crest and toe drainage. The
batters should also be covered with topsoil and vegetation to provide long term erosion
protection.
6.5 Soil Reactivity and Site Classification
Site classification of foundation soil reactivity strictly only applies to residential buildings up to
two-storeys and to other buildings of similar size, loading and flexibility as defined in accordance
with AS 2870.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 13
Page 9 of 15 To provide an indication of the characteristic ground surface movements (ys) due to changes in soil moisture, the results of the laboratory testing were input into Douglas’ in-house program REACTIVE. AS 2870 provides recommended values of change in suction (Δu) and depth of suction (Hs) for major and regional centres throughout Australia. However, more detailed data published by Fox (2000), relating climatic conditions to suction was used. A value of 1.2 pF was adopted for Δu and 1.5 m for Hs in the REACTIVE calculations. This is based on a ‘wet coastal’ climatic zone. The results of the analysis indicate that ys movements due to normal seasonal moisture content variation is estimated to be up to 50 mm, consistent with ‘Class H1’ (highly reactive) conditions based on a full clay profile. A reduced cracking depth has also been considered allowing for fill placement or excavation (where the cut depth exceeds the lesser of 0.25 H s or 0.5 m). If ‘abnormal’ soil moisture conditions are experienced at the site, the site classification would change to ‘Class P’ (problem site) which would require more extensive foundation works or could result in adverse foundation performance. ‘Abnormal’ soil moisture conditions are defined in AS 2870 (Clause 1.3.3) and in summary comprise: • Recent removal of buildings or structures likely to affect soil moisture conditions; • Unusual moisture caused by drains, channels, ponds, dams or tanks; • Recent removal of large trees; • Growth of trees too close to a structure; • Excessive or irregular watering of gardens adjacent to the structure; • Lack of maintenance of site drainage; • Failure to repair plumbing leaks. It should be noted that no assessment of the effect of soil moisture change by trees has been made in estimating the above ys values (either with respect to the removal of established trees prior to development of building pads, or the proximity of established or new trees to proposed buildings). Reference to the requirements in AS 2870 should be made by the building designer in this regard. It should be further noted that the presence or removal of trees can result in additional surface movement, due to tree-induced suction changes and tree-induced centre heave. Such tree-induced movement is not included in the ys calculations used to classify the site. 6.6 Foundations Provided that site preparation is carried out in accordance with the recommendations in this report, it is considered that high level strip and/or pad footings founded in either controlled fill or competent natural soils may generally be adopted. Slabs supported on high level foundations should be stiffened to suit the expected ground surface movements. Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 14
Page 10 of 15
Table 6: Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures for High Level Foundations
Material Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure
(kPa)
Engineered fill*, stiff clays 100
Very stiff clays 200
Hard clays 450
Notes: * Depends on fill material type and level of compaction. Assumes clayey material compacted under ‘Level 1’
inspection and testing.
All footing excavations should be inspected and tested by an experienced geotechnical engineer
from Douglas to confirm bearing pressures prior to casting of concrete.
Experience indicates that properly designed and constructed high level footings sized using the
above allowable bearing pressures are likely to undergo settlements in the order of 1% of the
footing width. Further advice should be sought from Douglas regarding settlements once actual
footing configurations and design loads are known.
Where footings are located adjacent to underground services, the footings should extend to
below invert level for a distance of 1 m out from the trench. Beyond 1 m from the trench, the
footings should be taken to below an imaginary line drawn up at 45 degrees from the invert level.
These requirements do not override minimum structural footing base levels. Where necessary
footings may be made up with mass concrete poured to the underside of footing, or alternatively
constructed over excavated pedestals.
6.7 Retaining Walls
The design of flexible and rigid retaining walls could be undertaken using a triangular pressure
distribution and the earth pressure parameters given in Table 7. Flexible walls are those which
are free to rotate or tilt (such as gravity and cantilevered walls) and should be designed using an
active (Ka) earth pressure coefficient. Rigid walls are those which are laterally restrained against
rotation or tilt (ie. single anchored/propped walls) and should be designed using the at-rest earth
pressure coefficient (Ko).
Passive resistance (Kp) at the toe of the wall should be ignored in the zone where future
disturbance (eg. services trenches) could occur.
Table 7: Earth Pressure Coefficients (non-sloping crest backfill)
Material Bulk Unit Friction Active At-Rest Passive
Weight Angle Ø’ Pressure Pressure Pressure
(kN/m3) Ka Ko Kp
Firm sandy silt 18 22 0.45 063 2.2
Controlled fill*, stiff clays 19 24 0.42 0.60 2.3
Very stiff clays 19 26 0.40 0.55 2.5
Notes: * Depends on fill material type and level of compaction. Assumes clayey material compacted under ‘Level 1’
inspection and testing.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 15
Page 11 of 15 Allowance should be made for hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the retaining wall. It is recommended that all retaining walls be drained for full height in order to minimise hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall. Additional guidelines on wall drainage are provided in Appendix G of AS 4678 (2002). Also, allowance for surcharge loads and sloping crest should be made as appropriate. The effect of surcharge should be included by multiplying the vertical pressure developed by the surcharge by the appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient as given in Table 7. Preference should be given to adopting thin soil layers and using small hand-controlled compaction equipment during backfilling against retaining walls. This is in order to limit the stress applied to the walls during construction. Should heavy compaction be required, then wall stresses will be well in excess of Ko and temporary propping should be used. Clayey backfill should not be placed at more than 2% dry of optimum moisture content, as this can lead to increased future swelling with changes to moisture content and pressures well in excess of Ko, or inundation from water creating additional load on the back of the wall. It is recommended that factors of safety of 2 against overturning and sliding stability be adopted in the design of all retaining walls. For limit state design methods, the ultimate parameters provided above in Table 7 will need to be factored in accordance with AS 4678. Guidance on the selection of material strength partial factors is provided in Section 5.2 of AS 4678 and is dependent upon the nature and state of the insitu soil. 6.8 Pavements It is anticipated that the subgrade conditions are likely to comprise sandy silt and sandy clays. The results of laboratory testing indicate a soaked CBR value of 4.5% for the sandy silt. Based on DCP testing, insitu CBR values at current moisture conditions were typically in the order 3% to 5%. Provided site and subgrade preparation is carried out in accordance with this report and allowing for minor variations in subgrade type and strength, it is recommended that a design CBR value of 3% or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 25 kPa/mm be adopted. Rigid pavements should be designed using a soil modulus of 20 MPa for short term loads and 15 MPa for long term loads. Modulus of subgrade reaction values given above are for standard wheel load applications only. For loaded areas of different proportion or different load intensity to standard wheel loads, Douglas should be contacted for further advice. For composite subgrades (ie. where imported fill is less than 1m) the Japan Road Association method of assessing a weighted subgrade strength should be used: Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 16
Page 12 of 15
CBRW = (DF x CBRF0.33 + (1-DF) x CBRS0.33)3
where: CBRW = weighted subgrade CBR (%)
DF = depth of fill (m)
CBRF = CBR of fill material (%)
CBRS = CBR of natural subgrade (%)
The satisfactory on-going performance of pavements is dependent on the subgrade not being
allowed to become excessively wet. To improve pavement life, it is essential that sufficient subsoil
drainage be installed in areas where there is potential for water to enter the subgrade, (ie.
adjacent to unsealed areas, table drains, landscaped areas etc).
6.9 Acid Sulfate Soils
6.9.1 What are Acid Sulfate Soils?
Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides or
sulfidic materials, often located over extensive low-lying coastal areas, predominately below RL 5
AHD. These soils are generally found close to the natural ground surface, but may also be found
at depth within the soil profile.
ASS includes actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) and potential acid sulfate soils (PASS). AASS and PASS
are often found within the same soil profile, with AASS generally overlying PASS. AASS are highly
acidic resulting from the oxidation of soil materials that contained sulfides. PASS are soils that
contain iron sulfides or sulfidic materials, which have not yet been oxidised.
6.9.2 Criteria for Evaluation of ASS
The criteria on which the results of screening tests (pH f and pHfox) were assessed as indicative of
possible AASS or PASS were based on the following:
• pHf of less than 4 may indicate oxidation of sulfides has probably occurred in the past,
indicating the presence of AASS. None of the samples tested returned a pH f value of less
than 4.
• pHf between 4 and 5.5 indicates the soils are acidic. This may be as a result of limited oxidation
of sulfides, but may also be as a consequence of the presence of organic acids. Generally the
samples tested returned pHf values of between 4.6 and 5.5.
• pHf of greater than 5.5 indicates the soil has little or no actual acidity; however this can be
common with PASS materials or marine-influenced samples. Generally only the surficial
samples tested from the bores returned pHf values equal or greater than 5.5.
The pHf test method does not detect acidity bound within sulfides, however the pH fox test gives
an indication of any potential acid release. Results of the pH fox are summarised as follows:
• pHfox of less than 3, plus a pHfox reading at least one pH unit below pHf, plus a strong reaction
with peroxide, strongly indicates the presence of PASS. None of the sample tested returned
pHfox values of less than 3.
• pHfox between 3 and 4 indicates the possibility of PASS material and a pH fox between 4 and 5
may indicate the presence of small amounts of sulfide or fine carbonates. All of the samples
tested expect for one returned pHfox values of between 3 and 5.
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 17
Page 13 of 15
To provide confirmation of the above qualitative testing, quantitative analytical testing was
carried out on selected samples, generally with the greatest difference in pH f and pHfox readings
and strongest reaction using the Chromium Suite method.
• Chromium reducible sulfur (SCR) values where greater than 0.01 %S indicates a significant
level of sulfide, and where greater than 0.03 %S then the soil has a potential acidity level
exceeding the action criteria. None of the samples tested exceeded 0.03 %S, however two
samples tested indicated a significant level of sulfide.
• Titratable actual acidity (TAA) values greater than 18 mol/t indicates the soil has an acidity
level exceeding the action criteria. All but one sample tested returned TAA values greater
than 18 mol/t.
• Where the sulfur in KCl extract values (SKCl) is less than 0.03 %S, then the soil has little or no
history of sulfide oxidation. A low SKCl combined with a low SCR indicates the measured acidity
is not likely attributed to sulfides and further development of acid is likely to be low.
Generally, the action criterion from the chromium suite of tests, which triggers a requirement for
ASS disturbance to be managed, derived from the Soil Management Guidelines (Dear, et al., 2024)
are as follows:
• Net Acidity (TAA + SCR + SNAS) of greater than or equal to 0.03 %S for soils greater than 1000
tonnes of disturbance.
The action criterion was exceeded in all but one of the samples tested. The measured acidity is
likely to be attributed mostly to AASS.
6.9.3 Management and Treatment of ASS
‘Ag lime’ should be used as the preferred neutralisation agent for the management of AASS as it
is usually the cheapest and most readily available product for soil neutralisation. This material is
mildly alkaline (pH of 8.5 to 9), of low solubility, and does not present any handling problems. ‘Ag
lime’ comprises calcium carbonate typically made from limestone that has been finely grounded
and sieved to a fine powder.
Based on the laboratory test results, an indicative liming rate for neutralisation of the AASS
material likely to be disturbed would be 12 kg/m3.
It is recommended that a guard layer of neutralising agent (eg. aglime) be spread under any
stockpiles and over exposed excavation surfaces to limit the generation of acidity and any
leachate emerging from the surface. A nominal guard layer rate of 4 kg/m2 is recommended.
Reapplication of the guard layer will be necessary under areas of repeated temporary stockpiling.
It is generally preferable if an ‘ag lime’ with a purity of 95% or better is used (ie. NV >95, where NV
is the neutralising value, a term used to rate the neutralising power of different forms of materials
relative to pure, fine calcium carbonate which is designated NV = 100). The above lime dosing
rates should be adjusted by a factor of 100/NV.
Sampling for verification testing should be undertaken to confirm that the ASS has been
adequately neutralised. A minimum of at least one sample for every 500 m3 should be taken for
verification testing. The sample shall comprise a split from at least six random subsample
locations across the treatment area or stockpile. This method reduces the likelihood of sampling
a small patch of under- or over-treated material, and also helps prevent sampling bias. Treated
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 18
Page 14 of 15 material should be placed or stockpiled in a way that it can easily be identified and retreated if verification testing fails. The quantity of lime used for treatment of ASS should be recorded to demonstrate that sufficient quantities of lime are being used. 7. References AS 2870. (2011). Residential Slabs and Footings. Standards Australia. AS 3798. (2007). Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments. Standards Australia. AS 4678. (2002). Earth-retaining structures. Standards Australia. Dear, S. E., Williams, K. M., McElnea, A. E., Ahern, C. R., Dobos, S. K., Moore, N. G., & O'Brien, L. E. (2024). Queensland acid sulfate soil technical manual : soil management guidelines version 5.1. Department of Resources and the Department of Environment and Science. Fox, E. (2000). A Climate-Based Design Depth of Moisture Change Map of Queensland and The Use of Such Maps to Classify Sites Under AS 2870-1996. Australian Geomechanics Volume 3, Number 4, 53 to 60. 8. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (Douglas) has prepared this report for the proposed subdivision at 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin. This report is provided for the exclusive use MAJP Consulting and Novato Group Pty Ltd ATF Tewantin Unit Trust for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of Douglas, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to Douglas for any loss or damage. In preparing this report Douglas has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after Douglas' field testing has been completed. Douglas' advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by Douglas in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 19
Page 15 of 15 The assessment of atypical safety hazards arising from this advice is restricted to the geotechnical components set out in this report and based on known project conditions and stated design advice and assumptions. While some recommendations for safe controls may be provided, detailed ‘safety in design’ assessment is outside the current scope of this report and requires additional project data and assessment. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. Douglas cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by Douglas. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 20
Appendix A
About This Report
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 21
About this Report
October 2024
Introduction changes. They may not be the same at
These notes have been provided to amplify the time of construction as are indicated
Douglas’ report in regard to classification in the report; and
methods, field procedures and the comments
section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid
reports. will mask any groundwater inflow. Water
Douglas’ reports are based on information has to be blown out of the hole and
gained from limited subsurface excavations drilling mud must first be washed out of
and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of the hole if water measurements are to be
local geology and experience. For this reason, made.
they must be regarded as interpretive rather
than factual documents, limited to some More reliable measurements can be made by
extent by the scope of information on which installing standpipes which are read at
they rely. intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks
for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed
Copyright in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low
This report is the property of Douglas Partners permeability soils or where there may be
Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the interference from a perched water table.
purpose for which it was commissioned and in
accordance with the Engagement Terms for Reports
the commission supplied at the time of The report has been prepared by qualified
proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in personnel, is based on the information
any form whatsoever is prohibited. obtained from field and laboratory testing, and
has been undertaken to current engineering
Borehole and Test Pit Logs standards of interpretation and analysis.
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this Where the report has been prepared for a
report are an engineering and/or geological specific design proposal, the information and
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, interpretation may not be relevant if the
and their reliability will depend to some extent design proposal is changed. If this happens,
on frequency of sampling and the method of Douglas will be pleased to review the report
drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous and the sufficiency of the investigation work.
undisturbed sampling or core drilling will
provide the most reliable assessment, but this Every care is taken with the report as it relates
is not always practicable or possible to justify to interpretation of subsurface conditions,
on economic grounds. In any case the discussion of geotechnical and environmental
boreholes and test pits represent only a very aspects, and recommendations or
small sample of the total subsurface profile. suggestions for design and construction.
However, Douglas cannot always anticipate or
Interpretation of the information and its assume responsibility for:
application to design and construction should
therefore take into account the spacing of • Unexpected variations in ground
boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, conditions. The potential for this will
and the possibility of other than 'straight line'
depend partly on borehole or pit spacing
variations between the test locations.
and sampling frequency;
Groundwater
Where groundwater levels are measured in • Changes in policy or interpretations of
boreholes there are several potential policy by statutory authorities; or
problems, namely:
• The actions of contractors responding to
• In low permeability soils groundwater commercial pressures.
may enter the hole very slowly or perhaps If these occur, Douglas will be pleased to assist
not at all during the time the hole is left with investigations or advice to resolve the
open; matter.
• A localised, perched water table may lead
to an erroneous indication of the true
water table;
• Water table levels will vary from time to
time with seasons or recent weather
1 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 22
About this Report Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, Douglas requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. Douglas would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of intentionally blank work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site. 2 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 23
Appendix B
Test Location Plan
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 24
Site
2
Location Plan
1
4
3
6
R ST
BUTLE
5
GYMPIE ST
LEGEND:
Bore Location and Number
REV DESCRIPTION/COMMENT DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT: NOTE: PROJECT NAME: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT No:
0 12/09/2025 JST
MAJP Consulting 237894.00
· Base image from MetroMap (Dated 23.05.2025) Proposed Subdivision
· Site locality image from OpenStreetMap. Not to scale. DRAWING No:
SCALE: PROJECT ADDRESS: TEST LOCATION PLAN 1
0 4 8 12 16 20 m
REVISION:
N OFFICE: SUNSHINE COAST
2 Mallet Street, Kunda Park, QLD 4556 SCALE 1:600 (A3)
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin 0
COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM: GDA2020 / MGA ZONE 56
Page 25
Appendix C
Sampling, Testing and Excavation Methodology
Soil Descriptions
Boreholes Logs
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 26
Sampling, Testing and Excavation Terminology
Symbols
Methodology Abbreviations
March 2025
Sampling and Testing Field and Laboratory Testing
A record of samples retained, and field testing A record that field and laboratory testing was
performed is usually shown on a Douglas performed is indicated by the following
Partners’ log with samples appearing to the left abbreviation codes.
of a depth scale, and selected field and laboratory
Test Type Code
testing (including results, where relevant)
appearing to the right of the scale, as illustrated Pocket penetrometer (kPa) `PP`
below: Photo ionisation detector (ppm) `PID`
Standard Penetration Test SPT`
`x/y`=x blows for y mm
penetration
`HB`= hammer bouncing
`HW`= fell under weight of
hammer
Shear vane (kPa) `V`
Unconfined compressive `UCS`
strength, (MPa)
Point load test, (MPa), `PLT(_)`
axial `(A)`, diametric `(D)`,
irregular `(I)`
Sampling `DCP9/150
Dynamic cone penetrometer,
The type or intended purpose for which a sample followed by blow count `
was taken is indicated by the following penetration increment in mm
abbreviation codes.
(cone tip, generally in
Sample Type Code accordance with AS1289.6.3.2)
Auger sample `A` Perth sand penetrometer, `PSP/150`
Acid Sulfate sample `ASS` followed by blow count
Bulk sample `B` penetration increment in mm
Core sample `C` (flat tip, generally in accordance
Disturbed sample `D` with AS1289.6.3.3)
Environmental sample `ES` Dynamic probe super heavy, DPSH/100
Driven Tube sample `DT` followed by blow count
Gas sample `G` penetration increment in mm
Piston sample `P`
Sample from SPT test `SPT` Groundwater Observations
water seepage/inflow
Undisturbed tube sample `U `
1
Water sample `W`
water seepage/outflow
Material Sample MT
Core sample for unconfined `UCS`
compressive strength testing standing or observed water level
1
– numeric suffixes indicate tube diameter/width in mm
The above codes only indicate that a sample was `NFGWO` no free groundwater observed
retained, and not that testing was scheduled or
performed. `OBS` observations obscured by drilling
fluids
1 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 27
Terminology
Sampling, Testing and Symbols
Excavation Methodology Abbreviations
Drilling or Excavation Methods/Tools
The drilling/excavation methods used to perform
the investigation may be shown either in a
dedicated column down the left-hand edge of
the log, or stated in the log footer. In some
circumstances abbreviation codes may be used.
Method Abbreviation
Code
Direct Push `DP`
Solid flight auger. Suffixes: AD1`
/T` = tungsten carbide tip,
/V` = v-shaped tip
Air Track `AT`
Diatube `DT1`
Hand auger `HA1`
Hand tools (unspecified) `HAND`
Existing exposure `X`
Hollow flight auger `HSA1`
HQ coring `HQ3`
HMLC series coring `HMLC`
NMLC series coring `NMLC`
NQ coring `NQ3`
PQ coring `PQ3`
Predrilled `PD`
Push tube `PT1`
Ripping tyne/ripper `R`
Rock roller `RR1`
Rock breaker/hydraulic `EH`
hammer
Sonic drilling `SON1`
Mud/blade bucket `MB1`
Toothed bucket `TB1`
Vibrocore `VC1`
Vacuum excavation `VE`
Wash bore `WB1`
(unspecified bit type)
1
– numeric suffixes indicate tool diameter/width in mm
2 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 28
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
March 2024
Introduction
All materials which are not considered to be “in-situ rock” are described in general accordance with the soil
description model of AS 1726-2017 Part 6.1.3, and can be broken down into the following description
structure:
classification
name detailed description
(SC) Clayey SAND, trace silt; grey, fine to medium grained
The “classification” comprises a two character “group symbol” providing a general summary of dominant
soil characteristics. The “name” summarises the particle sizes within the soil which most influence its
behaviour. The detailed description presents more information about composition, condition, structure,
and origin of the soil.
Classification, naming and description of soils require the relative proportion of particles of different sizes
within the whole soil mixture to be considered.
Particle size designation and Behaviour Model
Solid particles within a soil are Particle Size Particle Behaviour Model
differentiated on the basis of size. Designation Size Behaviour Approximate
(mm) Dry Mass
The engineering behaviour properties of a
Boulder >200 Excluded from particle
soil can subsequently be modelled to be
Cobble 63 - 200 behaviour model as
either “fine grained” (also known as
“oversize”
“cohesive” behaviour) or “coarse grained”
(“non cohesive” behaviour), depending on Gravel1 2.36 - 63
Coarse >65%
the relative proportion of fine or coarse Sand1 0.075 - 2.36
fractions in the soil mixture. Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Fine >35%
Clay <0.002
1
– refer grain size subdivision descriptions below
The behaviour model boundaries defined above are not precise, and the material behaviour should be
assumed from the name given to the material (which considers the particle fraction which dominates the
behaviour, refer “component proportions” below), rather than strict observance of the proportions of
particle sizes. For example, if a material is named a “Sandy CLAY”, this is indicative that the material exhibits
fine grained behaviour, even if the dry mass of coarse grained material may exceed 65%.
Component proportions
The relative proportion of the dry mass of each particle size fraction is assessed to be a “primary”,
“secondary”, or “minor” component of the soil mixture, depending on its influence over the soil behaviour.
Component Definition1 Relative Proportion
Proportion In Fine Grained Soil In Coarse Grained
Designation Soil
Primary The component (particle size The clay/silt The sand/gravel
designation, refer above) which component with the component with the
dominates the engineering greater proportion greater proportion
behaviour of the soil
Secondary Any component which is not the Any component with Any granular
primary, but is significant to the greater than 30% component with
engineering properties of the soil proportion greater than 30%; or
Any fine component
with greater than
12%
Minor2 Present in the soil, but not All other components All other
significant to its engineering components
properties
1
As defined in AS1726-2017 6.1.4.4
2
In the detailed material description, minor components are split into two further sub-categories. Refer “identification of minor
components” below.
Composite Materials
In certain situations, a lithology description may describe more than one material, for example, collectively
describing a layer of interbedded sand and clay. In such a scenario, the two materials would be described
independently, with the names preceded or followed by a statement describing the arrangement by which
the materials co-exist. For example, “INTERBEDDED Silty CLAY AND SAND”.
1 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 29
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Classification
The soil classification comprises a two character group symbol. The first character identifies the primary
component. The second character identifies either the grading or presence of fines in a coarse grained soil,
or the plasticity in a fine grained soil. Refer AS1726-2017 6.1.6 for further clarification.
Soil Name
For most soils, the name is derived with the primary Component Prominence in Soil Name
component included as the noun (in upper case), 1
preceded by any secondary components stated in Primary Noun (eg “CLAY”)
an adjective form. In this way, the soil name also Secondary Adjective modifier (eg “Sandy”)
describes the general composition and indicates Minor No influence
the dominant behaviour of the material. 1
– for determination of component proportions, refer
component proportions on previous page
For materials which cannot be disaggregated, or which are not comprised of rock or mineral fragments,
the names “ORGANIC MATTER” or “ARTIFICIAL MATERIAL” may be used, in accordance with AS1726-2017
Table 14.
Commercial or colloquial names are not used for the soil name where a component derived name is
possible (for example “Gravelly SAND” rather than “CRACKER DUST”).
Materials of “fill” or “topsoil” origin are generally assigned a name derived from the primary/secondary
component (where appropriate). In log descriptions this is preceded by uppercase “FILL” or “TOPSOIL”.
Origin uncertainty is indicated in the description by the characters `(?)`, with the degree of uncertainty
described (using the terms “probably” or “possibly” in the origin column, or at the end of the description).
Identification of minor components
Minor components are identified in the soil description immediately following the soil name. The minor
component fraction is usually preceded with a term indicating the relative proportion of the component.
Minor Component Relative Proportion
Proportion Term In Fine Grained Soil In Coarse Grained Soil
With All fractions: 15-30% Clay/silt: 5-12%
sand/gravel: 15-30%
Trace All fractions: 0-15% Clay/silt: 0-5%
sand/gravel: 0-15%
The terms “with” and “trace” generally apply only to gravel or fine particle fractions. Where
cobbles/boulders are encountered in minor proportions (generally less than about 12%) the term
“occasional” may be used. This term describes the sporadic distribution of the material within the confines
of the investigation excavation only, and there may be considerable variation in proportion over a wider
area which is difficult to factually characterise due to the relative size of the particles and the investigation
methods.
Soil Composition
Plasticity Grain Size
Descriptive Laboratory liquid limit range Type Particle size (mm)
Term Silt Clay Gravel Coarse 19 - 63
Non-plastic Not applicable Not applicable Medium 6.7 - 19
materials Fine 2.36 – 6.7
Low ≤50 ≤35 Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36
plasticity Medium 0.21 - 0.6
Medium Not applicable >35 and ≤50 Fine 0.075 - 0.21
plasticity
High >50 >50 Grading
plasticity Grading Term Particle size (mm)
Note, Plasticity descriptions generally describe the Well A good representation of all
plasticity behaviour of the whole of the fine grained particle sizes
soil, not individual fine grained fractions. Poorly An excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the
specified range
Uniformly Essentially of one size
Gap A deficiency of a particular
size or size range within the
total range
Note, AS1726-2017 provides terminology for additional attributes not listed here.
2 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 30
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Soil Condition
Moisture
The moisture condition of soils is assessed relative to the plastic limit for fine grained soils, while for coarse
grained soils it is assessed based on the appearance and feel of the material. The moisture condition of a
material is considered to be independent of stratigraphy (although commonly these are related), and this
data is presented in its own column on logs.
Applicability Term Tactile Assessment Abbreviation
code
Fine Dry of plastic limit Hard and friable or powdery `w<PL`
Near plastic limit Can be moulded `w=PL`
Wet of plastic limit Water residue remains on hands when `w>PL`
handling
Near liquid limit “oozes” when agitated `w=LL`
Wet of liquid limit “oozes” `w>LL`
Coarse Dry Non-cohesive and free running `D`
Moist Feels cool, darkened in colour, particles may `M`
stick together
Wet Feels cool, darkened in colour, particles may `W`
stick together, free water forms when handling
The abbreviation code `NDF`, meaning “not-assessable due to drilling fluid use” may also be used.
Note, observations relating to free ground water or drilling fluids are provided independent of soil moisture
condition.
Consistency/Density/Compaction/Cementation/Extremely Weathered Material
These concepts give an indication of how the material may respond to applied forces (when considered in
conjunction with other attributes of the soil). This behaviour can vary independent of the composition of
the material, and on logs these are described in an independent column and are generally mutually
exclusive (i.e it is inappropriate to describe both consistency and compaction at the same time). The
method by which the behaviour is described depends on the behaviour model and other characteristics of
the soil as follows:
• In fine grained soils, the “consistency” describes the ease with which the soil can be remoulded, and is
generally correlated against the materials undrained shear strength;
• In granular materials, the relative density describes how tightly packed the particles are, and is
generally correlated against the density index;
• In anthropogenically modified materials, the compaction of the material is described qualitatively;
• In cemented soils (both natural and anthropogenic), the cemented “strength” is described
qualitatively, relative to the difficulty with which the material is disaggregated; and
• In soils of extremely weathered material origin, the engineering behaviour may be governed by relic
rock features, and expected behaviour needs to be assessed based the overall material description.
Quantitative engineering performance of these materials may be determined by laboratory testing or
estimated by correlated field tests (for example penetration or shear vane testing). In some cases,
performance may be assessed by tactile or other subjective methods, in which case investigation logs will
show the estimated value enclosed in round brackets, for example `(VS)`.
Consistency (fine grained soils)
Consistency Tactile Assessment Undrained Abbreviation
Term Shear Code
Strength (kPa)
Very soft Extrudes between fingers when squeezed <12 `VS`
Soft Mouldable with light finger pressure >12 - ≤25 `S`
Firm Mouldable with strong finger pressure >25 - ≤50 `F`
Stiff Cannot be moulded by fingers >50 - ≤100 `St`
Very stiff Indented by thumbnail >100 - ≤200 `VSt`
Hard Indented by thumbnail with difficulty >200 `H`
Friable Easily crumbled or broken into small pieces by hand - `Fr`
Relative Density (coarse grained soils)
Relative Density Term Density Index Abbreviation Code
Very loose <15 `VL`
Loose >15 - ≤35 `L`
Medium dense >35 - ≤65 `MD`
Dense >65 - ≤85 `D`
Very dense >85 `VD`
Note, tactile assessment of relative density is difficult, and generally requires penetration testing, hence a
tactile assessment guide is not provided.
3 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 31
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Compaction (anthropogenically modified soil) Cementation (natural and anthropogenic)
Compaction Term Abbreviation Code Cementation Term Abbreviation Code
Well compacted `WC` Moderately cemented `MOD`
Poorly compacted `PC` Weakly cemented `WEK`
Moderately compacted `MC`
Variably compacted `VC`
Extremely Weathered Material
AS1726-2017 considers weathered material to be soil if the unconfined compressive strength is less than
0.6 MPa (i.e. less than very low strength rock). These materials may be identified as “extremely weathered
material” in reports and by the abbreviation code `XWM` on log sheets. This identification is not correlated
to any specific qualitative or quantitative behaviour, and the engineering properties of this material must
therefore be assessed according to engineering principles with reference to any relic rock structure, fabric,
or texture described in the description.
Soil Origin
Term Description Abbreviation
Code
Residual Derived from in-situ weathering of the underlying rock `RS`
Extremely Formed from in-situ weathering of geological formations. Has `XWM`
weathered material strength of less than ‘very low’ as per as1726 but retains the
structure or fabric of the parent rock.
Alluvial Deposited by streams and rivers `ALV`
Fluvial Deposited by channel fill and overbank (natural levee, crevasse `FLV`
splay or flood basin)
Estuarine Deposited in coastal estuaries `EST`
Marine Deposited in a marine environment `MAR`
Lacustrine Deposited in freshwater lakes `LAC`
Aeolian Carried and deposited by wind `AEO`
Colluvial Soil and rock debris transported down slopes by gravity `COL`
Slopewash Thin layers of soil and rock debris gradually and slowly `SW`
deposited by gravity and possibly water
Topsoil Mantle of surface soil, often with high levels of organic material `TOP`
Fill Any material which has been moved by man `FILL`
Littoral Deposited on the lake or seashore `LIT`
Unidentifiable Not able to be identified `UID`
Cobbles and Boulders
The presence of particles considered to be “oversize” may be described using one of the following
strategies:
• Oversize encountered in a minor proportion (when considered relative to the wider area) are noted in
the soil description; or
• Where a significant proportion of oversize is encountered, the cobbles/boulders are described
independent of the soil description, in a similar manner to composite soils (described above) but
qualified with “MIXTURE OF”.
intentionally blank
4 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 32
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 2.9 AHD LOCATION ID: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502847.5, N:7081814.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
TOPSOIL / Sandy CLAY (CI): dark brown; medium 0.00m - 5 10 15
plasticity; fine to medium sand; organics. 2.00m: ASS
TOP F M samples
taken every
AD/T
0.20 to 3m
0.25m
Sandy SILT (ML) / Silty SAND (SM): sandy silt: grey interval
mottled pale brown; low plasticity. Silty sand; fine to
0
0 medium, with coarse.
RS F M
0.60m: pale brown
0.80
0.90 pp=480 kPa U50 PP 250kPa
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): orange mottled pale brown;
2
1 high plasticity; fine to medium sand; with fine to 1
medium gravel. 1.03
1.30m: orange mottled grey
PP 420kPa
DCP9/100
RS VSt M
1.70m: red-orange; with fine to coarse gravel
20/50
PP 480kPa
1
2 2
2.10 2.10
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey white; high plasticity.
D
2.40 PP 420kPa
RS VSt M
2.60m: pale grey mottled pale brown-red
PP 260kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
-0
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 33
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 2.6 AHD LOCATION ID: 2
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502812.4, N:7081832.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
TOPSOIL / Sandy CLAY (CI): dark brown; medium 0.00m - 5 10 15
plasticity; fine to medium sand; organics. 2.00m: ASS
TOP St M samples
taken every
AD/T
0.20 to 3m
0.25m
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): dark brown; medium interval
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
0 PP 120kPa
0
0.50m: pale brown RS St M
PP 180kPa
2
0.90 PP 250kPa
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): orange mottled grey; high
1 plasticity; fine to medium sand; with fine to medium 1
gravel.
DCP9/100
RS VSt M
1.30m: red-orange; with fine to coarse gravel
PP 240kPa
1
1.70
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey mottled pale brown-red;
high plasticity.
PP 260kPa
2 2
RS VSt M
PP 380kPa
20/70
0
2.60m: pale grey white streaked pale brown
PP 470kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 34
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 3.8 AHD LOCATION ID: 3
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502843.7, N:7081779.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
TOPSOIL / Sandy CLAY (CI): dark brown; medium 0.00m - 5 10 15
plasticity; fine to medium sand; organics. 2.00m: ASS
TOP VSt M samples
taken every 20/50
AD/T
0.20 to 3m
0.25m
FILL / Sandy GRAVEL (GW): brown; fine to coarse; interval
fine to medium sand.
0 FILL VD M
0
0.40 0.40
Sandy SILT (ML) / Silty SAND (SM): sandy silt: grey
mottled pale brown; low plasticity. Silty sand; fine to
medium, with coarse.
B
M
RS F to
3
W 0.80
0.80m: pale brown
1 1
DCP9/100
1.15
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): orange mottled pale brown;
medium plasticity; fine to medium sand.
1.30m: red-orange; with fine to coarse gravel
PP 430kPa
RS VSt M
2
1.80
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey mottled pale brown-red;
high plasticity.
PP 480kPa
2 2
20/50
VSt
RS to M PP >600kPa
H
2.50m: pale grey white
1
PP 460kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 35
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 3.5 AHD LOCATION ID: 4
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502815.8, N:7081799.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
TOPSOIL / Sandy CLAY (CI): brown; medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand; organics.
TOP St M
AD/T
0.20 to 3m
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): pale brown; medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
0 PP 260kPa
0
RS VSt M
3
0.60 PP 210kPa
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): orange mottled pale brown;
high plasticity; fine to medium sand; with fine to 0.70
medium gravel.
pp=250kPa U50 PP 190kPa
1 1
St
RS to M 1.09
VSt
DCP9/100
PP 420kPa
2
1.60
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey mottled pale brown-red; 20/60
high plasticity.
PP 510kPa
2 2
2.00m: with fine to medium gravel
RS VSt M
PP 490kPa
20/70
1
2.60m: no gravel
PP 420kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 36
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 4.6 AHD LOCATION ID: 5
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502837.9, N:7081745.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
FILL / Sandy GRAVEL (GW): brown; fine to coarse; 20/50
fine to medium sand.
FILL VD M
AD/T
0.20 to 3m
Sandy CLAY (CL-CI): orange; low to medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
0 RS St M
0
0.40
Sandy SILT (ML) / Silty SAND (SM): sandy silt: grey
mottled pale brown; low plasticity. Silty sand; fine to
medium, with coarse.
4
0.70m: pale brown RS F M
1 1
1.10
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): grey mottled red; high
plasticity; fine to medium sand; with fine to coarse
gravel.
DCP9/100
1.30m: grey mottled orange-red; with fine to
medium gravel
PP 300kPa
RS VSt M
3
20/60
1.80
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey mottled pale brown-red;
high plasticity.
PP 340kPa
2 2
RS VSt M PP 340kPa
20/80
2
2.60m: pale grey white
PP 380kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 37
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: MAJP Consulting SURFACE LEVEL: 4.2 AHD LOCATION ID: 6
PROJECT: Proposed Subdivision COORDINATE: E:502803.2, N:7081765.0 PROJECT No: 237894.00
LOCATION: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 08/09/25
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY. (*)
CONSIS.(*)
GROUNDWATER
TEST TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESULTS
REMARKS
INTERVAL
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(# )
AND
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
TOPSOIL / Sandy CLAY (CI): brown; medium 0.00m - 5 10 15
TOP VSt M 2.00m: ASS 20/80
plasticity; fine to medium sand; organics.
0.10 samples
FILL / Sandy GRAVEL (GW): brown; fine to coarse; taken every
AD/T tofine
3mto medium sand. FILL VD M
0.25m
4
interval
0 0.30
0 Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): pale brown; medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
RS St M
0.50
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): orange mottled pale brown;
high plasticity; fine to medium sand; with fine to
PP 110kPa
medium gravel.
St
RS M
PP 210kPa
1 VSt 1
1.00
pp=360kPa U50
1.20
3
1.21
Silty CLAY (CH): pale grey mottled pale brown-red;
high plasticity.
PP 260kPa
DCP9/100
PP 310kPa
2 2
RS VSt M
2
PP 420kPa
20/40
PP 510kPa
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
Borehole discontinued at 3.00m depth.
Limit of Investigation.
1
NOTES: (#)Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Drillman GT10-KD OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: AD/T to 3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of investigation
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 38
Appendix D
Laboratory Results
Proposed Subdivision 237894.00.R.001.Rev0
12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin October 2025
Page 39
Material Test Report
Report Number: 237894.00-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 03/10/2025 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: MAJP Consulting Sunshine Coast Laboratory
5 Twigrush Court, Noosaville QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Michael Michell
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Project Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin QLD
Work Request: 35119
Sample Number: SS-35119A
Date Sampled: 08/09/2025 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 09/09/2025 - 15/09/2025
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Location: Bore 1, Depth: 0.8 - 1.03 m
Assistant Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Shrink Swell Index (AS 1289 7.1.1 & 2.1.1)
Iss (%) 1.2
Visual Description
* Shrink Swell Index (Iss) reported as the percentage vertical strain per
pF change in suction.
Core Shrinkage Test
Shrinkage Strain - Oven Dried (%) 2.1
Estimated % by volume of significant inert inclusions 5
Cracking Moderately
Cracked
Crumbling No
Moisture Content (%) 18.8
Swell Test
Initial Pocket Penetrometer (kPa) 480
Final Pocket Penetrometer (kPa) 220
Initial Moisture Content (%) 19.4
Final Moisture Content (%) 19.3
Swell (%) -0.0
* Accreditation does not cover the performance of pocket penetrometer
readings.
Report Number: 237894.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 1 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 40
Material Test Report
Report Number: 237894.00-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 03/10/2025 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: MAJP Consulting Sunshine Coast Laboratory
5 Twigrush Court, Noosaville QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Michael Michell
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Project Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin QLD
Work Request: 35119
Sample Number: SS-35119B
Date Sampled: 08/09/2025 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 09/09/2025 - 15/09/2025
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Location: Bore 4, Depth: 0.7 - 1.09 m
Assistant Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Shrink Swell Index (AS 1289 7.1.1 & 2.1.1)
Iss (%) 3.0
Visual Description
* Shrink Swell Index (Iss) reported as the percentage vertical strain per
pF change in suction.
Core Shrinkage Test
Shrinkage Strain - Oven Dried (%) 5.4
Estimated % by volume of significant inert inclusions 0
Cracking Slightly
Cracked
Crumbling No
Moisture Content (%) 30.7
Swell Test
Initial Pocket Penetrometer (kPa) 250
Final Pocket Penetrometer (kPa) 320
Initial Moisture Content (%) 29.7
Final Moisture Content (%) 29.9
Swell (%) 0.0
* Accreditation does not cover the performance of pocket penetrometer
readings.
Report Number: 237894.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 2 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 41
Material Test Report
Report Number: 237894.00-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 03/10/2025 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: MAJP Consulting Sunshine Coast Laboratory
5 Twigrush Court, Noosaville QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Michael Michell
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Project Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin QLD
Work Request: 35119
Sample Number: SS-35119D
Date Sampled: 08/09/2025 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 09/09/2025 - 30/09/2025
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Location: Bore 3, Depth: 0.4 - 0.8 m
Assistant Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Sieve Passed % Clay Passing Limits Silt Sand Gravel Cob
0.075
0.425
19 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
13.2
0.3
0.6
6.7
9.5
19
(mm)
13.2 mm 99 100
9.5 mm 98
90
6.7 mm 97
4.75 mm 96 80
Percent Passing
2.36 mm 92 70
1.18 mm 87
60
0.6 mm 82
0.425 mm 78 50
0.3 mm 73
40
0.15 mm 58
0.075 mm 36 30
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.9.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.2) Min Max 20
Sample History Oven Dried
10
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Retained 0.425 (%) 4
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30
Liquid Limit (%) 18
Particle Size (mm)
Plastic Limit (%) Not Obtainable
Plasticity Index (%) Non Plastic
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.9.2
Linear Shrinkage (%) 2.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling None
Emerson Class Number of a Soil (AS 1289 3.8.1) Min Max
Emerson Class 5
Soil Description
Nature of Water Distilled
Report Number: 237894.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 4 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 42
Material Test Report
Report Number: 237894.00-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 03/10/2025 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: MAJP Consulting Sunshine Coast Laboratory
5 Twigrush Court, Noosaville QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Michael Michell
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Project Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin QLD
Work Request: 35119
Sample Number: SS-35119D
Date Sampled: 08/09/2025 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 09/09/2025 - 29/09/2025
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Location: Bore 3, Depth: 0.4 - 0.8 m
Assistant Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
California Bearing Ratio (AS 1289 6.1.1 & 2.1.1) Min Max California Bearing Ratio
CBR taken at 5 mm
CBR % 4.5
Method of Compactive Effort Standard
Method used to Determine MDD AS 1289 5.1.1 & 2.1.1
2
Method used to Determine Plasticity AS1289 3.9.2
Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) 1.97
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 10.5
Laboratory Density Ratio (%) 98.0
Laboratory Moisture Ratio (%) 102.0
Dry Density after Soaking (t/m3) 1.93 1
Field Moisture Content (%) 14.6
Moisture Content at Placement (%) 10.9
Moisture Content Top 30mm (%) 12.7
Moisture Content Rest of Sample (%) 13.2
Mass Surcharge (kg) 4.5
Soaking Period (days) 4 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Curing Hours (h) 24
Swell (%) 0.0
Results 2.5 5
Oversize Material (mm) 19
Oversize Material Included Excluded
Oversize Material (%) 0.0
Report Number: 237894.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 5 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 43
Material Test Report
Report Number: 237894.00-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 03/10/2025 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: MAJP Consulting Sunshine Coast Laboratory
5 Twigrush Court, Noosaville QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Michael Michell
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Project Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin QLD
Work Request: 35119
Sample Number: SS-35119C
Date Sampled: 08/09/2025 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 09/09/2025 - 18/09/2025
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Martin Cook
Sample Location: Bore 6, Depth: 1.0 - 1.21 m
Assistant Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Sieve Passed % Clay Passing Limits Silt Sand Gravel Cob
0.075
0.425
19 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
13.2
0.3
0.6
6.7
9.5
19
(mm)
13.2 mm 96 100
9.5 mm 93
90
6.7 mm 88
4.75 mm 84 80
Percent Passing
2.36 mm 80 70
1.18 mm 76
60
0.6 mm 74
0.425 mm 73 50
0.3 mm 71
40
0.15 mm 65
0.075 mm 58 30
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 20
Sample History Oven Dried
10
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Liquid Limit (%) 50
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30
Plastic Limit (%) 23
Particle Size (mm)
Plasticity Index (%) 27
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.2
Linear Shrinkage (%) 11.0
Cracking Crumbling Curling Cracking
Report Number: 237894.00-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 3 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 44
237894.00.ASS
© 2024 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Summary of Results - Acid Sulfate Soils
Project No: 237894.00
Project Name: Proposed Subdivision
Location: 12-14 Gympie Street, Tewantin
Sample information Screening test results Laboratory analysis results (acid base accounting)
Depth from (m)
Reduced level
corroborated
Depth to (m)
Location ID
pH change
(Y/N or NA)
Net acidity
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
Reaction
Adopted
strength
texture
ANCBT
(AHD)
pHFOX
pHKCl
ANC
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
SNAS
TAA
pHF
SHCl
SKCl
Scr
Sample description
Coarse texture: sands to loamy sands and peats 0.03
Assessment criteria (pH units) <4 <3 - 1.0 Action criteria (%S) Medium texture: clayey sand to light clays 0.06a/0.03b
Fine texture: light medium to heavy clays 0.1a/0.03b
Depth from (m)
Reduced level
corroborated
Depth to (m)
Location ID
pH change
Net Acidity
(Y/N or NA)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
Reaction
Strength
Adopted
Texture
ANCBT
(AHD)
pHFOX
pHKCl
ANC
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
SNAS
TAA
pHF
SHCl
SKCl
Scr
Sample Description
1 0.00 0.25 2.90 to 2.65 TOPSOIL/Sandy CLAY - dark brown F 6.1 3.3 3 2.8
1 0.25 0.50 2.65 to 2.40 Sandy SILT - grey mottled pale brown F 4.9 4.1 3 0.8
1 0.50 0.75 2.40 to 2.15 Sandy SILT - grey mottled pale brown F 4.7 4.0 2 0.7
1 0.75 1.00 2.15 to 1.90 Sandy SILT-pale brown F 4.7 4.0 2 0.7
1 1.00 1.25 1.90 to 1.65 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled pale brown F 4.6 3.9 2 0.7 4.6 0.060 0.010 0.120 0.130
1 1.25 1.50 1.65 to 1.40 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled grey F 4.6 3.9 2 0.7
1 1.50 1.75 1.40 to 1.15 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled grey F 4.6 3.8 2 0.8
1 1.75 2.00 1.15 to 0.90 Silty Sandy CLAY - red-orange F 4.6 3.8 2 0.8
2 0.00 0.25 2.60 to 2.35 TOPSOIL/Sandy CLAY - dark brown F 5.5 3.6 3 1.9
2 0.25 0.50 2.35 to 2.10 Silty Sandy CLAY - dark brown F 5.1 3.8 3 1.3 4.8 0.010 0.012 0.150 0.170
2 0.50 0.75 2.10 to 1.85 Silty Sandy CLAY - pale brown F 4.9 4.0 2 0.9
2 0.75 1.00 1.85 to 1.60 Silty Sandy CLAY - pale brown F 4.8 4.0 2 0.8
2 1.00 1.25 1.60 to 1.35 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled grey F 4.7 3.8 3 0.9 4.4 0.060 0.080 <0.005 0.170 0.033 0.200
2 1.25 1.50 1.35 to 1.10 Silty Sandy CLAY - red-orange F 4.8 3.9 2 0.9
2 1.50 1.75 1.10 to 0.85 Silty Sandy CLAY - red-orange F 4.8 3.9 3 0.9
2 1.75 2.00 0.85 to 0.60 Silty CLAY - pale grey mottled pale brown-red F 5.1 4.0 2 1.1
3 0.00 0.25 3.80 to 3.55 TOPSOIL/Sandy CLAY - dark brown F 6.5 4.4 4 2.1
3 0.25 0.50 3.55 to 3.30 FILL/Sandy GRAVEL C 7.2 4.7 4 2.5
3 0.50 0.75 3.30 to 3.05 Sandy SILT - grey mottled pale brown F 6.2 3.7 3 2.5 5.2 0.010 <0.005 0.020 0.020
3 0.75 1.00 3.05 to 2.80 Sandy SILT - pale brown F 5.4 4.3 2 1.1
3 1.00 1.25 2.80 to 2.55 Sandy SILT - pale brown F 5.3 4.2 2 1.1
3 1.25 1.50 2.55 to 2.30 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled pale brown F 4.8 3.9 2 0.9
3 1.50 1.75 2.30 to 2.05 Silty Sandy CLAY - red-orange F 4.8 3.9 2 0.9
3 1.75 2.00 2.05 to 1.80 Silty CLAY - pale grey mottled pale brown-red F 5.0 4.0 2 1.0
6 0.00 0.25 4.20 to 3.95 TOPSOIL/Sandy CLAY - dark brown F 7.0 4.8 4 2.2
6 0.25 0.50 3.95 to 3.70 FILL/Sandy GRAVEL C 7.0 5.9 3 1.1
6 0.50 0.75 3.70 to 3.45 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled pale brown F 5.4 4.7 3 0.7
6 0.75 1.00 3.45 to 3.20 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled pale brown F 5.1 4.1 3 1.0 4.7 0.030 <0.005 0.070 0.070
6 1.00 1.25 3.20 to 2.95 Silty Sandy CLAY - orange mottled pale brown F 4.8 4.3 3 0.5
6 1.25 1.50 2.95 to 2.70 Silty CLAY - pale grey mottled pale brown-red F 4.6 3.8 2 0.8 4.2 0.050 0.070 <0.005 0.280 0.043 0.320
6 1.50 1.75 2.70 to 2.45 Silty CLAY - pale grey mottled pale brown-red F 4.7 3.8 2 0.9
6 1.75 2.00 2.45 to 2.20 Silty CLAY - pale grey mottled pale brown-red F 4.7 3.8 2 0.9
Notes:
Adopted texture - C = coarse, M = medium, F = fine
pHF - Soil pH in water
pHFOX - Soil pH in peroxide
Reaction strength: 1.0; No reaction to slight. 2.0; Moderate reaction. 3.0; Strong reaction with persistent froth. 4.0; Extreme reaction.
pH change = pHF - pHFOX
pHKCL - KCl extractable pH
SKCl - KCl extractable sulfur
SHCl - HCl extractable sulfur
Scr - potential sulfidic acidity
TAA - titratable actual acidity (reported if pHKCL<6.5)
SNAS – retained acidity (reported if pHkCl < 4.5)
ANCBT – acid neutralising capacity (reported if pHKCl ≥ 6.5)
NT - Not tested
Blue depths indicate where samples have been collected at or below the groundwater table
Bold results are indicators of ASS conditions, noting:
Page 45
237894.00.ASS
© 2024 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Sample information Screening test results Laboratory analysis results (acid base accounting)
Depth from (m)
Reduced level
corroborated
Depth to (m)
Location ID
pH change
(Y/N or NA)
Net acidity
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
Reaction
Adopted
strength
texture
ANCBT
(AHD)
pHFOX
pHKCl
ANC
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
SNAS
TAA
pHF
SHCl
SKCl
Scr
Sample description
Coarse texture: sands to loamy sands and peats 0.03
Assessment criteria (pH units) <4 <3 - 1.0 Action criteria (%S) Medium texture: clayey sand to light clays 0.06a/0.03b
Fine texture: light medium to heavy clays 0.1a/0.03b
Depth from (m)
Reduced level
corroborated
Depth to (m)
Location ID
pH change
Net Acidity
(Y/N or NA)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
(pH units)
Reaction
Strength
Adopted
Texture
ANCBT
(AHD)
pHFOX
pHKCl
ANC
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
(%S)
SNAS
TAA
pHF
SHCl
SKCl
Scr
Sample Description
- Assessment criteria are considered a reasonable initial screening for AASS or PASS
- pHF<4 is indicative of the presence of actual ASS (AASS), although it is not conclusive of ASS on its own as naturally occurring non ASS soils can have pH F<5
- pHFOX<3 or pH Change ≥1 may indicate potential ASS (PASS), although exceptions apply. Laboratory testing required to confirm presence of Reduced Inorganic Sulfur (RIS)
- Refer to Table 5.1, A2, A3 of Sullivan,L. et al (2018) for further details
Shaded results trigger action (i.e. equal to or exceed the action criteria). Criteria is specific for soil texture and anticipated tonnage of soil disturbed.
Net Acidity can only include the measured ANC where the ANC has been corroborated by other data (for example slab incubation data) that demonstrates the soil material does not experience acidification during complete oxidation under field conditions.
a - Action criterion for disturbance of 1-1000 tonnes of material
b - Action criterion for disturbance of more than 1000 tonnes of material
The action criteria apply only to ASS materials and not to other acidic soils such as acidic peatlands and coastal heaths.
Page 46
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Site Number 20794 & 2780
Unit 2/ 54 Turbo Drive Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
NATA is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual Recognition
Coorparoo Arrangement for the mutual recognition of the
equivalence of testing, medical testing, calibration,
QLD 4151 inspection, proficiency testing scheme providers and
reference materials producers reports and certificates.
Attention: Brett Egen
Report 1266051-S
Project name 12-14 GYMPIE ST TEWANTIN
Project ID 237894.00
Received Date Sep 09, 2025
BORE 1 0.0- BORE 1 0.25- BORE 1 0.5- BORE 1 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027862 Se0027863 Se0027864 Se0027865
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.1 4.9 4.7 4.7
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.3 4.1 4.0 4.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
BORE 1 1.0- BORE 1 1.25- BORE 1 1.5- BORE 1 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027866 Se0027867 Se0027868 Se0027869
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
BORE 2 0.0- BORE 2 0.25- BORE 2 0.5- BORE 2 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027870 Se0027871 Se0027872 Se0027873
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.5 5.1 4.9 4.8
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 1 of 11
Date Reported: Sep 10, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1266051-S
Page 47
BORE 2 1.0- BORE 2 1.25- BORE 2 1.5- BORE 2 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027874 Se0027875 Se0027876 Se0027877
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.7 4.8 4.8 5.1
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
BORE 3 0.0- BORE 3 0.25- BORE 3 0.5- BORE 3 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027878 Se0027879 Se0027880 Se0027881
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.5 7.2 6.2 5.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.4 4.7 3.7 4.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0
BORE 3 1.0- BORE 3 1.25- BORE 3 1.5- BORE 3 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027882 Se0027883 Se0027884 Se0027885
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.3 4.8 4.8 5.0
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
BORE 6 0.0- BORE 6 0.25- BORE 6 0.5- BORE 6 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027886 Se0027887 Se0027888 Se0027889
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 7.0 7.0 5.4 5.1
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.8 5.9 4.7 4.1
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 2 of 11
Date Reported: Sep 10, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1266051-S
Page 48
BORE 6 1.0- BORE 6 1.25- BORE 6 1.5- BORE 6 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0027890 Se0027891 Se0027892 Se0027893
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.8
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 3 of 11
Date Reported: Sep 10, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1266051-S
Page 49
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Site Number 20794 & 2780
Unit 2/ 54 Turbo Drive Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
NATA is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual Recognition
Coorparoo Arrangement for the mutual recognition of the
equivalence of testing, medical testing, calibration,
QLD 4151 inspection, proficiency testing scheme providers and
reference materials producers reports and certificates.
Attention: Brett Egen
Report 1266894-S
Project name 12-14 GYMPIE ST TEWANTIN
Project ID 237894.00
Received Date Sep 11, 2025
Client Sample ID Bore 1 1.0-1.25 Bore 2 0.25-0.5 Bore 2 1.0-1.25 Bore 3 0.5-0.75
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
B25- B25- B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0034870 Se0034871 Se0034872 Se0034873
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units 4.6 4.8 4.4 5.2
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t 77 96 110 14
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.020
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCR) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S 0.010 0.012 < 0.005 < 0.005
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCR) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t 6.2 7.3 <3 <3
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S 0.060 0.010 0.060 0.010
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S N/A N/A 0.080 N/A
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S N/A N/A 0.033 N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S N/A N/A 0.024 N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t N/A N/A 15 N/A
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S N/A N/A N/A N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t N/A N/A N/A N/A
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.02
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t 84 100 120 14
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t 6.3 7.8 9.2 1.0
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 20 24 39 53
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 54 100 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % 46 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % 15 25 17 14
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 1 of 7
Date Reported: Sep 18, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1266894-S
Page 50
Client Sample ID Bore 6 0.75-1.0 Bore 6 1.25-1.5
Sample Matrix Soil Soil
B25- B25-
Eurofins Sample No. Se0034874 Se0034875
Date Sampled Sep 08, 2025 Sep 08, 2025
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units 4.7 4.2
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t 44 180
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S 0.070 0.28
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCR) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S < 0.005 < 0.005
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCR) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t <3 <3
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S 0.030 0.050
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S N/A 0.070
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S N/A 0.043
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S N/A 0.032
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t N/A 20
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor 2.0 2.0
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 N/A N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S N/A N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t N/A N/A
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
s-CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (including ANC) 0.02 %S 0.07 0.32
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t 44 200
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t 3.3 15
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 44 43
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g < 0.005 < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % < 0.1 < 0.1
Sample Properties
% Moisture 1 % 15 19
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia 4172 Page 2 of 7
Date Reported: Sep 18, 2025 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 1266894-S