Original source · versioned page text
Geotechnical Report
Attached to the e-mail MCU16/0081 Geotechnical report, Landscape Plan, SMP, Traffic report - Email 3 of 3.
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Aged Care Development
Lot 3 Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville
Prepared for:
Mr Peter Duffy
The Knowles Group
PO Box 117
Buderim QLD 4556
Email: [email protected]
Report Number: J000206-001-R-Rev0
April 2016
Core Consultants Pty Ltd
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 33 pages
Page 2
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
Executive Summary
Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) has carried out a geotechnical investigation for a proposed aged care
facility at Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville.
This report provides geotechnical advice regarding site preparation, earthworks, footing design, and
pavement design parameters. A desktop assessment regarding acid sulfate soils (ASS) was also carried
out.
The subsurface investigation comprised eight (8 No.) test pits (designated TP1 to TP6; and TP-P1 to TP-P2)
excavated utilising an 8 tonne excavator to depths of 3.5 m below ground level. Test pits TP-P1 and TP-P2
were taken to 1.0 m depth to assess proposed pavement subgrade conditions.
The general subsurface profile encountered in the test pits comprised:
TOPSOIL: comprising silty clay with traces of rootlets and organics to depths of between 0.1 m and
0.3 m below ground level (BGL); overlying
NATURAL SOILS: comprising stiff to hard silty clay to the depth of investigation of 3.5 m BGL; except
in test pits TP1, TP3 and TP6 which encountered
SILTSTONE: Extremely low strength, extremely weathered from depths ranging from 2.5 m to 2.8 m
BGL to the depth of investigation (i.e. 3.5 m BGL).
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits.
Site preparation will require clearing, stripping and grubbing. Fine rootlets and organics in the soils were
encountered in test pits up to about 0.3 m depth, however it is anticipated that grubbing of tree stumps and
tree roots will require localised stripping to greater depths. Root affected soils with tree roots up to about
50 mm to 100 mm diameter were noted in some of the test pits to depths of up to 0.6 m.
Earthworks should be generally carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3798-2007
Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.
The site classification is ‘Class ‘H2’ in accordance with AS2870-2011. The estimated ‘ys’ value for this site is
between 60 mm and 80 mm.
Building wall and column loads could be supported by strip or pad footing system suitable for a Class H2 site
classification. Footings should penetrate through any uncontrolled fill or unsuitable natural soils to found at
least 500 mm below platform level (750 mm below ground for articulated full masonry) and 200 mm into the
natural stiff (or stiffer) clay.
The following allowable bearing pressures may be adopted in natural materials for design purposes:
- Stiff clays: 100 kPa
- Very stiff clays: 200 kPa;
- Hard clays and extremely low strength siltstone: 400 kPa.
Laboratory CBR testing on the clay subgrade materials returned CBR values of 5 % to 9 %. Therefore,
based on our experience with similar materials, we recommend that preliminary pavement design should be
based on a CBR value of 5 % for the natural clayey soils.
Based on the investigation findings, it is our opinion that the presence of typical ASS materials is unlikely.
No excavation works are proposed below RL 5 m AHD. SPP14 therefore does not apply to the proposed
development. No further assessment of potential disturbance of ASS is required.
ii
Page 3
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 3
Fieldwork ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................... 3
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4
Published Geology............................................................................................................................... 4
Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 5
Earthworks ........................................................................................................................................... 5
6.1.1 Site Preparation & Trafficability ....................................................................................................... 5
6.1.2 Excavations ..................................................................................................................................... 5
6.1.3 Filling ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Footing Design..................................................................................................................................... 6
6.2.1 Site Classification ............................................................................................................................ 6
6.2.2 High Level Footings ......................................................................................................................... 6
Pavement design parameters (CBR values) ....................................................................................... 7
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................. 7
8.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 8
iii
Page 4
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
Tables
Table 1: Summary of Classification Testing ................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing ....................................................................... 3
Figures
Figure 1 – Test Pit Locations
Photographs
Photograph 1 – Looking south west towards the site from midway along the easement. .............................. 1
Photograph 2 – Looking north east towards Test Pit TP2 from TP1. ............................................................. 2
Photograph 3 – Looking south west from Test Pit TP3. ................................................................................. 2
Appendices
APPENDIX A Reports of Test Pits and Explanatory Notes2
APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Certificates3
APPENDIX C Limitations4
iv
Page 5
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out by Core Consultants Pty Ltd
(Core) for a proposed aged care facility at Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville.
The work was carried out for The Knowles Group, in accordance with our proposal Q000436-001-L-Rev0.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the provided information, we understand that the proposed residential aged care development is to
comprise buildings up to two-stories, together with parking and driveway access from Walter Hay Drive. We
anticipate that only minor filling works and excavations for service trenches will be required.
The proposed development layout is shown on the attached Figure 1.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is known as Lot 3 on SP246584and located off Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville. Walter Hay Drive
bounds the property to the west, Eenie Creek Road to the north and National Park to the east. Access to the
site is via the easement running along the eastern boundary in which high voltage overhead power lines are
situated.
At the time of our investigation, the site comprised relatively dense vegetation across a gently sloping to flat
ground surface. The vegetation consists of small to medium size trees and ground covering shrubs. There
are no structures on the site.
Site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown on Photographs 1 to 3.
Photograph 1 – Looking south west towards the site from midway along the easement.
1
Page 6
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
Photograph 2 – Looking north east towards Test Pit TP2 from TP1.
Photograph 3 – Looking south west from Test Pit TP3.
2
Page 7
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
Fieldwork
The investigation fieldwork was carried out on 22 March 2015 and comprised eight (8 No.) test pits
(designated TP1 to TP6; and TP-P1 to TP-P2) across the proposed development footprint. The test pits were
excavated utilising an 8 tonne excavator to depths of 3.5 m below ground level. Test pits TP-P1 and TP-P2
were taken to 1.0 m depth to assess proposed pavement subgrade conditions.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was carried out adjacent to each test pit to help assess soil
density or consistency. Disturbed and/or undisturbed (U50 tube) soil samples were recovered from the test
pits for subsequent laboratory testing.
All fieldwork was carried out in the presence of geotechnical engineering staff from Core, who also logged
the subsurface conditions in accordance with Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site
investigations.
Test pit locations were recorded with a hand held GPS device with a reported accuracy of +/- 5 m and are
shown on Figure 1. Test pit surface elevations were inferred from ground surface contour information
provided to us by the client. Test pits were backfilled upon completion with excess spoil mounded at the
surface.
Results of the fieldwork are presented in the Reports of Test Pits in Appendix A, along with explanatory
notes. Sub-surface conditions are discussed in Section 5.2.4.2 Laboratory Testing & Results
Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples were forwarded to the NATA accredited laboratory of Geotech (S.C.) Pty Ltd for
classification testing comprising Atterberg limits, particle size distribution and shrink-swell index analysis to
assess site reactivity. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was carried out for pavement design purposes.
Test certificates are given in Appendix B. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the results of laboratory testing.
Table 1: Summary of Classification Testing
Soil Description Percent Plasticity Liquid The
Fines (%) Index (%) Limit (%) Shrink
Depth
Test Pit Swell
(m)
Index
(%)
0.3 93 70 48
TP1 Silty CLAY -
TP2 0.9 Silty CLAY 99 78 55 -
TP3 0.6-0.85 Silty Clay - - - 3.8
results indicate that the clay materials are high plasticity and highly reactive to moisture content variation.
The shrink-swell index results are further discussed in Section 6.2.1.
Table 2: Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing
Depth Compaction Soaked CBR
Field
Moisture Maximum Optimum
Test Pit From To Soil Description Dry Moisture Swell CBR
Content
(m) (m) (%) Density Content (%) (%)
(t/m³) (%)
TP-P1 0.2 0.3 Silty Sandy CLAY 26.2 1.607 21.1 2.6 5.0
TP-P2 0.2 0.5 Silty Sandy CLAY 24.2 1.633 20.8 1.5 9.0
CBR testing on the existing natural materials returned values of 5 % and 9%. The CBR results are further
discussed in Section 6.3.
3
Page 8
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS
Published Geology
The 1:100,000 series Gympie Special geological map (Sheet9445 and Part 9545, DME, 1999) indicates that
the site is underlain by Late Triassic – Jurassic, Duckinwilla Group – Tiaro Coal Measures ‘Lithofeldspathic
siltstone’ close to the boundary with Quaternary age estuarine channels and banks comprising ‘sandy mud,
muddy sand, minor gravel’.
Indicative site location
Plate 1 – Geological Map
Subsurface Conditions
The general subsurface profile encountered in the test pits comprised:
TOPSOIL: comprising silty clay with traces of rootlets and organics to depths of between 0.1 m and 0.3
m below ground level (BGL); overlying
NATURAL SOILS: comprising stiff to hard silty clay to the depth of investigation of 3.5 m BGL; except in
test pits TP1, TP3 and TP6 which encountered
SILTSTONE: Extremely low strength, extremely weathered from depths ranging from 2.5 m to 2.8 m
BGL to the depth of investigation (i.e. 3.5 m BGL).
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits. It is noted that groundwater seepage may occur in
permeable horizons within the soil and rock, particularly following periods of heavy or prolonged
rainfall.Laboratory classification test confirms field classification and indicates that the clay materials are high
plasticity and highly reactive to moisture content variation.
4
Page 9
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Earthworks
Earthworks should be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on
Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.
6.1.1 Site Preparation & Trafficability
Site preparation in building and pavement areas should include the following:
Removal of trees, tree roots systems, and other vegetation;
Strip the surface of vegetation, organic matter, organic rich soils (topsoils) and severely root affected
soils. Fine rootlets and organics in the soils were encountered in test pits up to about 0.3 m depth,
however it is anticipated that grubbing of tree stumps and tree roots will require localised stripping to
greater depths. Root affected sols with tree roots up to about 50 mm to 100 mm diameter were noted
in some of the test pits to depths of up to 0.6 m.
‘Proof roll’ the stripped surface by several passes of a minimum 10 tonne roller to identify loose or soft
areas.
Depressions formed during removal of large tree root systems should be backfilled with select fill and
compacted in layers
An experienced geotechnical engineer from Core should carry out an inspection of the subgrade 'proof roll'.
Loose/soft areas or uncontrolled fill areas identified by proof rolling and inspection will require treatment by
either of the following methods:
Over-excavation and replacement with suitable fill compacted in layers (refer Section 6.1.4); or
Re-compaction of the loose or soft material provided that it does not contain substantial organic matter
or deleterious substances Due to the potential for poor traffickability across the site, it would be
prudent to allow for the placement of a nominal 150 mm thick (or thicker) granular layer to enable
movement of construction machinery.
6.1.2 Excavations
Excavation for footings and service trenches are expected to encounter firm to hard clays and possibly
extremely low strength siltstone. Excavations in soils and extremely low strength rock should be achievable
using conventional small to medium sized earthmoving equipment. Ripper attachments may be required
where low strength rock is encountered.
Shoring would be required to maintain stability and enable safe personnel entry into trenches (with vertical
sides) deeper than 1 m.
6.1.3 Filling
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits, site won material from excavations will
generally be suitable for reuse as structural fill provided materials are free from deleterious material, oversize
(>75 mm size) particles and organic matter. Any imported fill should similarly exclude such materials.
Where filling is proposed as part of earthworks, the following measures should be adopted:
Fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content
for Standard Compaction.
Confirmatory testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum of two tests per
300 mm vertical interval is recommended.
Fill should have a maximum particle size of 100 mm for an un-compacted layer thickness of 200 mm
and shall be compacted by repeated rolling to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 98% of the
Maximum Standard Dry Density for cohesive soils, or 75% Dry Density Index for cohesionless soils.
Higher grades of compaction will be required for pavement subgrades and base courses.
Proposed fill should have a minimum CBR value of 10%, and maximum plasticity index of 15%.
Sloping ground should be benched to key in fill material and optimize compaction.
5
Page 10
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
Further details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on
Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.
In accordance with good construction practice, fill embankments should be ‘over built’ then trimmed back to
the well compacted material.
Controlled fill placed as described above could be formed at 1V:2H provide adequate erosion protection is
installed.
Footing Design
6.2.1 Site Classification
The site classification derived in accordance with Australian Standard AS2870-2011 Residential slabs and
footings can provide an indication of the likely magnitude of reactive (shrink and swell) movements
associated with normal seasonal moisture variations. Based on the results of the investigation, the site
classification is expected to be ‘Class ‘H2’ in accordance with AS2870-2011. The estimated ‘ys’ value for this
site is between 60 mm and 80 mm.
It should be noted that the predicted order of movement is based on the existing natural soil profile (i.e. no
cutting or filling), and moisture content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only.
This estimate assumes that earthworks will be limited to stripping and minor levelling of the building platform.
Earthworks comprising filling or cut excavations greater than 0.5 m could result in a different site
classification.
As the site soils are ‘reactive’, it will be necessary to ensure that ‘usual good practice’ is adopted for design
and detailing if control of reactive ground movement is desired. Such practices should include the following:
Trees and shrubs should not be planted or be allowed to remain closer than their mature height to
movement sensitive features.
Soil moisture should not be allowed to change during or following construction.
Site grades should be designed to readily shed water and prevent ponding around footings and other
movement sensitive areas.
The proposed buildings should be made as “flexible” as possible to cope with reactive soil movements.
Services beneath the buildings should be kept to a minimum and should be designed to be flexible
(especially at building walls), and to prevent any leakage.
6.2.2 High Level Footings
Building wall and column loads could be supported by strip or pad footing system suitable for a Class H2 site
classification. Footings should penetrate through any uncontrolled fill or unsuitable natural soils to found at
least 500 mm below platform level (750 mm below ground for articulated full masonry) and 200 mm into the
natural stiff (or stiffer) clay.
The following allowable bearing pressures may be adopted in natural materials for design purposes:
- Stiff clays: 100 kPa
- Very stiff clays: 200 kPa;
- Hard clays and extremely low strength siltstone: 400 kPa.
Footings founded within engineered fill placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section
6.1.4, could be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa.
To achieve the design recommended pressures, footing excavations must be dry and cleaned of any loose,
disturbed or saturated materials prior to pouring concrete. Footing excavations should be inspected by an
engineer from Core to confirm the foundation material meets the design pressure requirements.
If any soil conditions encountered during the footing excavations are found to differ from those noted in the
geotechnical investigation, Core should be notified immediately, and an inspection of the footing excavations
should be carried out to assess if changes to footing design are required.
6
Page 11
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
All existing and proposed footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent
excavations, batter slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building or fill loads.
To minimise the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane
extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/ retaining walls, then rising
up at 1V:1H. This requirement is illustrated in the following diagram.
Pavement design parameters (CBR values)
Laboratory CBR testing on the clay subgrade materials returned CBR values of 5 % to 9 %.
Therefore, based on our experience with similar materials, we recommend that preliminary pavement design
should be based on a CBR value of 5 % for the natural clayey soils.
Design parameters for pavements will be dependent upon the subgrade materials present after earthworks
and the type, depth and quality of any fill used to bring the site to design levels. Further subgrade evaluation
should be undertaken during the construction stage.
Perimeter, subsurface cut-off drains should be installed adjacent to any sealed pavements in order to
intercept and divert subsurface seepage.
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS ASSESSMENT
The proposed development area is shown on the Queensland Government 1:100,000 Acid Sulfate Hazard
map (Redcliffe to Teewah, Map 2, 2002) as being on the border of “not assessed” and “acid sulfate on
disturbed land”.
Indicative site location
Plate 2 – QLD Government ASS Redcliffe to Teewah map clipping (1:100,000)
7
Page 12
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016
The State Planning Policy, July 2014 (SPP14) applies to land, soil and sediment at or below 5 m AHD where
the natural ground level is less than 20 m AHD. Within such areas the SPP14 applies to development
involving any of the following:
Excavating or otherwise removing 100 m³ or more of soil or sediment; or
Filling of land involving 500 m³ or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 m or greater.
The SPP14 assessment criteria are illustrated below:
The proposed development
is in this category
Based on the investigation findings, it is our opinion that the presence of typical ASS materials is unlikely.
The elevation of the site is between RL 15 m and RL 20 m AHD. No excavation works are proposed below
RL 5 m AHD. SPP14 therefore does not apply to the proposed development. No further assessment of
potential disturbance of ASS is required.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document, “Limitations” which is attached in Appendix C.
8
Page 13
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016 Core Consultants Pty Ltd Yours sincerely, David Pollock BE(Civil) RPEQ 14121 Geoff Hurley MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Director BH/DJP/GAH/bh A.B.N. 75 603 384 050
Page 14
C CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT.
TP2
TP3
TP1
TP4 TP5
TP-P1
TP6
TP-P2
0 20 40 60 m
1:1,000
LEGEND CLIENT PROJECT
KNOWLES GROUP PROPOSED AGE CARE FACILITY - WALTER HAY DR, NOOSAVILLE
DRAWN BY DATE DRAWING TITLE
Denotes approximate test pit location
BH 31/03/2016
CHECKED BY DATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS
DJP 04/04/2016
SCALE SHEET SIZE PROJECT No DOC No DOC TYPE FIGURE No REVISION
BASE PLAN PROVIDED BY KNOWLES GROUP DRG. No. 1.DATED 12/01/2016.
www.coreconsult.com.au
1:1,000 A3 J000206 001 R 1 0 FIGURE 1
Plot Date: 5 April 2016 Time:9:36:22 AM By: Cad User Path: J:\2016 - J182 -\J000206 - Knowles-Geotech-Walter Hay Drive\TASK 1000\Figures Drawings - File Name:J000206-001-R-RevA.dwg
Page 15
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016 APPENDIX A Reports of Test Pits and Explanatory Notes [OCR of page images] J000206-001-R-RevO April 2016 APPENDIX A Reports of Test Pits and Explanatory Notes
Page 16
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP1
EAST: 505224.0 m
NORTH: 7078425.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 10.90 m LOGGED: BH
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: DJP
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
10.90 CI- SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low to medium plasticity, brown and
CH dark brown, with roots
F - St
0.30
L M
10.60 D 0.30 m CI- SILTY CLAY: low to medium plasticity, pale orange brown
CH
0.5
0.60
10.30 CH SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey and red orange brown
St -
VSt
1.0
D 1.00 m
1.5
D
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
E
M
Not Encountered
2.0
2.20
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
VSt -
H
2.5
2.80
8.10 SILTSTONE: fine, red brown and pale grey, extremely low
strength, extremely weathered
3.0
H
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 17
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP2
EAST: 505247.0 m
NORTH: 7078439.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 11.80 m LOGGED: BH
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: DJP
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
11.80 CL- SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low to medium plasticity, dark brown,
CI with roots
0.20
11.60 CI- SILTY CLAY: medium to high plasticity, brown
CH
M
L 0.5 F - St
D 0.50 m
0.60
11.20 CH SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey and orange red brown
D 0.90 m
1.0
1.5
L-M VSt
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
E
Not Encountered
2.0
D
2.20
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
2.5
H H
3.0
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 18
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP3
EAST: 505273.0 m
NORTH: 7078426.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 12.20 m LOGGED: DJP
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
12.20 CI SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): medium plasticity, grey and dark grey,
trace roots
F
0.25
11.95 CI- SILTY CLAY: medium to high plasticity, grey brown
L CH M
St
0.5
0.60
11.60 U 0.60-1.10 m CI SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey and red orange brown
PP = 300 kPa
1.0
VSt -
M
H
1.5
D
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
E
Not Encountered
2.00
2.0
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
2.50
2.5
9.70 SILTSTONE: fine, grey and pale grey, extremely low strength,
extremely weathered
H H
3.0
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 19
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP4
EAST: 505252.0 m
NORTH: 7078408.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 12.00 m LOGGED: BH
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: DJP
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
12.00 SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low to medium plasticity, dark brown,
0.10 trace roots
11.90
L SILTY CLAY: medium to high plasticity, grey and orange brown, M
with roots up to 50 mm diameter
0.30
F
11.70 SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey and orange red brown
0.5
St
1.0
VSt -
H
1.5
L-M
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
E
Not Encountered
D
2.0
H
2.5
3.00
3.0
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
H
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 20
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP5
EAST: 505275.0 m
NORTH: 7078409.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 12.30 m LOGGED: BH
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: DJP
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
12.30 CL- SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low to medium plasticity, dark brown,
CI with roots up to 50 mm diameter
U 0.20-0.70 m
L PP=500 kPa M
0.30
12.00 CI SILTY CLAY: medium plasticity, orange brown, with roots up to 50
mm diameter
D 0.40 m
0.50
0.5 F - St
11.80 CH SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey and red orange brown
1.0
St -
VSt
1.5
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
M
E
Not Encountered
2.0 D
H
2.5
3.00
3.0
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
H
D 3.30 m
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 21
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP6
EAST: 505269.0 m
NORTH: 7078376.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 12.10 m LOGGED: DJP
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
12.10 CL SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low plasticity, dark grey, with roots to 0.6
m depth
F
L M
0.25
11.85 CI SILTY CLAY: medium plasticity, grey brown St -
VSt
0.40
11.70 CI- SILTY CLAY: medium to high plasticity, pale grey and orange red
CH brown, trace sand
0.5
1.0
M
1.5
D
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:35 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
E
Not Encountered
H
2.0
2.20
Tending to extremely weathered siltstone
2.5
2.70
9.40 SILTSTONE: fine, grey and pale grey, extremely low strength,
extremely weathered
H
3.0
3.50
3.5
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
4.0
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 22
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP-P1
EAST: 505300.0 m
NORTH: 7078405.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 12.40 m LOGGED: DJP
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
12.40 CL SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low plasticity, grey and dark grey, trace
roots to 100 mm diameter
F
0.20
12.20 B 0.20-0.60 m CI SILTY CLAY: medium plasticity, grey brown
St -
VSt
L 0.5 M
E
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:34 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
0.70
Not Encountered
Becoming pale grey and red orange brown
VSt
1.00
1.0
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
1.5
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 23
REPORT OF TEST PIT: TP-P2
EAST: 505290.0 m
NORTH: 7078338.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Knowles Group SURFACE RL 11.80 m LOGGED: DJP
PROJECT: Aged Care Facility CONTRACTOR: Bebrok LOGGED DATE: 22/03/16
LOCATION: Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville MACHINE: 8t Excavator CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000206 BUCKET SIZE: 450 mm toothed CHECKED DATE: 04/04/16
Excavation Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
EXCAVATION
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
11.80 CL- SANDY SILTY CLAY (TOPSOIL): low to medium plasticity, dark
CI brown, fine to medium grained sand, trace roots
F
0.20
11.60 B 0.20-0.50 m CI SILTY CLAY: medium plasticity, grey brown
St
L 0.5 M
E
CORE_2016.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000206.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 05/04/2016 09:34 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
0.70
Not Encountered
11.10 CI- SILTY CLAY: medium to high plasticity, red brown and grey
CH
VSt
1.00
1.0
TEST PIT [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
1.5
This report of must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 24
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS* Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
*T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatube Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.
M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant
effort from the equipment.
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the
digging implement or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of
excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level at date shown Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,
OBSERVED surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in
ENCOUNTERED less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open
for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water Sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Static cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects)
R=0 No visible evidence of contamination R=A No non-natural odours identified
R=1 Slight evidence of visible contamination R=B Slight non-natural odours identified
R=2 Visible contamination R=C Moderate non-natural odours identified
R=3 Significant visible contamination R=D Strong non-natural odours identified
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)
Length of core recov ered
100
Length of cylindrica l core recovered 100
Axial lengths of core 100 mm 100
Length of core run Length of core run Length of core run
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 25
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL, CI or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or GW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in
AS1726 – 1993, (Amdt1 – 1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field by
visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Division Sub Division Particle Size 40
BOULDERS > 200 mm CH
CI High plasticity
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm 30
CL
Medium clay
Low plasticity
Plasticity Index (%)
clay plasticity
Coarse 20 to 63 mm clay
GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm
20
OH or MH
Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm High liquid limit
silt
Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm
10 OL or ML
SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm Low liquid
CL/ML Clay/Silt limit silt
Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm OL or ML - Low liquid limit silt
SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CLAY < 0.002 mm Liquid Lim it (%)
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 26
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Certificates [OCR of page images] J000206-001-R-RevO April 2016 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Certificates
Page 27
Quality of Materials Report
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G16003 - 58/1
Client Address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G16003 Report Date: 4/04/2016
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number: -
Location Job No:J000206 , Aged Care Facility,Walter Hay Drive Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 105020 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2016 Test Pit 1
Date Tested: 31/03/2016 Depth 0.3m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 29/03/16
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Spec Description: -
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75.00 mm
53.00 mm
37.50 mm
26.50 mm
19.00 mm
13.2 mm
9.50 mm
6.7 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
1.18 mm
0.600 mm
0.425 mm
0.300 mm
0.150 mm
0.075 mm 93
Atterberg Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification
Minimum Maximum
Liquid Limit (%) AS1289.3.1.2 70
Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 22
Plasticity Index AS1289.3.3.1 48
Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289.3.4.1 18.5
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
REP AQUAL-1-7
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 28
Quality of Materials Report
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G16003 - 59/1
Client Address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G16003 Report Date: 4/04/2016
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number: -
Location Job No:J000206 , Aged Care Facility,Walter Hay Drive Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 105021 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2016 Test Pit 2
Date Tested: 31/03/2016 Depth 0.9m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 29/03/16
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Spec Description: -
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification
Minimum Passing Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75.00 mm
53.00 mm
37.50 mm
26.50 mm
19.00 mm
13.2 mm
9.50 mm
6.7 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
1.18 mm
0.600 mm
0.425 mm
0.300 mm
0.150 mm
0.075 mm 99
Atterberg Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification
Minimum Maximum
Liquid Limit (%) AS1289.3.1.2 78
Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 23
Plasticity Index AS1289.3.3.1 55
Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289.3.4.1 18.5
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
REP AQUAL-1-7
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 29
California Bearing Ratio Report (1 Point)
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G16003 - 60/1
Client address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G16003 Report Date: 5/04/2016
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number:
Location Job No:J000206 , Aged Care Facility,Walter Hay Drive Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 105012 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2016 P1
Date Tested: 5/04/2016 Depth 0.2 - 0.5m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 29/03/16
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Test Method : AS1289.6.1.1
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
Maximum Dry Density - MDD (t/m³) : 1.607 Dry Density after Soak (t/m³) : 1.564
Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%) : 21.1 Moisture Content after Soak (%) : 24.2
Compactive Effort : Standard Density Ratio after Soak (%) : 97
Nominated % Maximum Dry Density
Compaction : 100 Field Moisture Content (%) : 26.2
Nominated % Optimum Moisture Content Moisture Content (Top) after Penetration
Compaction : 100 (%) : -
Moisture Content (Total) after Penetration
Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m³) : 1.605 (%) : -
Achieved Percentage of Maximum Dry Density
(%) : 100 CBR 2.5mm (%) : 5.0
Achieved Moisture Content (%) : 21.1 CBR 5.0mm (%) : 5.0
Achieved Percentage of Optimum Moisture
Content (%) : 100 Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) : -
Test Condition (Soaked/Unsoaked) / Soaking
Period (Days) : Soaked / 4 days
CBR Value (%) : 5.0
Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg): 2.6 / 4.5 kg
Soil Description : Silty Sandy Clay(CH)-high plasticity,pale brown/grey,fine grained sand
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
REP ACBR_1_3-3
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 30
California Bearing Ratio Report (1 Point)
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G16003 - 61/1
Client address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G16003 Report Date: 5/04/2016
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number:
Location Job No:J000206 , Aged Care Facility,Walter Hay Drive Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 105013 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2016 P2
Date Tested: 5/04/2016 Depth 0.2 - 0.5m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 29/03/16
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Test Method : AS1289.6.1.1
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
Maximum Dry Density - MDD (t/m³) : 1.633 Dry Density after Soak (t/m³) : 1.618
Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%) : 20.7 Moisture Content after Soak (%) : 23
Compactive Effort : Standard Density Ratio after Soak (%) : 99
Nominated % Maximum Dry Density
Compaction : 100 Field Moisture Content (%) : 24.2
Nominated % Optimum Moisture Content Moisture Content (Top) after Penetration
Compaction : 100 (%) : -
Moisture Content (Total) after Penetration
Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m³) : 1.642 (%) : -
Achieved Percentage of Maximum Dry Density
(%) : 101 CBR 2.5mm (%) : 9.0
Achieved Moisture Content (%) : 20.8 CBR 5.0mm (%) : 9.0
Achieved Percentage of Optimum Moisture
Content (%) : 100 Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) : -
Test Condition (Soaked/Unsoaked) / Soaking
Period (Days) : Soaked / 4 days
CBR Value (%) : 9.0
Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg): 1.5 / 4.5 kg
Soil Description : Silty Sandy Clay(CH)-high plasticity,grey brown/grey,fine to medium sand
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
REP ACBR_1_3-3
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 31
Shrink Swell Index Report
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G16003 - 62/1
Client Address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: G16003 Report Date: 5/04/2016
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number:
Location Job No:J000206 , Aged Care Facility,Walter Hay Drive Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 105022 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2016 Test Pit 3
Date Tested: 30/03/2016 Depth 0.6 - 0.85m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 29/03/16
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
Page 1 of 1
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) : 28.6 Swell MC Before(%): 28.6
Shrinkage (%) : 5.0 Swell MC After(%) : 31.3
Unit Weight (t/m³) : 1.93 PP Before (kPa):
Swell (%) : 3.6 PP After (kPa):
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %): 3.8
Visual Classification : Clay(CH)-high plasticity,grey mottled red/yellow,fine grained sand
Inert Material Estimate(%): 0
Cracking : Minor Cracking
Crumbling : No Crumbling
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
REP ASS-1-4
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 32
J000206-001-R-Rev0 April 2016 APPENDIX C Limitations [OCR of page images] J000206-001-R-RevO April 2016 APPENDIX C Limitations
Page 33
LIMITATIONS This Document has been provided by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (“Core”) subject to the following limitations: This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Core’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose. The scope and the period of Core’s Services are as described in C o r e ’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Core in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Core was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Core’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Core to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Core for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. Core may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Core to provide Services for the benefit of Core. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Core’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Core accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document. Limitations Page 1 of 1 Date: 01/10/2015 FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Printed Issue: 1.01
Page 34
Geotechnics + Engineering Geology * Environmental + Project and Risk Management Core Consultants Pty Ltd. + T +61 7 5475 5900 + [email protected] * www.coreconsult.com.au - ABN 75 603 384 050 55 Kingsford Smith Parade, Maroochydore, Queensland 4558, Australia »* PO Box 5569, Maroochydore BC, QLD 4558