Council archive · source document
Geotehnical Investigation Report · OPW22/0140
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Unit Development
37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads
Report for: Bottlebrush Property
22151-001-Rev0
13 May 2022
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899, Buderim QLD 4556
Office: 07 5478 9016
Email: [email protected]
www.tectonicgeo.com.au
A.B.N. 83 165 727 828
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 33 pages
Page 2
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Document Review
Document No. Revision Prepared By Reviewed By Date Issued
001 - DRAFT 0 David Pollock Ashley Davey 6 May 2022
001 0 David Pollock Ashley Davey 13 May 2022
Report Distribution
Document Revision Method of Delivery Issued To
Nina Porteous
001 0 Electronic
([email protected])
Jonathan Thynne
001 0 Electronic
([email protected])
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
David Pollock BE(Civil) RPEQ 14121 Ashley Davey BEng (Geological) RPEQ 8159
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 i
Page 3
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Executive Summary
This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed unit development at
37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads. The investigation was performed by Tectonic at the request of
Bottlebrush Property. The investigation comprised drilling of boreholes at three locations across accessible
areas of the development footprint. This report summarises the results of the investigation and provides
geotechnical recommendations regarding slope stability, earthworks and footings, together with advice for
temporary and permanent basement retention.
Architectural designs show a three-storey unit complex, over a single level basement carpark and living
space. Excavation will most likely be up to 4 m in depth, with filling likely to be less than 1 m high. Temporary
retention will be required as the basement excavation will extend close to some of the site boundaries.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are summarised as follows:
Pavement (pavers/synthetic matting) – 20 mm to 60 mm thick; then
Fill – comprising mostly very loose, silty and gravelly sand to between 0.4 m and 1.2 m below
ground level (BGL); overlying
Aeolian Sands – comprising poorly graded sands that were loose to depths of between 1.1 m to
2.5 m BGL in boreholes BH2 and BH3; then becoming medium dense (from 0.2 m BGL in BH1)
and increasing to dense below depths of about 3.1 to 4.1 m BGL.
No signs of groundwater seepage (‘springs’) were observed during our walk-over. Groundwater was not
encountered in the boreholes at the time of investigation.
Provided the recommendations within this report are adhered to, and subject to detailed design and
construction of the footing and retention systems by a suitably qualified and experienced structural RPEQ,
there would be a Low Risk to property from slope instability.
Excavations through the soils encountered in the boreholes should be achievable using conventional
earthmoving plant (e.g. small or larger excavators with toothed buckets). Temporary, unsurcharged cuts
could be formed at 1V:2H in the very loose to loose sands, and at 1V:1H in medium dense (or denser) sands,
for batters up to 3 m in height, provided groundwater seepage is not encountered and sands do not slough
from the batter face as they dry out. It is expected that space restrictions will limit battering of temporary cuts
on the site and so some form of temporary retention system, such as sheet piles, may be required.
Footings for the proposed development and any ancillary structures (e.g. retaining walls) must penetrate
through any fill materials and unsuitable natural soils (i.e. very loose to loose sands) to found at least 0.5 m
into medium dense (or denser) natural sands. Such materials were encountered in the boreholes below
depths of about 1 m to 2.5 m BGL (existing ground levels), being shallower in the area of borehole BH1 where
it is assumed the site was previously cut down to form the driveway. High-level footings would be suitable in
excavation areas where medium dense (or denser) natural sands are exposed at the subgrade level. Piled
footings would be required unless excavations expose such materials at or near foundation subgrade level.
Given the sandy soil profile, where deepened footings are required, steel screw piles are considered to be a
suitable foundation type. Due to the presence of loose sands, together with the close proximity of adjacent
buildings, open bored piers or driven piles are not considered to be suitable for this site.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 ii
Page 4
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................ 2
4.1 Site Description............................................................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Topography................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Geology ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
4.4 Subsurface Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 5
4.5 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.6 Surface Drainage .......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Stability Assessment..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1 Quantitative Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 8
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 10
6.1 Development Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 10
6.2 Earthworks – General ................................................................................................................................. 10
6.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability ......................................................................................................... 10
6.2.2 Excavations ........................................................................................................................................... 10
6.2.3 Filling..................................................................................................................................................... 11
6.3 Building Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 12
6.3.1 Indicative Site Classification.................................................................................................................. 12
6.3.2 Footing Design ...................................................................................................................................... 12
6.4 Temporary and Permanent Retention......................................................................................................... 13
6.5 Drainage ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................ 15
8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 iii
Page 5
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Profiles ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Stability Risk Levels .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007) ......................................................................... 8
Table 4: Retaining Structure Design Parameters .............................................................................................................. 14
TEXT FIGURES
Text Figure 1: Cross-sectional view (RHS) and basement layout plan (LHS), courtesy PCA Architects ............................. 1
Text Figure 2: 2021 aerial image of the site and immediate surrounds (courtesy QImagery) ............................................. 3
Text Figure 3: Panoramic view of the existing unit block ..................................................................................................... 3
Text Figure 4: Brick retaining wall south of driveway (LHS) and southern terraced outdoor area (RHS) ............................ 4
Text Figure 5: Western frontage of the allotment (LHS) and distressed wooden retaining wall located downslope
of the unit building (RHS) ................................................................................................................................... 4
Text Figure 6: Plan showing ground surface contours (courtesy Noosa Council ‘Intramaps’) ............................................. 5
Text Figure 7: Extract of Gympie Special 1:100,000 Geology Map ..................................................................................... 5
Text Figure 8: Extract from NSC landslide hazard overlay mapping ................................................................................... 7
Text Figure 9: Slope/W output for long term conditions...................................................................................................... 9
Text Figure 10: Footing depth required to prevent undermining....................................................................................... 13
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Plan
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports & Explanatory Notes
APPENDIX B
AGS Guidelines - Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property
Some Guidelines for Hillside Construction
APPENDIX C
Limitations
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 iv
Page 6
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed residential unit
development at 37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads. The investigation was performed by Tectonic at the
request of Bottlebrush Property, generally in accordance with Proposal P22114-Rev0, dated 22 February
2022. Recor Consulting are the structural engineers for the project.
The investigation comprised drilling of boreholes at three locations across accessible areas of the
development footprint. This report summarises the results of the investigation and provides geotechnical
recommendations regarding slope stability, earthworks and footings, together with advice regarding
temporary and permanent basement retention. In summary, subject to the implementation of the
recommendations made herein, it is assessed that there would be a Low Risk of slope instability affecting
the proposed development in accordance with the Australian Geomechanics Society Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management, dated March 2007 (AGS 2007).
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Preliminary architectural drawings were supplied to us (Ref. PCA Architects, Project No. PCA2.21, Sheet
Nos. PL03 to PL17, dated 5 April 2022 & 21 April 2022). These plans indicate that the development will
comprise a three-storey building, over a single level basement carpark and living space. Construction will
likely include a combination of masonry and lightweight materials (e.g. weatherboard cladding to walls etc.),
and suspended concrete floors.
No earthworks details were provided at the time of reporting; however, architectural plans indicate that
excavations for the lower ground floor would likely be in the order of about 4 m deep to the rear, daylighting
at the front. Localised filling less than 1 m high is anticipated. Excavations will extend close to the site
boundaries and, therefore, some form of temporary retention will be required. Isolated deeper excavations
may be required for underground services and other elements.
Text Figure 1 below presents the basement layout plan and a cross-sectional view of the proposed
development.
Text Figure 1: Cross-sectional view (LHS) and basement layout plan (RHS), courtesy PCA Architects
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 1
Page 7
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
As part of our assessment, a desk-top study was carried out comprising a review of published geological
maps and Noosa Shire Council (NSC) planning overlays and site information.
An experienced geotechnical engineer from Tectonic undertook a site walk-over on 21 April 2022 to
visually assess any indicators of past slope instability. The walk-over included assessment of soil
exposures, surface drainage conditions, topography, evidence of erosion or past instability, and vegetation
coverage/condition.
This was incorporated with a subsurface investigation comprising the drilling of three boreholes
(designated BH1 to BH3) in accessible areas across the site. Borehole BH1 was drilled within the north-
eastern driveway area using Tectonic’s 4WD mounted solid flight auger rig to 6 m below ground level
(BGL). Due to access restrictions, boreholes BH2 and BH3 were drilled along the southern outdoor area to
3 m BGL using hand augering techniques.
In-situ testing, using the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) method, was carried out from the ground
surface and within each borehole, extended downhole below drilling termination to depths of 4.5 m and
5.2 m in boreholes BH2 and BH3 respectively. Boreholes were backfilled on completion using spoil arising
during drilling, with excess material slightly mounded at surface.
Laboratory testing was not warranted due to the sandy nature of the subsurface conditions encountered.
Borehole locations are shown in Figure 1 attached at the end of this report, with borehole and DCP logs
presented in Appendix A, together with explanatory notes. Borehole coordinates were recorded using a
handheld global positioning system (GPS).
The results of the desk-top study and walk-over survey are included in Section 4 below.
4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Site Description
The site is formally described as Lot 133 RP 88934, covering an area of 491 m2, with frontages to
Bottlebrush Avenue and Berrima Row to the south-west and south-east, respectively. At the time of the
investigation the site contained a two-storey, residential unit building, with a concrete driveway on the
eastern side of the property connecting to Berrima Row. The grounds contained various small garden
spaces, with an outdoor area having artificial grass and rubber mat surfacing on the southern side of the
building. Neighbouring properties consisted of residential allotments to the north and west.
Inferred cut and fill earthworks had taken place across the site and adjacent areas. The site had been
levelled with cutting estimated up to about 2.2 m deep along the southern driveway boundary and filling
visually estimated to be up to about 1.5 m high to the south. Cut and fill embankments were retained by the
existing building as well as concrete block and wooden walls ranging in heights up to 2.2 m.
An existing brick retaining wall located on the western frontage of the allotment appeared to be leaning
slightly or tilted. A wooden retaining wall located downslope of the allotment also appeared slightly bowed
and poorly maintained. Generally, the existing building and other retaining walls, together with structures on
neighbouring properties. appeared to be in good condition, exhibiting no obvious signs of structural distress
(e.g. cracking, misalignment, etc.). Minor cracking was observed in the concrete driveway slab. This and the
above mentioned retaining wall tilting are likely related to consolidation and lateral/creep movement of the
upper loose sands as opposed to slope instability.
A 2021 aerial image of the site and surrounds is shown in Text Figure 2 overleaf.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 2
Page 8
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Subject Site
Text Figure 2: 2021 aerial image of the site and immediate surrounds (courtesy QImagery)
Site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown below and overleaf in Text Figures 3 to 5.
BH1
9° to 11°
Minor cracking
Text Figure 3: Panoramic view of the existing unit block
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 3
Page 9
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
2.2 m
0.5 m
BH2
Text Figure 4: Brick retaining wall south of driveway (LHS) and southern terraced outdoor area (RHS)
Bottlebrush Avenue
Text Figure 5: Western frontage of the allotment (LHS) and distressed wooden retaining wall located
downslope of the unit building (RHS)
4.2 Topography
As illustrated in Text Figure 6 overleaf, the site is located on the south-westerly facing flank of an ancient
sand dune which crests about 230 m to the east/north-east. During the site walk-over, topographic features
specific to the site were noted, and ground slopes were recorded using a hand-held clinometer.
The natural surface profile had been interrupted by historic landscaping and residential construction; with
inferred less altered ground slopes along Berrima Row. The inferred natural slopes in the area were
measured at the time of our assessment between about 9° and 11°. Based on our observations it appeared
that cut and fill earthworks had been undertaken across the site, resulting in a generally flat building platform
supported by various retaining walls, as discussed in above in Section 4.1.
Generally, no irregular surface features were noted which would indicate global slope instability.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 4
Page 10
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Crest of ancient
sand dune
Subject Site
Text Figure 6: Plan showing ground surface contours (courtesy Noosa Council ‘Intramaps’)
4.3 Geology
Available geological information 1 indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene age dune sand
(Ref: Text Figure 7).
Approx. Site Location
Text Figure 7: Extract of Gympie Special 1:100,000 Geology Map
4.4 Subsurface Conditions
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are provided in the
borehole reports attached in Appendix A, along with definition sheets which describe terms and
abbreviations used on the reports. The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are
summarised as follows:
Pavement (pavers/synthetic matting) – 20 mm to 60 mm thick; then
Fill – comprising mostly very loose, silty and gravelly sand to between 0.4 m and 1.2 m BGL;
overlying
Aeolian Sands – comprising poorly graded sands that were loose to depths of between 1.1 m and
2.5 m BGL in boreholes BH2 and BH3; then becoming medium dense (from 0.2 m BGL in BH1)
and increasing to dense below depths of about 3.1 to 4.1 m BGL.
1
Queensland Government, Department of Mines and Energy, 1:100,000 Gympie Special Geology Map, Sheet 9445 & Part 9545, 1999
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 5
Page 11
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Table 1 below summarises the subsurface profile in each borehole.
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Profiles
Very
Medium Dense
Borehole No. Pavement Fill Loose/Loose Dense Sand
Sand
Sand
BH1 0 – 0.06 0.06 – 0.4 N/E 0.4 – 3.1 3.1 – 6.0TD
BH2 0 – 0.02 0.02 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.1 1.1 – 3TD 4.1 – 4.5*
BH3 0 – 0.02 0.02 – 1.2 1.2 – 2.5 2.5 – 3TD 3.8 – 5.2*
Notes: 1. Depths noted in m BGL at time of investigation (21 April 2022)
2. NE denotes not encountered
3. TD denotes borehole terminated at target depth
4. * inferred from DCP testing
4.5 Groundwater
No signs of groundwater seepage (‘springs’) were observed during our walk-over. Groundwater was not
encountered in the boreholes at the time of investigation.
Groundwater conditions are expected to be reflective of prevailing weather conditions and seepage may
develop particularly following periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall.
4.6 Surface Drainage
Surface drainage would be expected to follow natural surface contours to the south-west towards
Bottlebrush Avenue, thus draining into the roadside drainage system. It is noted that the site has a
relatively large catchment; however, most runoff from upslope of the property is anticipated to be
intercepted by the existing stormwater infrastructure associated with the neighboring structures and
roadside drainage systems.
Given the sandy nature of the site, rainfall would normally be anticipated to infiltrate the ground surface.
However, as the proposed development will occupy a large part of the block, significant run-off from hard
surfaces will occur. Nevertheless, where directed into swales rather than pipes, such run-off would be
expected to infiltrate into the natural sands relatively rapidly.
No significant surface run-off features were noted during our assessment (e.g. deep rilling or scour/wash out
scars). This indicates that significant overland flow is generally absent during rainfall events.
Recommendations to improve surface drainage as part of the development works are provided in
Section 6.5.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 6
Page 12
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
5.1 Existing Conditions
The Noosa Planning Scheme 2020 includes a landslide hazard overlay map (Ref. extract in Text Figure 8).
Mapping indicates that most of the site is within a Moderate (pale yellow shading) Landslide Hazard Area.
Lot boundary
Text Figure 8: Extract from NSC landslide hazard overlay mapping
It should be noted that the Noosa landslide hazard map is a broad-scale indication of the potential
landslide susceptibility and is superseded by this site-specific assessment. Our observations of surface
features relevant to this slope stability assessment are summarised as follows:
The existing building was noted to be in reasonable structural condition based on an external
assessment and showed no signs of instability (e.g. no significant cracks in rigid walls etc.).
No indicators of recent global slope instability were observed, i.e. no landslide scarps or ‘hummocky’
ground was evident across the proposed building area.
No signs of groundwater seepage ‘springs’ were observed across the proposed development area.
Overall inferred natural ground slopes were relatively moderate.
5.2 Stability Assessment
The risk assessment for this project has been carried out following AGS 2007 Practice Note Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management. Relative levels of risk and their implications are given in Table 2 and the
Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property is also attached in Appendix B.
Table 2: Stability Risk Levels
Risk Level Example Implications(1)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning
Very High
VH and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too
Risk
expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of
H High Risk treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in
relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but requires
Moderate
M investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce risk to Low.
Risk
Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to
L Low Risk
this level, ongoing maintenance required.
Very Low
VL Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
Risk
Note: (1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may
depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 7
Page 13
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Given the geology, topography and particularly the relatively moderately sloping terrain across the proposed
development area, it is considered rare that a landslide could affect the proposed development. Sand dune
slopes are generally close to the ‘limit of equilibrium’ where the surface gradient is about 30°, although
possibly lower in the order of 26˚ to 28˚ for very loose sands. The limit of equilibrium is the ‘tipping point’ to
instability, where the factor of safety (FOS) of the slope is approximately 1.0. The FOS of a slope is the
balance (ratio) between the forces driving instability (e.g. soil weight, groundwater pressure) and the resisting
forces (e.g. soil friction and cohesion). Inferred natural slopes around this site are between 9° and 11°.
Considering the existing site conditions (Ref. Section 2), and subject to the implementation of
recommendations given below, it is assessed that there would be a Low (L) Risk of global slope instability
affecting the proposed development. Regulators (NC) normally require that a Very Low or Low Risk of
landslide affecting the property must be demonstrated to enable development approval. Summarised in Table
3 is our qualitative assessment of landslide risk for the development site. A summary of qualitative
terminology for use in assessing risk to property is attached (taken from AGS 2007).
Table 3: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007)
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Comments
Given the low to moderate natural gradients through
the proposed building area, it is considered Unlikely
1: Failure through very loose to that a landslip would develop in these materials,
loose natural sands above the Unlikely Medium Low subject to implementation of the recommendations in
foundation depth Section 4. Given a potential Medium impact from
such instability the resultant risk would be Low as per
AGS 2007.
The likelihood of a deep failure through the medium
dense (or denser) natural sand below the proposed
2: Deep failure through the foundation depth is assessed as Rare due to the lack of
medium dense (or denser) sands Rare Major Low precedence of such movements locally, no signs of any
below the foundation depth existing slope instability and a lack of groundwater.
Although the consequence of such a failure would be
Major, the resultant risk is Low as per AGS 2007.
The likelihood of a slip/failure through any temporary
retention system (sheet pile wall, or similar) as outlined in
3: Temporary instability through Section 6.4, is assessed as Rare, subject to detailed
sheet pile temporary retention design by a suitably qualified structural RPEQ and
Rare Major Low
system, or similar, as discussed construction by a specialist contractor which accounts for
in Section 6.4. the required factors of safety against slope instability.
Although the consequence of such a failure would be
Major, the resultant risk is Low as per AGS2007.
The potential impacts on slope stability of the development components have been assessed, and the
measures recommended below in Section 4 have been designed to mitigate those impacts.
5.2.1 Quantitative Assessment
In order to estimate the factor of safety (FOS) against slope instability for the proposed development,
numerical analysis has been conducted using the software Slope/W. The ground surface profile has been
modelled using a combination of survey information, preliminary design drawings and slope angles
measured in the field by Tectonic. The analysed subsurface profile was compiled based on the results of our
subsurface investigation. Some inferences regarding subsurface conditions were made between test
locations. A minimum FOS value of 1.5 is the commonly adopted industry standard for long term conditions.
No groundwater was encountered at the time of investigation. Given the gradients across the site and highly
permeable nature of the sandy soil, development of shallow groundwater is considered unlikely. Should
groundwater seepage be encountered during construction Tectonic must be notified to assess the impacts
on instability. Nonetheless a relatively high groundwater level was modelled as a conservative approach.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 8
Page 14
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
To replicate future landscaping, a surcharge load of 5 kPa has been applied upslope of the proposed
building. Although building loads were not available at the time of reporting; a gross building load of 30 kPa
has been applied to areas of the building likely founded using high-level footings. Other areas will be
supported by piled foundations in the underlying medium dense (or denser) natural sands.
Soil shear strength was based upon effective parameters which were estimated based on our interpretation
of the subsurface investigation results, while also considering the values recommended for similar materials
in Appendix D of Australian Standard AS4678-2002 Earth Retaining Structures. Adopted soil parameters
are shown on the Slope/W output presented in Text Figure 9. Analysis was undertaken for a specified range
of entry and exit points that could impact the proposed development.
The analysed profile represents the critical section for the proposed development, which covers the deepest
proposed cut. Our analysis indicates that stability of the site hinges on the temporary and permanent
retention systems. Provided that those walls/structures are adequately designed and constructed the
proposed development will achieve at least the required minimum FOS for long-term stability (i.e. >1.5).
It should be noted that this modelling addresses the global stability of the proposed works; however, the
stability of the retaining walls must be addressed by others as part of detailed design.
1.9
5 kPa Surcharge
30 kPa Surcharge
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (m)
M aterial s
Name: Very Loose/Loose Sand Uni t Wei ght: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion': 0 kPa Phi ': 30 ° Pi ezom etric Li ne: 1
Very Loose/Loose Sand Name: M edium Dense Sand Unit Weight: 18 kN/m ³ Cohesi on': 0 kPa Phi': 34 ° Piezometri c Line: 1
M edium Dense Sand Name: Dense Sand Uni t Wei ght: 19 kN/m³ Cohesion': 0 kPa Phi ': 36 ° Pi ezom etric Li ne: 1
Dense Sand Name: Retai ning Wal l Unit Weight: 22 kN/m ³ Pi ezom etric Li ne: 1
Retai ning Wal l
Text Figure 9: Slope/W output for long term conditions
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 9
Page 15
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
General recommendations to help maintain the stability of the site are given in the document Some
Guidelines for Hillside Construction, which is attached.
Tectonic must review design plans once they are available to confirm recommendations given herein
adequately address the proposed works.
6.1 Development Limitations
It is anticipated earthworks may include cuts for the basement level of up to about 4 m deep with only minor
filling expected to be required up to about 1 m in height to form finished surface levels. Should proposed
cuts/fills exceed this quantity, Tectonic must assess the impacts on slope stability before construction.
6.2 Earthworks – General
6.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability
Following removal of the existing buildings and associated construction elements (e.g. footings, services,
etc.), any tree stumps and large roots should be ‘grubbed out’. Any organic rich topsoil and uncontrolled fill
should then be stripped and set aside. Based on site observations, topsoil (where present) stripping depths
should generally range between 0.1 m and 0.2 m BGL, with uncontrolled fill encountered to depths of 0.4 m
to 1.3 m BGL. It is noted that deeper pockets of topsoil or uncontrolled fill may exist and deeper, localised
grubbing out of tree roots may be required.
Topsoil materials must not be used in structural fill; however, may be placed across landscaping areas.
Unsuitable natural material such as any saturated, loose or soft materials encountered should also be
removed during subgrade preparation for bulk earthworks.
It should be noted that compaction of such relatively ‘clean’ sands as structural fill requires the addition of
substantial volumes of water (‘flooding’) combined with the use of vibratory compaction equipment (typically
a vibrating plate). Care must be taken with the use of vibratory equipment (e.g. compactors or sheet piling)
to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on surrounding structures. The impacts from ground vibration
must be closely monitored and managed during construction. It would be prudent to conduct a dilapidation
survey of neighbouring structures prior to commencement of construction.
The exposed natural subgrade following excavations will likely be in a loose condition and must be
compacted by several passes of a vibrating plate or minimum 4 tonne vibrating smooth drum roller, in
conjunction with surface application of ample water, to achieve the required compaction.
Due to the potential for poor trafficability during placement of a minimum 150 mm thick granular working
platform may be required on soil subgrades along haul roads and across laydown areas. Specific platform
design would be required prior to mobilisation and trafficking of any heavy mobile plant on the site (e.g.
cranes, concrete pumps or piling rigs)
Construction areas and surrounds should be graded to shed surface water runoff. Swale drains should be
constructed along the crest and toe of any cuts, and above fill batters, where possible. Drains are to be
graded to discharge collected waters to a control point(s) before release into existing stormwater
infrastructure.
It should be noted that during wet weather, the natural soils may cause sediment run-off. Appropriate
erosion and sediment control measures must be installed prior to commencement of earthworks at this site.
6.2.2 Excavations
Excavations through the soils encountered in the boreholes should be achievable using conventional
earthmoving plant (e.g. small or larger excavators with toothed buckets). Temporary, unsurchaged cuts in
the very loose to loose sand could be formed at 1V:2H and at 1V:1H in medium dense (or denser) sand for
batters up to 3 m in height. Flatter batters or temporary retention may be required if groundwater seepage is
encountered or if sloughing of dry sand occurs at the batter surface. Deeper unretained cuts, if required,
should be specifically assessed by Tectonic.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 10
Page 16
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
If filling or permanent cuts exceed 1 m high/deep, then these must be retained. Permanent cut and fill batters
up to 1 m high shall not exceed 1V:2.5H. Any permanent soil and fill batters will require erosion protection
(e.g. revegetation or surface protection).
It is likely that above temporary batter slopes may not be able to be achieved in places, due to spatial
constraints, and so temporary shoring will be required (e.g. sheet piles) as per the recommendations in
Section 6.4 below. Excavations in close proximity to existing structures, including on neighbouring
properties, will need to be specifically designed to prevent undermining. It is recommended that footing
exposures or confirmation of foundations via certified building plans be undertaken to assess the possibility
of undermining. If undermining is a potential issue the existing structures may need to be underpinned or
excavations may require temporary shoring.
The advice of a suitably qualified and experienced structural RPEQ must be sought regarding any potential
undermining as well as design and construction of any underpins/temporary shoring (if required).
The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable to
excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
Due to the highly permeable nature of the sands at this site, stormwater is expected to rapidly infiltrate the
ground, making un-sealed surface drainage ineffective for the control of flows. Any sealed areas should be
graded to ensure free drainage of stormwater away from construction areas, and to a control point(s).
6.2.3 Filling
The existing sandy soils (fill and natural) where free of deleterious materials (e.g. vegetation, building debris
etc.) may be reused as structural fill, subject to appropriate moisture adjustment. It should be noted that
compaction of such relatively ‘clean’ sands as structural fill requires the addition of substantial volumes of
water (‘flooding’) combined with the use of vibratory compaction equipment (typically a smooth drum roller or
heavy vibrating plate).
Should importation of fill be required, it is recommended that such fill should comply with the following:
Minimum CBR of 10%
Maximum plasticity index of 15%
Shrink-swell index ≤ 1%
Maximum particle size of 100 mm
Any fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content for
Standard Compaction. Fill material should be placed in 250 mm thick (loose thickness) layers and be
compacted by repeated rolling using a minimum 4 tonne smooth drum roller (or equivalent, with vibration on
if safe to do so) to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 95% of the maximum Dry Density Ratio (DDR),
based upon the Standard Compaction method, or a Dry Density Index of at least 70%.
Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum of two tests per vertical
lift is recommended where structural fill heights are to exceed 300 mm. Further details for control and testing
of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and
Residential Developments.
Fill embankment edges must be over-filled by 0.5 m (horizontally) and then trimmed back to well compacted
material.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 11
Page 17
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
6.3 Building Foundations
6.3.1 Indicative Site Classification
Site classifications for footing design are determined in accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and
Footings, and depend on the depth of cut / fill undertaken at a site, variations in the natural soil/rock depths,
and the reactivity of the in situ soil / rock and any imported fill materials. It should be noted that the proposed
works are outside of the scope of AS2870.
Based on the results of the investigation, the site is classified as Class P in accordance with AS 2870-2011
Residential Slabs and Footings, due to the presence of uncontrolled fill and poor bearing capacity soils at
shallow depths. However, if not for these factors, the site would have the characteristics of Class S, with the
estimated characteristic surface movements (‘ys’) ranging up to about 20 mm. Due to the potential variability
in subgrade density a site classification of Class M is recommended in relation to assessment of flexibility
requirements for ground slab, footing and plumbing design.
6.3.2 Footing Design
No design loadings were available at the time of reporting. Footings for the proposed development and any
ancillary structures (e.g. retaining walls, etc.) must penetrate through any fill materials and unsuitable natural
soils (i.e. very loose to loose sands) to found at least 0.5 m into medium dense (or denser) natural sands.
Such materials were encountered in the boreholes below depths of about 1 m to 2.5 m BGL (existing ground
levels) and somewhat shallower in the area of BH1 where it is assumed the site had previously been cut down
to form the driveway. Thus, piled footings will be required unless excavations expose such materials at or
near foundation subgrade level.
Piles so founded may be designed using an allowable end bearing pressure (EBP) of 500 kPa. Piles founded
in dense sand may adopt an allowable EBP of 1 MPa. High level footings, where achievable in deeper cut
areas, may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa provided that they are founded in the
natural medium dense (or denser) sands. Settlement under such loads is expected to be in the order of up to
20 mm or 1% of footing width.
Given the sandy soil profile and depths of footings required, steel screw piles are considered to be a suitable
foundation type for the proposed unit development generally. However, in areas of cut exposing medium
dense (or denser) sands at the subgrade level conventional high-level footings may be adopted. It should be
noted that excavation for concrete strip footings (or similar) may loosen the base. Therefore, the use of a
vibrating plate and ample water would be required to densify any high-level footing bases prior to the
placement of reinforcing steel.
Due to the presence of loose sands, open bored piers or driven piles are not considered to be suitable for
this site. Steel reinforced concrete bore piles may be possible; however, the use of sacrificial liners (e.g.
formatube etc.) would be required. The advice of a specialist piling contractor must be sought regarding
feasibility, design and installation of the piling system for this site, including an assessment of potential
vibration effects on nearby structures, and monitoring requirements.
If steel screw piles are adopted, it will be important to ensure close supervision of installation, as piling may
not encounter sufficient drilling resistance (from torque measurement) in sands at the suggested founding
depth, and piles could extend to much greater depth than necessary.
It is therefore recommended that site specific static load testing be conducted from screw piles, if adopted, at
a minimum. Where tension or compression capacity developed in the footings is critical for the future
structure (e.g. resistance to uplift forces from high winds), then cyclic load tests (including measurement of
deflections under tension and compression cycles) should also be undertaken prior to construction.
Kentledge for static testing, or simulated cyclic loads, should prove the piles to a minimum of two times the
expected working load within tolerable deflections.
Footing design should also account for potential soil reactivity to be equivalent to Class M. It should be noted
that placement of reactive clay (which is not recommended) may result in a more severe equivalent site
classification, such as H1 or greater.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 12
Page 18
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations, trenches,
retaining walls, or in ground structures that are not designed to support building loads. Footings should
found at least below a plane extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/excavations/retaining
walls/swimming pool, then rising up at 1V:1H, as illustrated in Text Figure 10.
Text Figure 10: Footing depth required to prevent undermining
Site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water and to prevent ponding of water on
subgrade areas during construction and also adjacent to foundations and perimeter slabs once construction
is completed. It is recommended that footings be inspected by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer
prior to placement of steel reinforcement and pouring of concrete to confirm allowable bearing pressures and
cleanliness of excavations.
If any soil conditions encountered during construction are found to differ from those noted in the geotechnical
investigation, Tectonic should be notified immediately and an inspection carried out to determine if changes
to footing design are required.
6.4 Temporary and Permanent Retention
Excavations for the basement level may extend to depths of around 4 m BGL (existing ground levels) and, it
is likely that the basement footprint will extend close to some of the site boundaries, so some form of
temporary shoring may be required to support the basement excavation.
Based upon our experience with similar sites, we anticipate that temporary shoring may be achieved by use
of sheet piles. Such shoring techniques would likely require lateral restraint, and this is conventionally
achieved by anchoring. However, the proximity to neighbouring properties would require a number of
permissions to be obtained for subterranean access. Therefore, it is suggested that internal struts/propping
be considered to provide lateral restraint for the shoring system.
Anchored or propped sheet pile would likely require pre-drilling to prevent adverse vibrations during sheet
pile installation. Temporary lateral support can be provided by installation of helical steel anchors (similar to
screw piles) or internal props/struts connected to walers. As a permanent basement wall is constructed
inside the temporary structure, the sheet pile wall becomes sacrificial.
Other shoring methods that could be considered include contiguous or non-contiguous piles and secant
piles. The advice of a specialist shoring contractor must be sought regarding feasibility, design and
installation of the proposed retention and subsurface drainage system. It will be necessary to conduct
numerical analysis to optimise the retention system. Detailed design will also need to account for relevant
factors of safety to maintain the temporary and long-term stability of the retention system.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 13
Page 19
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
Retaining structures greater than 1 m high, or those required to support surcharge loads or sloping backfill,
will require engineer design and certification of construction. Retaining wall design should be carried out in
accordance with AS4678-2002 Earth retaining structures.
Design for temporary and permanent retaining structures could be carried out using a pressure distribution
applicable to the wall type (e.g. trapezoidal for propped or anchored walls) and based on the parameters
listed in Table 4. These values do not include allowance for hydrostatic pressures nor transient (e.g.
construction) or adjacent footing loadings.
Table 4: Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Lateral earth pressure coefficients
Unit
Friction
Retained material weight
angle (°) Ka Ko
(t/m3) Kp
(Cantilever wall) (Non-yielding wall)
Very Loose/ Loose
1.8 28 0.36 0.53 2.77
Sands
Medium Dense (or
1.9 34 0.28 0.44 3.54
Denser) Sands
Future Controlled Fill* * * * * *
Note: * Depends on fill material type and level of compaction.
Retaining structures must be founded as per the recommendations in Section 6.3.2 above with the piled
footings, if required, also designed to resist lateral loads imposed by the retaining wall. Detailed design must
include an assessment of stability. A solution using screw piles to support retaining walls, possibly including
raked piles, may be feasible although bending and shear capacities would need to be carefully checked in
design from a soil-structure interaction viewpoint. Additional lateral capacity may be achieved by
incorporating a deeper pile cap that also acts as a shear key attracting passive resistance in the sands in front
of the wall.
6.5 Drainage
Surface diversion drainage should be constructed above the crest of any new cut or fill embankment or
retaining walls (e.g. grassed or landscaped swales or diversion mounds). Adequate site drainage must be
installed to ensure that stormwater runoff is directed away from building walls, footings, batters and retaining
walls.
Although unlikely, if groundwater seepage is encountered during excavations, Tectonic must be notified to
assess the impact on stability.
Subsurface drainage must be installed behind any retaining walls (e.g. slotted ‘aggi’ pipe wrapped in filter
‘sock’ placed in gravel backfill). Depending on matters such as the extent of drainage installed and site-
specific groundwater conditions, the designer must make an assessment of hydrostatic pressure to be
accounted for in the design of the retaining structure.
All excess stormwater collected around the residence (including overflow from rainwater tanks etc.) must be
directed by pipes or lined channels to discharge into the existing stormwater infrastructure along Bottlebrush
Avenue or Berrima Row. Subsurface disposal of stormwater must not be undertaken.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 14
Page 20
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of our assessment it is assessed that there would be a Low Risk of slope instability
affecting the proposed development subject to implementation of the recommendations given in this report.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document Limitations, which is included in Appendix C of this report. The
statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this
report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the
services provided by Tectonic for this project.
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0 15
Page 21
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899
Buderim Qld 4556
Ph: 07 5478 9016
PROJECT:
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE
NOOSA HEADS
TITLE:
SITE PLAN
CLIENT:
BOTTLEBRUSH PROPERTY
DRAWN: DATE:
MS 4/05/2021
CHECKED: DATE:
DJP 4/05/2022
SCALE:
AS SHOWN (APPROX.)
LEGEND:
APPROX. BOREHOLE
LOCATIONS
Notes: FIGURE:
PROJECT NO.: REV:
Base plan adopted from Nearmap© imagery dated 13 November 2021
0m 20 40m 22151-001 1 0
Page 22
PROPOSED MIXED-USE UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports & Explanatory Notes
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0
Page 23
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22151
Client: Bottlebrush Property Commenced: 21/4/2022
Project Name: Proposed Unit Development Completed: 21/4/2022
Hole Location: 37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads QLD Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 509196.2 m E 7080319.9 m N Checked By: DP
Drill Model and Mounting: 4WD Auger Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Pocket DCP TEST
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
PAVERS, orange brown L to
Gravelly SAND, fine to coarse grained, fine to MD
medium sized gravel, brown grey (FILL)
SP Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, grey (FILL)
SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey
(AEOLIAN)
1
DS
1.2-1.5m
MD
2
Groundwater not encountered
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22151.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 6/5/2022 10:46 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
Augered to 2.8m
AD/T
3 M
4
Augered to 4.2m
D
5
Augered to 5.5m
6
Borehole terminated 6.0 m BGL, target depth.
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 24
Borehole No.
BH2
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22151
Client: Bottlebrush Property Commenced: 21/4/2022
Project Name: Proposed Unit Development Completed: 21/4/2022
Hole Location: 37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads QLD Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 509189.4 m E 7080307.6 m N Checked By: DP
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Pocket DCP TEST
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
RUBBER FLOORING, dark grey
Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with
organics (FILL) VL to
L
Groundwater not encountered
SP SAND, fine grained, pale grey (AEOLIAN) L
1
Hand Auger
M
2 MD
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22151.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 6/5/2022 10:46 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
Augered to 3.0m
3
Borehole terminated 3.0 m BGL, target
depth. DCP continued downhole.
4
5
6
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 25
Borehole No.
BH3
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22151
Client: Bottlebrush Property Commenced: 21/4/2022
Project Name: Proposed Unit Development Completed: 21/4/2022
Hole Location: 37 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads QLD Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 509176.3 m E 7080322.4 m N Checked By: DP
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Pocket DCP TEST
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
SYNTHETIC GRASS, green
Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, grey (FILL)
Gravelly SAND, fine to coarse grained, grey, pale
Groundwater not encountered
brown, fine to medium sized gravel, with brick
waste (FILL)
1
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey L
Hand Auger
(AEOLIAN)
M
2
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22151.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 6/5/2022 10:46 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
MD
3
Borehole terminated 3.0 m BGL, target
depth. DCP continued downhole.
4
5
6
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 26
TERMS USED ON LOGS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AD* Auger Drilling RA Rotary Air BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger RD Rotary Blade or Drag bit EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
HA Hand Auger RT Rotary Tri-cone bit HMLC Core – 63mm
*T TC-Bit HQ Core – 63mm
*V V-Bit NMLC Core – 47mm
NQ Core – 52mm
R Ripper
RH Rock Hammer
WATER
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,
OBSERVED surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in
ENCOUNTERED less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open
for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
5,4,10 N=14 5,4,10 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/65mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
SV Field shear vane test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U50 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Electronic cone penetration test
CPTu Electronic cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
Rev1
February 2021
Page 27
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON LOGS
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil is classified and described in borehole and test pit logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 2017.
The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Sub Division Particle Size
Division
BOULDERS > 200 mm
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm
Coarse 19 to 63 mm
GRAVEL Medium 6.7 to 19 mm
Fine 2.36 to 6.7 mm
Coarse 0.6 to 2.36 mm
SAND Medium 0.21 to 0.6 mm
Fine 0.075 to 0.21
SILT 0.002 to 0.075
CLAY < 0.002 mm
NOTE: The U line is an approximate upper bound for most materials.
Data which plot above the U line may represent unusual/problem soil
behavior, or unreliable data and should be considered carefully.
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 2017
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 - 2017
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 2017, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Rev1
October 2017
Page 28
PROPOSED MIXED-USE UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
APPENDIX B
AGS Guidelines - Qualitative Terminology for Use in
Assessing Risk to Property
Some Guidelines for Hillside Construction
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0
Page 29
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD
Approximate Annual Probability
Implied Indicative Landslide
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional Recurrence Interval
Value Boundary
10-1 5x10-2
10 years The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A
20 years The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
-2
10 100 years
design life.
LIKELY B
-3
-3 5x10 200 years
10 1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. POSSIBLE C
5x10-4 2000 years
The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
10-4 10,000 years
design life.
UNLIKELY D
-5 5x10-5 20,000 years
10 The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances
100,000 years RARE E
over the design life.
-6 5x10-6 200,000 years
10 1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life. BARELY CREDIBLE F
Note: (1) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY
Approximate Cost of Damage
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional
Value Boundary
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
200% CATASTROPHIC 1
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
100%
Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
60% MAJOR 2
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
40%
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
20% MEDIUM 3
Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
10%
5% 1% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works. MINOR 4
Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
0.5% INSIGNIFICANT 5
notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
Notes: (2) The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the
unaffected structures.
(3) The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation
works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary
accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.
(4) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Form No. 68039
68039 RL2Risk
Landslide August 2010
Management Issued 10/7/07
Page 30
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: – QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)
QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX – LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
Indicative Value of 1: CATASTROPHIC 2: MAJOR 3: MEDIUM 4: MINOR 5:
Approximate Annual 200% 60% 20% 5% INSIGNIFICANT
Probability 0.5%
A – ALMOST CERTAIN 10-1 VH VH VH H M or L (5)
-2
B - LIKELY 10 VH VH H M L
C - POSSIBLE 10-3 VH H M M VL
D - UNLIKELY 10-4 H M L L VL
-5
E - RARE 10 M L L VL VL
-6
F - BARELY CREDIBLE 10 L VL VL VL VL
Notes: (5) For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.
(6) When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
time.
RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Level Example Implications (7)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
VH VERY HIGH RISK options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
H HIGH RISK
risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires investigation, planning and
M MODERATE RISK implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
L LOW RISK
required.
Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
VL VERY LOW RISK
Note: (7) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
given as a general guide.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Form No. Landslide
68039 68039 RL2Risk
August 2010
Management Issued 10/7/07
Page 31
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION
GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE
ADVICE
GEOTECHNICAL Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early Prepare detailed plan and start site works before
ASSESSMENT stage of planning and before site works. geotechnical advice.
PLANNING
SITE PLANNING Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk Plan development without regard for the Risk.
arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber Floor plans which require extensive cutting and
or steel frames, timber or panel cladding. filling.
HOUSE DESIGN
Consider use of split levels. Movement intolerant structures.
Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.
SITE CLEARING Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indiscriminately clear the site.
ACCESS & Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage. Excavate and fill for site access before
DRIVEWAYS Council specifications for grades may need to be modified. geotechnical advice.
Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.
EARTHWORKS Retain natural contours wherever possible. Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks.
Minimise depth. Large scale cuts and benching.
CUTS Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope. Unsupported cuts.
Provide drainage measures and erosion control. Ignore drainage requirements
Minimise height. Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails,
Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling. may flow a considerable distance including
Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards. onto property below.
FILLS Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall. Block natural drainage lines.
Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage. Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil.
Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil,
boulders, building rubble etc in fill.
ROCK OUTCROPS Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk. Disturb or undercut detached blocks or
& BOULDERS Support rock faces where necessary. boulders.
Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces. Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as
Found on rock where practicable. sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced
RETAINING
Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope blockwork.
WALLS
above. Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes.
Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation.
Found within rock where practicable. Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders
Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope. or undercut cliffs.
FOOTINGS
Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.
Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.
Engineer designed.
Support on piers to rock where practicable.
SWIMMING POOLS Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.
Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there
may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.
DRAINAGE
Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes. Discharge at top of fills and cuts.
Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses. Allow water to pond on bench areas.
SURFACE Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.
Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.
Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.
Provide filter around subsurface drain. Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.
Provide drain behind retaining walls.
SUBSURFACE
Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.
Prevent inflow of surface water.
Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.
SEPTIC &
be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable. Use absorption trenches without consideration
SULLAGE
Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded. of landslide risk.
EROSION Control erosion as this may lead to instability. Failure to observe earthworks and drainage
CONTROL & Revegetate cleared area. recommendations when landscaping.
LANDSCAPING
DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant
SITE VISITS Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER
OWNER’S Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply
RESPONSIBILITY pipes.
Where structural distress is evident see advice.
If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 113
Form No. 68029 RL2 August 2010
Page 32
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
114 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Form No. 68029 RL2 August 2010
Page 33
PROPOSED MIXED-USE UNIT DEVELOPMENT
37 BOTTLEBRUSH AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
APPENDIX C
Limitations
13 May 2022
Report No. 22151-001-Rev0
Page 34
LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared for the purpose outlined in Tectonic’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this document, in whole or in part, for any other purpose. The scope of Tectonic’s Services are as described in Tectonic’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Tectonic did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the report. 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 Tectonic in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given that economic and time constraints limit the practical extent of geotechnical investigation. Variations in conditions may occur between investigation 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. Where variations exist on site, additional studies and actions may be required. Tectonic’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time that the work was performed. The passage of time, man-made or natural events, may alter the site conditions. It is understood that the Services undertaken allowed Tectonic to form 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 the preparation of this document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the findings of the investigation described. Actual subsurface conditions may differ from those indicated in the document (e.g. between boreholes or test pits). 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 Tectonic for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. This document is provided for the sole use by the Client 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. Tectonic accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document. Rev 1 (March 2016)
Used in these records
Geotehnical Investigation Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
Geotehnical Investigation Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 4.6 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.