Original source · versioned page text
Slope Stability Report
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
R. & A. Fewtrell 12 May 2021
By Email Letter 01 Revision 0
Arcos Project: 210256
Dear Team,
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Propsoed Residential Extensions
109 Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads
At the request of R. & A. Fewtrell, Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd (AG) undertook a geotechnical
investigation for the above project. The summary of the investigation and subsequent analysis
is detailed in Table 1. The value presented in Table 1 is condition upon the recommendations
within this report being implemented and is described in accordance with the Australian
Geomechanics Society “Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management”.
Table 1: Summary of Investigation Results
Result of AGS Slope Instability Assessment
Low
Notes: The above is a summary of the detailed investigation results discussed within this report. The entire report
must be read, understood, and kept in entirety.
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Cody Surawski B.Eng(Civ)(Hons)/B.Env.Sc Billy Blake B.Eng(Civ)(Hons), CPEng, RPEQ, NER, MIEAust
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
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 21 pages
Page 2
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
1.0 Introduction
Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd (AG) was commissioned to undertake a geotechnical investigation
for the Propsoed Residential Extensions located at 109 Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads.
This report outlines the results of the investigation, laboratory testing, analysis and interpretive
reporting on the following items:
• Review of the existing slope stability hazards, their attributed risks and impacts of the
proposed development in alignment with the practices set out within the Australian
Geomechanics Society guidelines; and,
• Provide recommendations from a geotechnical context that will avoid or reduce any
potential instability.
This report must be kept in entirety. The use of this report is undertaken in accordance with
our Company’s terms and conditions.
2.0 Regional Geology
The site is an area underlain by the Quaternary aged Deposits, which typically comprises
“Mud, muddy sand, sand and minor peat; swamp and heath deposits in coastal areas”. The
encountered conditions agree with anticipated geological units.
3.0 Existing Stability Risk
Local authorities prepare mapping tools to aid in assessing potential slope stability
requirements. The mapping tools are a “high level” approach where the site specific
investigations are specific to a particular site/allotment. It is important to note that where a
site specific investigation and slope stability assessment are undertaken, they take precedence.
Reference to the available overlays for the area show the allotment has been initially mapped
as “Moderate” in terms of landslide hazard.
4.0 Previous Geotechnical Investigation
A geotechnical investigation for the proposed development has been undertaken by Global
Testing. This report is attached and the encountered conditions in this investigation have
informed the analysis undertaken by this office. Given this, where discrepancies exist between
the encountered conditions in the referenced report and the encountered conditions, our
analysis cannot be considered to be accurate and reassessment will be required.
The referenced report encountered silty sand through out the profile, which aligns with the
predicted geological unit at this site. No groundwater seepage was observed in the
investigation undertaken.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 3
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
5.0 Walkover Assessment
Geotechnical comments are based on the factual findings of the investigation, best practice,
local experience, published correlations; however, are fundamentally founded in opinion and
this should be considered.
An experienced geotechnical engineer undertook the walkover assessment on May 2021.
Overall the lot falls away to the south-east, with small retaining walls used to allow for a flat
house pad. The neighbouring walkway shows t grade of the land without retaining walls
where a slope of up to 10° is present. No obvious signs of disturbed ground, tension cracks or
hummocks were noted during the assessment.
6.0 AGS Assessment
Landslides are caused where a soil or rock mass has a decrease in strength, usually attributed
to groundwater, resulting in the material not being able to maintain its own self-weight
resulting in a slope failure.
The Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) developed a set of tools and procedures for
assessing the stability of a slope. The tools and procedures presented with the AGS
documentation form the basis of the assessment undertaken herein and their documentation
is attached for reference.
The guidelines also identify that the regulator typically sets the standard for levels of tolerable
risk. AGS defines tolerable risk as “risks within a range that society can live with so as to secure
certain benefits. It is a range of risk regarded as non-negligible and needing to be kept under
review and reduced further if practicable”.
The guides suggest that areas of moderate or greater risk should not be developed unless a
rigorous remediation plan be implemented to reduce the area to a level of Acceptable Risk .
AGS defines acceptable risk as “risk which everyone affected is prepared to accept. Action to further
reduce such risk is usually not required unless reasonably practicable measures are available at low
cost in terms of money, time and effort”.
AGS suggest that regulators generally accept risk levels of “low” or lower as a level of
acceptable risk.
AGS prepared a semi-quantitative assessment tool for determining the level of risk for a site.
The tool separates the potential hazards for a site, from a stability context, and rates them with
a level of risk frequency. The multiplication of these individual risk frequency summates as the
risk frequency rating which is then measured against the levels of risk nominated by AGS.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 4
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Table 1: Results of AGS Qualitative Risk Assessment
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Level
Global Failure Barely Credible Catastrophic Low
Shallow slumping of surface soils Likely Minor Low to Moderate
Based on the results of the AGS assessment, the perceived risk based on the conditions
encountered and information available at the time of the assessment is “Low”.
7.0 Hillside Construction
The following works should be implemented in additional to other items highlighted within
this document. These points are considered to be typical good hillside construction practice
as explained in attached documentation:
• Foundations for both lightly loaded and heavy structures should be supported on either
piles or high level footins founded into medium dense sands and must extend 2.0 m below
the surace level as a minimum.
• Where slopes are not supported by an engineer designed support system, natural slopes
within or near building envelope or movement sensitive areas should be no steeper than
2H:1V.
• Building platform fill should be limited to a maximum height of 1 m. The filling should be
step keyed into the natural slope and battered no steeper than 3H:1V unless an engineer
designed retention system is in place.
• Unsupported cuts steeper than 2.5H:1V will require engineer designed retention systems.
• All stormwater and surface water is to be discharged by an approved stormwater drainage
system. The use of subsurface drainage systems are not suitable unless greater than 50
m downslope from the envelope at this site.
• Ongoing maintenance of the effluent wastewater area is also considered mandatory. The
location of the application area should be located below the proposed building. Plumbing
and services must also not be allowed to leak and regular maintenance and inspections
should be undertaken.
• Erosion protection of cut and fill batters will be required. Batters should incorporate crest
and toe drainage. Batters should be vegetated appropriately to minimise erosion.
8.0 Geotechnical Recommendations
The following sections details specific geotechnical constraints or recommendations in
addition to general hillside construction notes.
8.1 Site Preparation and Earthworks
The following comments are provided in relation to site preparation for earthworks.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 5
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
• Fill at this site must be limited to not more than 0 m unless supported by an engineer
designed and certified retaining structure
• Areas where fill is proposed should be stripped of uncontrolled fill, soft, overly wet,
foreign, or otherwise deemed unsuitable material (material that is potentially
compressible) down to a relatively stiff dry base ensuring no organics material is present.
• Stripped areas must be inspected by the geotechnical testing authority (GTA) to ensure
no soft spots or loose zones are present. This should be done with the use of a loaded
body truck or 12 tonne roller as a minimum. Areas showing signs of movement under the
action of the testing equipment should be either over excavated and replaced with select
fill or conditioned onsite through tyning, blending or other suitable methods.
• Areas sloping in excess of approximately 1 vertical unit to 10 horizontal units (1V:10H),
the surface will need to be benched at a minimum vertical bench height of 0.3 m to enable
keying in of the new fill and existing soil. The benches will also need to be shaped
adequately to promote drainage.
• Edge batters should be formed by over filling an area and ‘trimming’ back to the desired
profile.
• Although no standard exists for the moisture content of soils, it is recommended that the
site soils be placed at or near optimum moisture content (OMC) for general earthworks
operations. This increases efficiency during earthworks operations. A range of +/- 2% of
OMC is recommend for general earthworks.
• Where site soils are proposed for use as fill in other areas, won material will need to have
a maximum particle size of 75 mm or be observed to break down under the energy of
compactive equipment.
• Fill materials should be placed in relatively horizontal layers with a maximum placement
thickness of 200 mm. The materials should be compacted to a minimum dry density ratio
of 98% relative to Standard compactive effort.
• Highly plastic natural clays are very sensitive to the presence or lack of moisture and
therefore care should be used to place the material within the range nominated and to a
maximum dry density of 102% relative to Standard compactive effort. Where this does
not happen, the material could readily swell, soften, or be subject to significant
trafficability issues.
• Earthworks quality testing will be required on this site. The GTA will need to provide
supervision in accordance with AS3798 and undertake field density tests to monitor the
actual dry density and moisture content of placed materials.
• Completed platforms should be sealed with a minimum 250 mm layer of relatively
granular material (CBR15% or greater) to minimise the effects of relatively clayey
subgrades drying out leading to excessive cracking.
• Earthworks activities should be undertaken in relatively homogenous sequences where
achievable (ie. do not place “pockets” of gravel material next to impermeable clays as this
will lead to zones where water could become trapped).
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 6
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
• Fill material will be subject to potential settlement post placement. Well compacted fill
placed in accordance with AS3798 and otherwise, good earthworks procedure should
typically be subject to settlement in the order of 0.5% to 1.0% of the fill thickness over a
log cycle of time.
Arcos can assist in preparing earthworks documentation or guidelines for contractors to
adhere to in order to achieve an efficient and “fit for purpose” end product.
8.2 Retaining Structures
Retaining walls must be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer and
preferably in accordance with AS 4678. The geotechnical parameters for use in design of either
flexible or rigid wall systems are presented in Table 2.
Passive forces should be ignored in areas where disturbance may occur (ie. future trenching
or earthworks processes).
Compaction for retaining wall backfill should be undertaken with due care. Layers should be
placed thinner than for normal earthworks processes (say a maximum layer thickness of
100 mm) and compacted using light weight equipment such as hand controlled compactive
equipment to minimise the stresses on the wall. If hand controlled equipment is not practical,
temporary wall propping will be required.
Walls will need to incorporate full height drainage in accordance with good design practice to
minimise hydrostatic pressure. The below parameters do not include surcharge loadings.
Table 2: Retaining Wall Parameters (Unfactored)
Unit Weight Friction Angle Drained Cohesion
Material
(kN/m3) (Ø) (c’)
Loose Sands 18 28 0
Medium Dense Sands 19 30 0
Notes: NR – Not Recommended
*- Compacted under Level 1 conditions and behaves as clayey material
MD - Medium Dense
VLS - Very Low Strength
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 7
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
8.3 Footings
In accordance with industry standards, a geotechnical engineer from Arcos should undertake
the testing within the footings to confirm that the encountered material is in alignment with
the adopted parameters and assumptions provided within this report. Where this does not
occur, Arcos cannot be held liable for any of the information presented within this report.
All footings will need to be designed to accommodate potential ground surface movement,
settlement values and any additional settlement values associated with the placement of new
fill.
Settlement for suitably sized and designed high level footings should be in the order of 1-2%
of the width of the footing.
If footings are located adjacent to an underground service or other obstruction that is not
homogenous with the founding strata, the footing should be extended a minimum 0.3 m
below an imaginary line projected at a 45 degree angle from the lowest point of the
service/obstruction. This is depicted graphically for reference:
Where footings found into medium dense sands, they may be dimensioned for a maximum
allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. Based on the borelogs, the above material is
encountered at approximately 0.7 m depth below existing surface levels at the time of the
investigation.
The ultimate geotechnical end bearing and shaft adhesion parameter are presented in Table
3. The values given will need to reduced by applying a suitable geotechnical strength reduction
factor ( g) for limit state or divided by a suitable factor of safety for working stress methods.
The g should be selected by the designer.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 8
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Table 3: Deep Level Footings – Ultimate Geotechnical Parameters (Long Pile)
Bored
Material
Fb (kPa) Fs (kPa)
medium dense sands 1000 NR
Notes: * - Fb = Ultimate End Bearing Pressure (unfactored) for long piles, Fs = Ultimate Shaft Adhesion (unfactored).
The upper 1 m of soil profile should be ignored in shaft calculations to allow for shrinkage
cracks. The values presented in Table 3 assume that the material equal to four pile diameters
below the base of any footings is as strong or stronger.
Settlement values are subjected to a variety of factors; however, a properly designed and
constructed pile should have a serviceability settlement between 1% and 2% of its’ diameter.
9.0 Limitations
Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd (AG) has prepared this document for 109 Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads
for R. & A. Fewtrell. The document is specific to this particular project and for the purposes as
described within the document. The document cannot be used for any other project on the
same site or other sites or relied upon by a third party. Any party relying upon this document
beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent
of AG, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to AG for any loss or damage. AG
has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents.
It is important to understand that ground conditions can be spatially variable over short
distances as a result of geological processes or human interference. These changes can occur
after the time of which field work was undertaken. Given this, the assumed subsurface
conditions within this document are only indicative of the conditions at the testing locations
to the depths investigated at the time of the fieldwork.
The advice given in this document is based upon the assumed subsurface conditions. The
relevance and accuracy of advice given is directly affected by variations in ground conditions
across the site between testing locations that has not been captured and time elapsed since
investigation works.
This document must be kept in entirety, read in full and understood. Interpretations or
conclusions made by others unless supported by an expressed written statement,
interpretation, outcome or stated within this document cannot be the responsibility of AG.
This document or parts of it should not be used as part of a specification or design for a project
without prior review and agreement by AG.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 9
51 640 311 842
CONTACT
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
__________________________________________________________________________________
We trust this information is satisfactory for your current needs. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the signed authors.
12 May 2021 Propsoed Residential Extensions
Page 10
51 640 311 842
MAIL
PO BOX 851
Moffat Beach, QLD, 4551
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
GEOTECH REPORT
These notes have been provided to clarify and Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd undertakes quality assurance
enhance the reader’s understanding of the terminology checks in accordance with its’ quality system
used throughout the report, and also to identify where requirements; however, restrictions on the project
limitations exist. All investigations are undertaken outside of Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd’s control can result
based on budgetary constraints which impart a level of in unanticipated variations, changes in policy or
uncertainty as a result of limiting the amount of interpretation of said policies by the relevant authority,
investigation undertaken. or the actions of contractors subject to commercial
pressure.
Copyright
Site Variations
This report remains the property of Arcos Unit Group
Pty Ltd at all times unless ownership is transferred in If site variations become evident at the time of
writing. It cannot be included in any documentation construction or after the release of a report, Arcos Unit
without the express written permission of Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd requests immediately notification. This
Group Pty Ltd notification is proposed in order to assist in remediation
prior to any permanent structures or design procedures
Subsurface Report Sheets (Bores etc) are undertaken.
The provided subsurface sheets are inherently an Collaboration
interpretation undertaken by a suitably qualified and
experienced person; however, the reliability of the Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd strongly recommends open
provided information will rely on the method of and collaborative communication about the use and
investigation. It is prudent to state that these sheets inherent interpretation of Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd’s
only represent a very small percentage of the report. Please contact the author of the report to
subsurface conditions across a particular project. arrange for an obligation free discussion regarding the
potential benefits of having geotechnical consultants.
It reasons that given the relatively small representation
of the subsurface conditions for a project, spacial
variability between testing locations must be taken into
consideration including the orientation of strata
intersections.
The presence or lack of groundwater is usually stated
on the subsurface sheets; however, it must be noted
that the measurements undertaken onsite are typically
very inaccurate and if the presence or lack of
groundwater will have any degree of affect on the
project, additional groundwater monitoring techniques
should be employed such as groundwater monitoring
wells.
Reporting
The report has been prepared and reviewed by suitably
qualified and experienced persons. The persons draw
on previous experience, local knowledge, published
literature, and otherwise standard engineering
approaches and principals. The context of which the
report has been prepared for must be considered and
if the context changes, due consideration should be
given to the possibility that the report is no longer
considered relevant and review by Arcos Unit Group
Pty Ltd must be undertaken.
Page 11
51 640 311 842
MAIL
PO BOX 851
Moffat Beach, QLD, 4551
OFFICES
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Interpretation of the
Subsurface Sheets
It is important to note that the point load strength index
The terminology included on Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd’s
does not take into consideration the degree of fracturing of
has been evolved from AS1726:2016. Typically a soil’s
a rock mass which can both lower and increase the overall
strength, colour, plasticity, grain size, other inclusions, and
rock strength. The strength of rock is broken down as
moisture will be described. A rock’s strength, weathering,
follows:
colour, grain, and other inclusions are typically described.
Very Low Strength (VLS) < 2 MPa (UCS)
Soil Low Strength (LS) 2 to 6 MPa (UCS)
Medium Strength (MS) 6 to 20 MPa (UCS)
Soil is typically described by the components that make it High Strength (HS) 20 to 60 MPa (UCS)
up by percentage or whichever has a governing behaviour. Very High Strength (VHS) 60 to 200 MPa (UCS)
The types and sizes reproduced from AS1726 are: Extremely High Strength (EHS) > 200 MPa (UCS)
Boulder >200 mm
Cobble 63 to 200 mm
Gravel 2.36 to 63 mm Very Low Strength (VLS) < 0.1 Is(50)
Sand 0.075 to 2.36 mm Low Strength (LS) 0.1 to 0.3 Is(50)
Silty 0.002 to 0.075 mm Medium Strength (MS) 0.30 to 1.0 Is(50)
Clay < 0.002 mm High Strength (HS) 1.0 to 3.0 Is(50)
Very High Strength (VHS) 3.0 to 10.0 Is(50)
The strength of soil is usually assessed by suitably Extremely High Strength (EHS) > 10.0 Is(50)
experienced persons through the use of laboratory test
results, published literature, field assessments or a The Is(50) values are based on a correlation between the
combination of the above. The strength of soil is unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 20. This value
characterised into either cohesive (clays and silts) or varies significantly and site specific testing must take
cohesionless (sands and gravels) as shown below: precedence.
Cohessive Soil Strength Term Rock weathering is broken down as follows:
Very Soft < 12.5 kPa
Soft 12.5 to 25 kPa Extremely weathered Behaves as soil but rock
Firm 25 to 50 kPa (EW) structure evident
Stiff 50 to 100 kPa Highly weathered Colour and strength of original
Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa (HW) fresh rock is not recognisable.
Hard > 200 kPa Decomposition of rock evident
Moderately Defects are heavily stained with
Cohesionless Soils Strength Term (uncorrected Qc) weathered (MW) rock mass showing signs of
Very Loose <2 MPa discolouration
Loose 2 to 5 MPa Slightly weathered Some staining but minimal to no
Medium Dense 5 to 15 MPa (SW) change in strength
Dense 15 to 25 MPa Fresh stained Minor staining evident
Very Dense > 25 MPa (FS)
Fresh rock No change
Rock (FR)
Rock is typically described by the components that make Rock fracturing is broken down as follows and can only be
it up by percentage or whichever has a governing accurately described where undamaged continuous
behaviour. The strength of rock is typically the most sampling has been undertaken:
important component. Typically, the strength of rock is
based on laboratory testing, tactile assessment and other Fragmented (Fg) Defect spacings < 20 mm
observations as relevant. The industry standard method Highly Fractured (HF) Defect spacings 20 to 50 mm
for assessing the strength of rock in the field is to use the Fractured (Fr) Defect spacings 50 to 200 mm
point load strength index (AS4133.4.1). Slightly Fractured (SF) Defect spacings 200 to 1000 mm
Unbroken (Ub) Defect spacings > 1000 mm
Page 12
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
EXAMPLES OF GOOD HILLSIDE Pee
Surface water interception drainage
Watertgnt, adequately sited and founded
roof water storage tariks (with due regard for
impact of potertial Ieakage)
Pleadble structure
Roof water piped aff ate or aiored
Onsite Getention tanks, walertight at
adequately founded. Poteriial eakage
managed by sub-sol drains
Vegetation retained
\_ cutting and fing minimised in @evetopreent
\—Senege effuent Pumped cut of connected to sewer,
Tanks adequately founded and watertight. Potential
leqieage managed by suh-sell drains
~.)
~——— Engingered retaining walls with both surface and
subsurface drainage (constructed before dwelling) ass e006)
EXAMPLES OF POOR HILLSIDE PRACTICE
Unetabtised rock toppies
8nd Gavel doensiops
Vegatatien removed ——,
Discherges of rootwater soak Btosp unsupported \ é
} '
meay rafter than conducted off cut falls
ule or to secure storage for re-use
‘Structure unable to tolerate i
rattierrent and cracks a
Poorly compacted fil cotties rs >
unewerly and cracks pool yk inn
We support fil
Loose, saturated fi sides rf
and possibly flows downshap= ;
Inecioquetoly supported cut tals
inadequate walling unatle 4 y
?
é
/
Seerabed
Dwelling net founded in bedeoch
y ————Ansance of subeod drainage wthin 4H
“—— Ponded water enters slope and activates landside © eG 2000)
Possible tavel downslope which impacts othar devekanensnt dawnt ‘Seow stan AGS (2009) Appeneix J
114 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 13
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 Deceripei Deccripe Level Indicative Notional Recurrence Interval escripaon ‘seriptor ve Value Boundary 107 5x10? 10 years 5 The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A 10? . 100 years 20 years ae a will probably occur under adverse conditions over the LIKELY B y 200 7 , —— 10° 3x10 4 1000 years > 000. soars The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. | POSSIBLE Cc 107 5x10 10,000 years ~ pa a might occur under very adverse circumstances over the UNLIKELY D 5 2 - 10° 5x10 20,000 years The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances sx10* 100,000 years over the design life RARE > . 10° * 1,000,000 years | 700-000 vears [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 Indicative Notional Description Descriptor Level Value Boundary . Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for 200% ae ie ~ © © © 200% 100% stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage. CATASTROPHIC 1 60% ° Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant MAJOR > ° 40% stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage. ~ 20% “° Moderate damage to some of structure. and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works. MEDIUM 3 “~ 10% Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage. 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, 2 N FI! A N 0.5% notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.) INSIG Cc 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. @G) 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 night; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 Form No. 68039 RL2 August 2010
Page 14
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 CON: SEQUENCE ES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Demey) Indicative Value of 1: CATASTROPHIC : MAJOR 3: MEDIUM 4: MINOR Approximate Annual 200% 60% 20% 5% IN! SIGNIFIC ANT Probability 0.5% A - ALMOST CERTAIN 107 H MorL (5) B - LIKELY 107 M L C - POSSIBLE 107 M VL D - UNLIKELY 10+ L VL E - RARE 10° M L L VL VL 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. © When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with nsk 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 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 risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum m relation to the value of the property. M MODERATE RISK May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator's approval) but requires investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce the nsk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low nsk should be implemented as soon as practicable. L LOW RISK Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the nsk to this level, ongoimg maintenance is required. VL VERY LOW RISK Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures. 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 nsk: these are only given as a general euide. Form No. 68039 RL2 August 2010 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 15
APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION Fas vide dramage measures and erosion contol. oe Strip vegetation and topscdl and key into aamral slopes price to filling ‘Use clean 40] matecials and compact to engimecring standards. Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall. GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE ADVICE GEOTECHNICAL Obnim advice Som a expensnced geotechnical practioner at early | Prepare detailed plan and stact site works before ASSESSMENT sage of plannms and before site works. geotechnical advice. PLANNING SITE PLANNING Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the mick | Plan development without regard for the Risk. 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 HOUSE DESIGN or steel Sames. imber or panel cladding i : Consider use of split levels Movement intolerant structures. Use docks for recreational areas whers appropriate. SITE CLEARING Retin natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indjscriminately clear the site. ACCESS & Satisfy requirements below for cats, fills, retaining walls and dramage. 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. Indtscximinatory bulk oarthworks. Manzzise dopa. Large scale cuts and benching Curs Pr we ened eens we ee eee they Unsupported cuts | Imors Gramazerequements Loose or poorly compacted S10, which if it fails, may flow a considerable distance including omto propecty below. Block natural drainage lines. Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil. Inchnde stumps, tress, vegetation, topsoil i rubble stc in £0. Rack OUTCROPS Remove or stabilise boulders which mary have unacceptable nak. Disturb or undercut detached blocks or & BOULDERS Support rock faces where necessary. boulders Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces. Construct a stractazally inadequate wall such 2: RETAINING Found on rock where practicable. sandstons flagging, brick or umreinforced WALLS Provide subsurface drainage within wall backiill and surface drainage on slope | blockwork. above. Lack of sabsurface drains and weephols. Construct wall as scon a5 possible after cat/fill operation. Found within rock where practicable. Found om topsoil, loose SI detached boulders FOOTINGS ‘Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope. or undercut clift. Desise for lateral cosep pressures if necessary. BackSll footing excavations to axchads imaress of surdace water. Engineer desimed. Support on piers to rock where practicable. SWIMMING POOLS | Provide with under-~drainage and sravity drain outlet where practicable. Desise for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there zazy be Little or no Lateral sapport on downhill sids. DRAINAGE Provide at tops of cat and fill slopes. Discharge at top of fills and cats. Discharge to street drainages or natural water courses. Allow water to pond on beach areas. SURFACE Provide gemeral falls to prevent blockage by siltation and imcorporate silt traps. Lins to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible. tal stractures to dissipate emergy at changes of slope and/or direction. Provide Slter around subvarface drain. Discharges rood ranoff into absorpticn trenches omens Provide drain behind retains walls. - ‘Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance Prevent inflow of surface water. Soar & Uvaally requizes Or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may | Discharge sullage directly onto and imto slopes. SULLAGE be possible in some areas if rick is acceptable. Use absorption tenchss without consideration — Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded. of landslide isk. EROSION Control erosion as this may lead to instability. Failure to observe carthworks and dramago CONTROL & Revegetate cleared area recommendations when landscaping. LANDSCAPING DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consukant SITE VISITS Site Visits by consultant be iate darms comstruction’ INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER OWNER'S Clean dramage systems; repair broken joints in drm: and leaks m supply RESPONSIBLITY i Pupes. Where structural distress is evident see advice Tf seepage observed, determines causes or sock advice om consequences.
Page 16
THE ONLY NAME IN SOILS
QBCC Licence No. 1018403
PH: 07 54 740 900
3/53 Gateway Drive, Noosaville 4566
Email: [email protected]
JOB NUMBER 21/0302 SITE CLASSIFICATION REPORT
CLIENT R. & A. FEWTRELL.
SITE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE.
LOCATION 109 COOYAR STREET, NOOSA HEADS.
REPORT DATE 22/03/2021
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to classify the subject allotment in accordance with Australian
Standard 2870 - 2011 'Residential Slabs and Footings'. From this classification, a footing
system can be recommended for the structure so as to allow adequate performance of the
footings under the soil conditions determined at the site.
Trees: There are several medium sized trees adjacent to the proposed site. Global
Testing recommends an experienced arborist be commissioned to quantify the existing
size, location, predicted maximum height and type of these trees to aid in the design
process. It is the responsibility of the designing engineer to apply the principals of
AS2870-2011 Appendix H "Guide to Design of Footings for Trees". The classification
herein excludes the effect of trees on the site.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
Type of Allotment Residential
Vegetation (Building Envelope) Pavers & grassed
Vegetation (Allotment) Grassed/ Scattered undergrowth/ Scattered
medium sized mature trees
Road Status Sealed
Slope Level
Surface Water will Drain Towards Surrounding Areas
Will Surface Water from adjoining No
allotments traverse this site?
Does the site have any watercourses No
Surrounding Allotments
Left Existing Residence
Right Existing Residence
Rear Existing Residence
Depth to Weathered Rock N/a
Depth to Water Table N/a
3. SITE CLASSIFICATION AND TARGET STRATA
Based on the findings of the site investigation, the classification of the site is considered to
conform to:
CLASS “ P ” (Due to poor bearing capacity-
See Target Stratum).
PLEASE NOTE: If not for the poor bearing capacity encountered, this site would
have the characteristics of an “S” Site.
in accordance with Australian Standard 2870 - 2011, 'Residential Slabs and Footings,
Construction'.
Page | 1 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 17
The Target Stratum for the foundation of the structure is the SILTY SAND at a depth of
1000mm below existing ground level.
It is the designing engineer’s responsibility to address the potential influence of any trees
present on or around the proposed building site.
If any fill is placed over the existing ground, the structure shall be piered through the fill
into the existing material. Further note that the placement of reactive material as fill or
cutting of the site may change the site’s classification.
4. SOIL PROFILE
Refer to Soil Profile Report for borelog information.
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the borelogs carried out at the subject allotment
are indicative of the soil profile over the site any discrepancy between the profile detailed in
the borelogs and that observed during construction shall be referred to Global Testing for
immediate attention.
5. MATERIALS LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Soil Laboratory testing was not carried out on samples of the soil taken from the site because
the clay content of the material was too low for Shrink-Swell movements to be critical in the
classification of the soil profile. Determination of the classification for the site in this situation
is based upon results from Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing performed over the site.
BOREHOLE N/a
DEPTH RANGE OF SAMPLE N/a
LIQUID LIMIT (%) N/a
PLASTIC LIMIT (%) N/a
PLASTIC INDEX (%) N/a
LINEAR SHRINKAGE (%) N/a
INSTABILITY INDEX (%) N/a
SHRINK SWELL INDEX, Iss (%) N/a
PREDICTED SURFACE MOVEMENT N/a
Please note that the Plasticity Index (PI) determined by the Atterberg Test may be correlated to
an Instability Index (Ips)with reference to the results of extensive testing carried out by others,
notably, Dr P Mitchell, ‘Footings for Small Scale Domestic Structures,’ March 1990.
Yours Sincerely,
MICHAEL PINKNEY. (Laboratory Manager)
Page | 2 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 18
LIMITATIONS
Recommendations given in this report are based on the information supplied by the client
regarding the proposed building construction in conjunction with the findings of the
investigation. Any change in construction type, building location or omission in the client
supplied information, may require additional testing and/or make the recommendations
invalid.
The recommendations herein identify a target soil stratum into which the footings are to be
founded. The target stratum has been located by the depth in mm of the target stratum's upper
horizon boundary below the existing ground surface level at the time of the site investigation.
Any cutting or filling works and any surface erosion or deposits subsequent to the site
investigation, will alter the measured location of the stratum relative to the surface. Where
required, the author should be notified in such cases to confirm the location of the target
stratum.
The description of the soil given in the Soil Profile section of this report is intended as a brief
overview of the soil's primary constituents. For a detailed classification of the soil, the reader
should refer to the Soil Profile Reports and/or Borehole Reports attached to this report.
Every reasonable effort has been made to locate the test sites so that the borehole profiles are
representative of the soil conditions within the area investigated. The client should be made
aware however, that exploration is limited by time available and economic restraints. In some
cases, soil conditions can change dramatically over short distances, therefore, even careful
exploration programs may not locate all the variations.
If soil conditions different from those shown in this report are encountered or are inferred
from other sources, then the author must be notified immediately.
This report may not be reproduced except in full. The information and drawings provided
with this report shall only be used and will only be applicable for the development shown on
the client supplied information provided for this site.
Any dimensions, contours, slope directions and magnitudes shown on the Test Locality Plan
shall not be used for any building construction or costing calculations. The purpose of the
plan is to show approximate location of field tests only.
Any changes made to these recommendations by persons unauthorised by the author will
legally be interpreted as that person assuming the responsibility for the long-term
performance of the footing system.
The recommendations contained in this report have not taken into consideration the long-term
effects of any previous, current or potential subsurface work by mining companies or
potential slope instability problems. At the time of writing this report neither our client (nor
his agent) nor the local authority had made the author aware that these problems may be
affecting this allotment. If a mining subsidence or slope stability assessment is required for
this allotment, the recommendations of a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer should be
sought.
Page | 3 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 19
THE ONLY NAME IN SOILS
SOIL PROFILE REPORT
CLIENT: R. & A. Fewtrell. AUTHORISED Ross Barton.
BY:
PROJECT: 109 Cooyar Street, DATE TESTED: 19/03/2021
Noosa Heads. JOB NO: 21/0302
Drilling Method: Hand Auger 100mm. Borehole
No.1
Depth Description PENET. Est. Bearing
(blows per 100mm)
(mm) Capacity
(kPa)
1 2 3 4
0 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained,
grey, moist, loose.
100 2 50
200 2
300 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained, 1
pale grey, moist, loose.
400 2 50
500 2
600 2
700 2 50
800 2
900 2
1000 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained, 3 100
pale grey, moist, medium-dense.
1100 3
1200 3
1300 4 125
1400 4
1500 Hole Terminated. 4
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
Page | 4 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 20
THE ONLY NAME IN SOILS
SOIL PROFILE REPORT
CLIENT: R. & A. Fewtrell. AUTHORISED Ross Barton.
BY:
PROJECT: 109 Cooyar Street, DATE TESTED: 19/03/2021
Noosa Heads. JOB NO: 21/0302
Drilling Method: Hand Auger 100mm. Borehole
No.2
Depth Description PENET. Est. Bearing
(blows per 100mm)
(mm) Capacity
(kPa)
1 2 3 4
0 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained,
grey, moist, loose.
100 2 50
200 2
300 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained, 1
pale grey, moist, loose.
400 1 30
500 2
600 1
700 1 30
800 2
900 2
1000 SILTY SAND (SM)-Fine to coarse grained, 3 100
pale grey, moist, medium-dense.
1100 3
1200 4
1300 3 100
1400 4
1500 Hole Terminated. 4
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
Page | 5 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 21
THE ONLY NAME IN SOILS
Site- 109 Cooyar Street,
Noosa Heads.
Page | 6 Borelogging in accordance with AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code
21/0302
Page 22
The only name in soils
Test Locality Plan
LEGEND
n BH - Borehole Location
PN - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Location
PT - Percolation Test
- 8m Trees
1.8m Retaining Wall
BH2
PN2 3m
3m
BH1
Level PN1 2m
Existing Residence
Not to Scale
Note: Any dimensions, contours, slope directions and magnitudes shown on the plan shall not be used for any building
construction or costing calculations. The purpose of the plan is to show the approximate location of the field tests only. All
dimensions in metres UNO .
Client: R. and A. Fewtrell. Job No. 21/0302
Address:109 Cooyar Street, Date Tested: 19/03/2021
Noosa Heads. Authorised:Ross Barton.