Original source · versioned page text
Appendix B- Geotechnical Investigation
Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0070 Stormwater & Geotech reports Email 2 of 3.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT NO. 115-17158 APRIL, 2015 JOHN JAMIESON PROPOSED RESIDENCE 38 PARK CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH OFFICES IN BRISBANE AND GOLD COAST
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 40 pages
Page 2
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited
A.B.N. 70 054 043 631
www.soilsurveys.com.au
Brisbane
Level 2, 19 Finchley Street, Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia
PO Box 317, Paddington, QLD, 4064, Australia
Ph +617 3369 6000
Fax +617 3369 6660
[email protected]
Gold Coast
Unit 8, 140 Millaroo Drive, Helensvale, QLD, Australia
PO Box 3429, Helensvale, QLD, 4212, Australia
Ph +617 5500 0465
Fax +617 5500 0462
[email protected]
Document Information
Project Number 115-17158
Document Title GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence
Site Address 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Client John Jamieson
File ref 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
Author Cameron Johnson
Review
Approved for Issue
Ver No. Document Type Reviewed by
Name Date
1 Final Jim Dixon Cameron Johnson 09/04/2015
Distribution List
Ver No. Organisation Contact Email Date Sent
1 John Jamieson [email protected] 09/04/2015
Page 3
TA
ABLE O
OF CO
ONTENT
TS
1.0 IINTRODUCTTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Proposed Developmen
nt ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of Geotechnica
G l Services ........................................................................................... 1
2.0 SSITE DESCRIIPTION ........................................................................................................ 2
3.0 FFIELD INVESSTIGATION .................................................................................................. 4
4.0 G
GEOTECHNIICAL MODE
EL ................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Regional Geology
G ................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 Subsurface
e Profile ............................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Groundwaater ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 EENGINEERIN
NG ASSESSM
MENT ......................................................................................... 6
5.1 Traffickability ...................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Earthworkks ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.2..1 Excavatio
on Support .............................................................................................................................. 6
5.3 Site Classification ................................................................................................................ 6
5.4 oundations .......................................................................................................... 6
Building Fo
5.4..1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 6
5.4..2 Deep Foundations ................................................................................................................................ 7
5.5 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 SSLOPE STAB
BILITY ASSESSSMENT ................................................................................... 10
6.1 General ..............................................................................................................................10
6.2 Site Obserrvation ................................................................................................................11
6.3 Stability Risk
R Assessment ...................................................................................................12
6.4 Hazard Miitigation & Recommenda
R ations ............................................................................12
6.4..1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 12
6.4..2 mendations with Respect to Construction
Recomm n ........................................................................... 12
6.4..3 Specific Recommenda
R ations for the Proposed Stru
ucture.................................................................. 13
7.0 A
ADDITIONA
AL GEOTECH
HNICAL INVE
VESTIGATION
N .......................................................... 14
8.0 LLIMITATION
NS .............................................................................................................. 15
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendices Appendix A Notes Relating to this report Appendix B Borehole Record Sheets Appendix C Site Plan Appendix D Hillside Construction Guidelines Extract from Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No. 1 March, 2007
Page 5
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |1
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
1.0 NTRODUCT
IN TION
1.1 General
This rep
port presennts the results of the geeotechnical investigatio
on carried oout by Soil Surveys
Engineeering Pty. Limited
L for th
he Propose ed Residencce at 38 Parrk Crescentt, Sunshine Beach.
The invvestigation was
w carried d out in acccordance with
w Soil Surrveys Enginneering Pty Limited
proposaal 1-17158, 2015-03-09 9, PR VER 1, following
g authorisattion to procceed from John and
th
Ngaio JJamieson on n the 17 March,
M 20155.
1.2 Proposed Developme
ent
It is understood thhat the prop
posed deveelopment will
w comprisee the consttruction of a two to
three leevel residen
nce. The building
b will have susp
pended con
ncrete floorrs and lightt weight
walls.
The lowwer level flo
oor will be partially
p cut back into the
t existing slope requuiring excav
vation of
less tha
an 2.0m.
1.3 Scope of Geotechnic
G cal Service
es
The objjective of th as to identifyy materials and material propertiees and groundwater
his study wa
conditio
ons to enable geotechn nical assesssment of the e following:--
Earthworkss recommen
ndations
o trafffickability
o excavatability
o tem
mporary safe
e batter ang
gles for cuts
s
Foundation
n recommen
ndations
o suitable founda
ation type
o aring capacity
bea
o skin
n friction
o site classificatio
on (AS2870
0)
o dicted ground surface movement
pred
Retaining wall
w design parameterss
Slope stabiility assessm
ment
o exissting slope stability
s hazzard
o considerations for building
g development
o nagement strategy
man s for long term
Constructio
on recomme
endations (w
where applicable)
Page 6
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |2
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
Site manag
gement reco
ommendatio
ons
2.0 SITE DESCR
RIPTION
The sitee of the pro
oposed residence is o
on the easte
ern side of Park Cresccent at No. 40 and
3
covers an area off approximaately 530m . Real propperty descrription – Loot 598 on RP48112
R
(refer F
Figure 1).
FIGURE 1 – SITE LO
OCATION
At the time of the investigation the site w
was occupie ed by an exiisting singlee storey sus
spended
light weeight structture. The garden are ea surround ding the house was covered with w well
developped vegetattion, including palms, pandanus and silky oaks, with vegetation density
increased at the lo
ower eastern n section off the site.
Provideed surface contour datad indicattes the grround surfa
ace slopes down from Park
Crescent, indicatedd to be at an elevation of approxim
mately RL 27.0m,
2 to thhe eastern corner
c of
the site at RL 14.50m.
e’s slope is steep, up to
The site t approximmately 25 de
egrees for the western section of the site,
before levelling ou
ut to 10 deg
grees for the
e remainde e. The site appears to
er of the site o be well
d, due to th
drained he combine ed effects of the poroous sandy soil and tthe sloping ground
surface
e.
Photogrraphs 1, 2 and ate existing site conditions.
a 3 indica
Page 7
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |3
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
PHOTOGR
RAPH 1 – B
BELOW EX
XISTING RE
ESIDENCE
PHOT
TOGRAPH 2 – EASTE
ERN SIDE OF
O EXISTIN
NG RESIDE
ENCE
Page 8
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |4
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
PHO
OTOGRAPH
H 3 – LOOK
KING ALON
NG WESTER
RN BOUND
DARY
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
N
Subsurfface condittions at the
e site were investigate
ed by drillin
ng and sammpling seve en hand
augers to depths of between n 1.90m an nd 2.60m. In addition dynamic ccone penettrometer
(DCP) ttests were carried outt adjacent tto each hand auger extending
e too refusal de
epths of
between 5.20m an nd 6.40m.
The field work wass carried out on the 25tth March, 20
015.
Access for our drillling rig was not availab
ble at the tim
me of the nv
vestigation.
The soil classification descrip
ptions, field atory testing were carrried out in general
d and labora
ance with th
accorda he following Australian Standards..
AS.1726-19
993 - Geote
echnical Site
e Investigattions
AS.1289 - Methods
M of Testing So
oils for Engin
neering Purrposes
A desccription of th
he investigation meth od, borehoole records and a sitee plan show
wing the
location
n of the bore
eholes are included
i in the Append
dices.
Page 9
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |5
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
4.0 G
GEOTECHN
NICAL MOD
DEL
4.1 Regional Geology
G
The 1:1
100,000 Gympie Speciial geology sheet indic cates this site is locateed on a Pleiistocene
sand dune. The morpholog gy of this aarea is rela
ated to a relatively
r olld (>10,0000 years)
deposition of wind blown san nd (as a dunne system) on the dee eper depossits of residu ual soils
derived from weathhering of the
e local bed rock (generally a sand
dstone in th is area).
The low evel dunes are depositted and eroded through
wer beach le h wind and wave action during
periodss of unstable condition
ns, and are e considereed to be a dynamic ssystem, continually
undergo oing change
es due to cllimatic and wave action
ns.
4.2 Subsurfac
ce Profile
The subbsurface prrofile consis
sts of fine to
o medium grained
g sand inferred ((as noted above) to
be depoosited as a beach ridg ge dune. Fro rom the DCP tests, the
e consistenccy of the sa
and was
seen to
o be very loo
ose to loosee to depths of betweenn 1.90m and d 2.60m, oveer medium dense.
e encountered at depth
Dense ssands were hs of 3.00m and 4.40m.
A summ mary of the
e subsurfacce profile iis presente
ed in Table e 1 with deetailed hand auger
recordss and dynam
mic cone pe
enetrometerr test results
s are included in Appenndix B.
TABLE
E1 SUM
MMARY OF
F THE SUB
BSURFACE
E PROFILE
S and (m) Hand
DCP Reffusal
Locatio
on RL (m
m) Very Loose
L M
Medium Dense to Aug
ger Total
Depth (m)
to Lo
oose Dense Very Dense e De
epth (m)
HA1 16.00
0 0.00-2.20 2..20-3.80 3.80-5.50 5.500 2.60
HA2
2 16.50
0 0.00-1.90 1..90-3.50 3.50-6.40 6.400 2.10
HA3
3 15.30
0 0.00-2.30 2..30-3.50 3.50-5.30 5.300 2.10
HA4
4 18.50
0 0.00-2.60 2..60-3.00 3.00-5.20 5.200 1.90
HA5
5 18.70
0 0.00-2.40 2..40-3.70 3.70-5.80 5.800 2.40
HA6
6 23.50
0 0.00-2.30 2..30-4.40 4.40-6.40 6.400 2.50
HA7
7 23.80
0 0.00-2.40 2..40-4.40 4.40-6.20 6.200 1.90
Notes:-
1. NE - Not Encountered ; TD D - Total Deptth
th
2. elow existing ground
All depths be g level (2
25 March, 20
015).
3. RL approximmated from proovided survey plan.
4.3 Groundwa
ater
Grounddwater was not encoun ntered in the
e boreholes
s at the time
e of the inveestigation. Seepage
S
through
h the upperr sandy soils could be d following periods of prolonged rainfall,
e expected
although this would
d be a trans
sient condit ion.
Page 10
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |6
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
5.0 ENGINEERING ASSES
SSMENT
5.1 Traffickabiility
Due to the steep nature of the
e site traffickkability characteristics are consideered to be poor.
p
Potentiial trafficka blems with this site should not be
ability prob b underesstimated. The
T site
will verry quickly become untraffickab
u ble if appro
opriate see
epage and d drainage control
measures, along with cons struction p ractices ap
ppropriate for site co
onditions, are not
maintained.
The co ontractor shhould fully inform hi mself of the ground conditionss on site prior to
comme encement of o earthworks. This requiremen b explicit in any earrthworks
nt should be
specificcations or co
ontract.
5.2 Earthwork
ks
It is und
derstood thhat earthworks will com an 2.0m in height. No filling is
mprise cuts of less tha
expecte ed and is no
ot recommeended due too the steep nature of th
he site.
5.2.1 Exc
cavation Su
upport
The upper level ve ery loose sa and soils ha
ave the pottential to “collapse/fail”” unexpecte
edly in a
ng situation
trenchin n, particularrly where sseepage is encountere ed. Excavvations on this site
should be conside ered unstable; shorin g of any excavations
e s is recomm mended. Suitable
precauttions to satisfy Health & Safety reqquirements must be ad dopted.
It is re
ecommende
ed that a suitable ssheet pile system be
e considereed to supp
port the
excavattions.
5.3 Site Classiification
Consideering the proposed
p developmen
d nt and site investigation results,, the site may be
designa
ated Class 'A'
' (non rea
active) in acccordance with
w AS2870 0-2011 ‘Ressidential Slabs and
Footing
gs’.
5.4 Building Foundation
F s
5.4.1 Gen
neral
Shallow
w foundationns are not recommend ded for the propsed sttructure at tthis site due to the
steep nature of the
e site and ve
ery loose to
o loose dens
sity of the upper
u level ssands.
Low be earing presssures and settlementss exceeding 20mm co ould be exxpected for shallow
footingss founded in the veryy loose/loosse sands. Settlement
S may occurr immediate ely upon
construction due to
t the appliied load, bu ut also in the
t long terrm due to nnatural vibrration or
water innduced setttlement of the
t sands. It is recom mmended that all foottings and slab on
ground d floors be suspended d on deep ffoundation ns.
Page 11
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page | 7
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
5.4.2 Deep Foundations
It is considered that the most appropriate piling system would be that which involves the
least amount of ground vibration during construction. Therefore, continuous flight auger
(CFA) grout (or concrete) piles or screw-in piles are considered to be suitable. Conventional
bored piles are considered unsuitable for construction of piles, as the excavations would
collapse.
However, specialist piling contractors should make their own assessment of pile type and
founding levels/length considering pile load requirements and subsurface conditions.
It is recommended that piled foundations should extend at least 1.0m into the dense sand,
(as a minimum).
It is recommended that the deep foundation system on this project be designed in
accordance with AS 2159-2009 'Piling - Design and Installation'. This code uses the limit
state design method.
Compressional Capacity
The design of a single pile or a pile group must be such that both the geotechnical design
strength Rd,g and the structural design strength Rd,s are greater than or equal to the design
action effect Ed*, ie.
Rd,g Ed and Rd,s Ed
The design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) can be calculated as the ultimate geotechnical design
strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by the geotechnical strength reduction factor Øg.
The design of piles in cohesionless soils (sand) may be carried out using the following
method:
R d,g R d,ug g g - Refer Table 4.3.2 (c) AS2159
R d,ug Q b Q s ultimate pile resistance
where:
Q b A b p d (N q 1 ) ultimate base resistance
Q s A s p d K s (tan ) ultimate skin friction
As area of pile shaft
Ab area of pile base
pd effective overburden pressure at depth d (p d d )
where Loose = 17kN/m3
Medium Dense = 18kN/m3
Dense = 19kN/m3
Page 12
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page | 8
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
pd average effective overburden pressure
Ks
lateral earth pressure coefficient
pile-soil angle of friction
Nq
bearing capacity factor
(N q = 60 for medium dense sands, N q = 100 for dense sands)
Broms (1966) relates the lateral earth coefficient (K s ) and pile-soil friction angle ( ) to the
internal angle of friction of the soil ()and pile material as follows:
TABLE 2 LATERAL EARTH COEFFICIENTS
Ks
Pile Material Loose Medium Dense Dense
o
Steel 20 0.50 0.75 1.00
Concrete 0.75 * 1.00 1.50 2.00
Note: Refer Table 3 for values.
It should be noted that the calculated ultimate resistance of a given pile should also take into
account the installation effects of that particular type, i.e. whether displacement or non-
displacement pile performance can be expected.
Uplift and lateral capacities of piles are not considered, as these are both wholly dependent
on the specific pile type selected.
Steel screw piles involve a hollow steel stem with a flight attached to the toe of the pile which
are 'screwed' in the ground, reducing spoil and construction difficulties associated with loose
sands. The compression capacity is calculated based dominantly on the end bearing
capacity due to negligible shaft friction. Shaft capacity of screw-in piles are generally minimal
and should not be taken into consideration for calculating design values due to the nature of
pile installation. Steel screw piles should also be suitably protected from corrosion, eg.
galvanised, additional sacrificial wall thickness, concrete filled.
Preformed driven or pushed piles may also be suitable, however the environmental
constraints that may be present at this site might preclude driven piles due to the noise and
vibration associated with this method. Pushed-in piles avoid these problems, but a push-in
rig of sufficient reaction capacity may not be able to successfully negotiate the sloping site.
Specialist contractors should be approached if this pile type is considered.
Page 13
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P |9
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
5.5 Retaining
g Walls
Retentioon systemss should be
e designed in accordance with AS
S 4678-20002 'Earth Retaining
R
Structurres'
The late
eral earth pressure from
m the active
e pressure wedge,
w whe
ere:-
P = 0.5 Ka H2
P = active force
f resulta
ant acting at
a a height of
o H/3
from the
e base (kN//m run of wa
all)
= N/m3
density of sand, kN
H1 = height of
o wall (m)
Ka = active pressure
p co
oefficient
Until the base of the wall is prevented from inwarrd movement by the sstrutting acttion, the
nce of move
resistan ement is proovided by th eneath wall ground, and by the
he friction of the soil be
passivee resistance
e of the soil against the
e vertical face of the tooe of the waall. The inte
ensity of
passivee resistance
e can be calculated fromm:-
P = 0.5 Kp H22
Kp = e pressure ccoefficient
passive
H2 = front fac
ce of wall c ontributing to passive resistance ((m)
The late eral pressu
ure distributions shown n in Figure 2 include hydrostatic ppressure an nd show
typical ppressure disstributions due
d to surc harge loadings. Due to possible llong term problems
with bloocking of grravel filters and drains and short term
t storm conditions tthat could flood
f the
fill behind retainingg walls, it is recomme ended that all retaining
g walls be designed fo or some
water p pressure disstribution. A suggeste ed water prressure disttribution forr retaining walls
w on
this site
e would be one
o third he eight water pressure.
For the calculation
n of sliding resistance,
r base friction for walls without
w a keey may be taken
t as
tan (2/3
3 Ø). If the wall has a shallow basse key the shearing
s resistance maay be basedd on tan
Ø. Refe er to Table 3 for the friction angle of sand.
Page 14
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P | 10
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
TABLE
E3 RET
TAINING WALL
W DESIG
GN PARAM
METERS
Density
D Earth Pre
essure Coeffficient Long Term Drained Ø
Material
kN/m3)
(k Ka Ko Kp (degrrees)
Fill 2 17 0.27 0.43 3.70 355
Very Loo
ose to Loose
e Sand 17 0.36 0.53 2.70 288
Mediuum Dense Sand 18 0.29 0.46 3.40 333
D
Dense Sand 19 0.27 0.43 3.70 355
Notes:-
1. If fill is compa
acted against a retaining wa all the actual earth pressure could exceedd the vertical pressure
p (ie.
Ka > 1.0).
2. Infers granula ar free draining
g material placced behind the e retaining wa
all as a drainagge layer.
NGULAR DISTRIBU
TRIAN D UTION
Lateral Ea
arth Pressu
ure Laterral Pressurre Due to Surcharge
S
+ +
H
K(H- hw)
hw
w w(1-K)
K H + hw
K = app
propriate eartth pressure coefficent
c UDL Point Load
L or
H = Verrtical height of
o the wall Strip Footing
F
hw = Height of desig gn water tablle
= Soil bulk densityy (kN/m3)
w = Water
W bulk density (kN/m3)
FIGUR
RE 2 3
FIGU
URE
6.0 SLOPE STA
ABILITY AS
SSESSMEN
NT
6.1 General
The No oosa Counccils ‘Easterrn Beachess Natural Hazard:
H Lan
ndslide andd Flooding Overlay
(Map OOM 4.3), indicates this site
s is withinn a Landslid de Hazard Area.
A Refer Figure 3 be elow. As
such, an assessme ent of the overall stabillity of the site and surro
ounds has bbeen carried out by
an expeerienced Geeotechnical Engineer a at the same time as the e geotechniccal investigation.
Page 15
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P | 11
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
FIGU
URE 3 – LA
ANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
A
ed survey plan (HASS Survey – d rawing No. H15003NS
Provide S) has beenn used to de
etermine
slope angles and slope
s heightts.
6.2 Site Obserrvation
Existing Land Slips
No visu
ual evidence
e of landslid
de and insta
ability was noted
n at the site.
Surface
e Scour
Some mminor erosio
on and scou ur was note
ed especiallly below the
e concrete aaround the existing
house ccolumn supprts. This observation
o e result of errosion due tto rainwater flow.
may be the
Soil Crreep
The exiisting trees growing arround the e existing hou
use were sh howing som me curvaturre which
may ind dicate som me small sc cale creep disturbancee of the ground durinng its grow wth. The
degree of tilting off these trees
s is conside
ered to be a sign of relatively minnor movemeents and
is typica
al for trees growing
g on such a stee
ep slope.
Page 16
Project No. 1
115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158,, 2015-04-08, BR VE
ER 1 Page
P | 12
John Jamies son – GEOTECHNIC CAL INVESTIGATION
N - Proposed Resid
dence, 38 Park Cres
scent, Sunshine Bea
ach
6.3 Stability Risk
R Assess
sment
Supplieed contour information
i by the clie
ent (Drawingg H15003N by Hass S Survey, date
ed May,
2014) inndicates thaat the slope
e can be bro oken up into
o two sectio
ons (ie. uppper south an
nd lower
north). The upper section of the slope (ttowards Pa ark Crescen
nt) is approxximately 255O to the
he lower se
horizontal, whilst th ection of the
e slope is ap y 100.
pproximately
The existing uppeer section of the slope on the sitee is conside ered to be at equilibrium with
slope angles being
g less than the
t inferredd friction ang
gle of very loose sand (28 degrees).
The connstruction of
o the reside
ence set m ostly above e ground, will
w apply ann additional load on
the slop
pe, that could be pote entially desstabilising. However, the aim off the proposed pile
foundattions discusssed above e, is to carrry all the building load
ds into dennse sands, and not
apply lo
oad to the lo
oose surface sand.
Any deevelopment of this sitee will have to be carriied out with h care to eensure this stability
ed. This will apply to b oth the tem
status iss maintaine mporary works during coonstruction, as well
as the p
permanent building wo orks, and the e long term site mainte
enance.
It is reccommendedd that heavy
y constructioon materials
s such as concrete
c bloocks or cons
struction
machinery should not be requ uired to travverse or be placed on the slope, aas these ma
ay apply
an unaccceptably la
arge surcharge load on nto the slope
e.
6.4 Hazard Mittigation & Recommen
R ndations
6.4.1 Gen
neral
In ordeer to preserrve the stabble conditioon of this site,
s it is co
onsidered eessential th
hat good
hillside engineerinng construc ction practtice be em mployed during the cconstruction of the
propose ed residencce particula
arly where l ocated on sloping land. The notees and illus strations
attacheed in Appenndix ‘D’ of this
t report o
outline som
me typical hillside
h consstruction gu
uidelines
includinng, earthworks, erosion
n control annd drainage e practices for
f hillside aareas which
h should
be takeen into account as applicable.
In ord der to ensure lon ng-term sttability of the site e upon ddevelopmen nt, the
restrictions/precautions includ
ded in the fo
ollowing sec
ctions shoulld also be taaken into ac
ccount.
6.4.2 Rec
commenda
ations with Respect to
o Construc
ction
Continuued long terrm stability of the site is subject to developm
ment of the site taking place in
accordaance with the guidelines of this rreport and relevant Au ustralian Sttandards annd good
building
g practices.
Based on the fie eld observaations, publlished haza ard mappinng and obsserved sub bsurface
conditio
ons, it is co
oncluded thaat provided the propos sed constru
uction is un dertaken us sing our
recomm mendations,, it would not
n adverse ely affect thhe slope sttability condditions at this
t site.
This conclusion is qualified by
y the followiing provisions:-
Page 17
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page | 13
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
The earthworks should be designed and constructed in accordance with sound and
proper engineering principles.
Likewise, the future construction should be planned designed and constructed in
accordance with sound and proper engineering principles, and more specifically in
accordance with good hillside construction practices (refer Appendix D).
All construction works to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of
this report.
The access and drainage infrastructure must be properly and effectively maintained,
to ensure that all stormwater is intercepted and controlled. This requirement extends
to all owners and occupiers being aware that ongoing maintenance of the site
drainage is essential for continued site stability.
The following recommendations should be adopted:-
All engineering works should follow the appropriate codes i.e.
o Footings for buildings - AS.2870 'Residential Slabs and Footings'.
o Retaining structures - AS4678 ‘Earth Retaining Structures’.
Vegetation - where possible the prompt re-establishment of ground cover should be
undertaken to reduce the risk of surface scour during and following rainfall. Where
not possible, other forms of surface protection should be adopted.
6.4.3 Specific Recommendations for the Proposed Structure
The following recommendations are in addition to the above:-
Structural Design
Structure must be adequately structurally designed for the site, and should include lateral
bracing parallel to the slope of the site.
Footings
Footings must be supported on deep foundations (where applicable) and found into the
dense sands as per Section 5.4.2.
Filling
No filling should be carried out on this site.
Water
We recommend that the discharge of waste and storm water be directed into approved
council collection systems and should not be disposed of on site.
Page 18
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page | 14
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
* * *
If the recommendations of this report are followed and included in the design and
construction of the proposed building, we believe the construction will not adversely affect
the existing slope stability of the site.
7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
It is recommended that additional investigation be carried out following demolition of the
existing residence. The investigation should include a ‘deep’ borehole to further identify the
subsurface conditions at depth for piling design.
Page 19
Project No. 115-17158 April, 2015 Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page | 15 John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach 8.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the use of John Jamieson, for design purposes in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has not been prepared for use by parties other than John Jamieson. It may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. Your attention is drawn to ‘Appendix A’, ‘Notes Relating to this Report’. Interpretation of factual data given in this report is based on judgement, not a greater knowledge of facts other than those reported. Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and its application to design and construction, should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes, the method of drilling, the frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of other than “straight line” variations between the boreholes. Subsurface conditions between boreholes may vary significantly from conditions encountered at the borehole locations. In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those expected from the information contained in the report, the Company requests that it immediately be notified. Most problems are more readily resolved when conditions are exposed than at some later stage, after the event. Soil Surveys Engineering consider that a documentation review service (during the design phase and prior to construction) to verify that the intent of geotechnical recommendations is properly reflected in the design, along with construction inspections, forms a very important component of the geotechnical engineering design service/process. This statement is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Soil Surveys Engineering in accordance with our commission, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in doing so and the risks they accept should they decline to have Soil Surveys Engineering carry out a geotechnical documentation review and geotechnical construction inspections. The geotechnical review ensures geotechnical risks to our Client and their project are minimised at the design and tender stage of the project. Further, with Soil Surveys Engineering being commissioned to carry out geotechnical construction inspections, an opportunity at the time of construction to confirm any assumptions made in the preparation of the report and allow the effect of any normally occurring variation in ground conditions to be assessed with respect to construction becomes available.
Page 20
Project No. 115-17158 April, 2016 Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1 Page| 16 John Jamieson ~ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Pt a 38 Park C. Beach It is highly recommended that the Client avail themselves of these review and inspection services; our standard rates will apply. a a (J Moon Cc. P. JOHNSON (RPEQ 7052) P. J. DIXON (RPEQ 4150 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER For and on behalf of SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED # SOIL SURVEYS
Page 21
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
APPENDICES
Page 22
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
APPENDIX A
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
Page 23
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
INTRODUCTION descriptive terms regarding weathering (AS1726-1993
These notes are provided by Soil Surveys Engineering Table A9), strength (refer Table 1 below), defects
Pty Limited (the Company) to complement the (AS1726-1993 Table A10), etc. Where strength testing
geotechnical report in regard to classification methods (ie Point Loads) is carried out, AS1726-1993 Table A8
and field procedures. Not all notes are necessarily is used. Where relevant, further information regarding
relevant to all reports. rock classification is attached.
The ground is a product of continuing natural and
Table 1 Estimated strength descriptions given to rock
man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety
based on engineering examination
of characteristics and properties which vary from place
to place and can change with time. Geotechnical Strength Term Approximate Qu (MPa)
engineering involves gathering and assimilating limited Extremely Weak < 1.0
information about these characteristics and properties
Very Weak 1.0 - 5.0
in order to understand or predict the behaviour of the
Weak 5.0 - 25
ground on a particular site under certain conditions.
This report may contain such information obtained by Medium Strong 25 - 50
inspection, excavation, probing, sampling, testing or Strong 50 - 100
other means of investigation. If so, they are directly Very Strong 100 - 250
relevant only to the ground at the place where and at
Extremely Strong > 250
the time when the investigation was carried out.
Ref ISRM "Suggested Methods for the Quantitative
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS
Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses"
Soils - The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
SAMPLING
Australian Standard 1726-1993 (Geotechnical Site
Sampling is carried out during drilling or from other
Investigations), where appropriate. In general,
excavations to allow engineering examination (and
descriptions cover the following properties - soil or rock
laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.
type, colour, structure, strength or density, and
inclusions. Identification and classification of soil and Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide
rock involves judgement and the Company infers information on plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture
accuracy only to the extent that is common in current content, minor constituents and, depending upon
geotechnical practice. sample disturbance, (information on strength and
structure).
Soil types are described according to the dominant
particle size and behaviour as set out in AS Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin
1726-1993. walled sample tube, usually 50mm diameter (U50), into
the soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soil
Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength
contained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such
(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer,
samples yield information on structure and strength,
shear vane, laboratory testing or engineering
and are necessary for laboratory determination of
examination. The strength terms are defined in
shear strength, volume change potential and
AS1726-1993 Table A4.
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of
effective only in cohesive soils.
relative density usually based on insitu testing or
Details of the type and method of sampling used are
engineering examination (see AS1726-1993 Table A5).
given on the attached logs.
Rocks - Rock types are classified by their geological
names (AS1726-1993 Table A6), together with
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 24
-2- TEST LOCATIONS the drilling. The depth of refusal of the different bit Test locations (e.g. boreholes, CPT’s, test pits etc.) types can provide information as to the strength of the were based on available access at the time of testing material encountered. Generally two different bit types (access may need to be provided “by others”). Test are used. The 'V' bit is a V shaped steel bit and the locations may have been shifted if access was not 'TC' bit is a tungsten carbide tipped screw type bit. suitable. Wash Boring - The borehole is usually advanced by a Unless noted otherwise, accuracy of test locations are rotary bit with water or fluid pumped down the hollow to the accuracy of hand held GPS equipment. drill rods and returned up in the space between the INVESTIGATION METHODS rods and the soil or casing, carrying the drill cuttings. The following is a brief summary of investigation Only major changes in stratification can be determined methods currently adopted by the Company and some from the cuttings, together with some information from comments on their use and application. "feel" and rate of penetration. More accurate Test Pits - These are normally excavated with a information on soil strata is gained by regular testing backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close and sampling using the Standard Penetration Test examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend (SPT) and undisturbed thin walled tube samples (U50). into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about Mud Stabilized Drilling - Either Wash Boring or 3m for a backhoe and up to 6m for an excavator. Continuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as a Limitations of test pits are the problems associated circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The term with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatement and the "mud" encompasses a range of products ranging from consequent effects on close-by structures. Care must bentonite to polymers such as Revert or Biogel. The be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pit mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable locations to either properly recompact the backfill identification is only possible from regular intact during construction or to design and construct the sampling (eg. from SPT and U50 samples) or from structure so as not to be adversely affected by poorly rock coring, etc. compacted backfill at the test pit location. Continuous Core Drilling - A continuous core sample Hand Auger Drilling - A borehole of 50 to 100mm is obtained using a diamond or tungsten carbide diameter is advanced by manually operated tipped core barrel. Provided full core recovery is equipment. Refusal of the augers can occur on a achieved (which is not always possible in very weak variety of materials such as hard clay, gravel or rock rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a fragments and does not necessarily indicate rock level. very reliable method of investigation. In rocks, NMLC Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - The borehole is coring (nominal 52 mm diameter) is usually used with advanced using 75 to 300 mm diameter continuous water flush. The length of core recovered is compared spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to to the length drilled and any length not recovered is allow sampling or insitu testing. This is a relatively shown as CORE LOSS. The location of losses is economical means of drilling in clays and in sands determined on site by the supervisor. If the location of above the water table. Samples are returned to the the loss is uncertain, it is placed at the top end of the surface by the flights or may be collected after run, when the core is placed in a storage tray and withdrawal of the augers. Information from the drilling recorded on the log. (as distinct from specific sampling) is of relatively lower Standard Penetration Tests - Standard Penetration reliability due to remoulding, inclusion of cuttings from Tests (SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but above or softening of samples by groundwater, or can also be used in cohesive soils, as a means of uncertainties as to the original depth of the samples. indicating density or strength. The test procedure is Augering below the groundwater table has a lower described in Australian Standard 1289, "Methods of reliability than augering above the water table. Various Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes" - Test 6.3.1. drill bits are attached to the base of the augers during NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 25
-3-
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm resistance, fs, in kPa). These forces are measured by
diameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under electrical transducers (strain gauges) within the cone
the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 device. The ratio between friction resistance and cone
mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three resistance is also calculated as a percentage, ie.-
Friction Resis tan ce,f s kPa 100
successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is Friction Ratio FR cone resis tan ce, q c kPa
taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm, the The friction ratio, FR, is generally low in sands (less
upper 150 mm being neglected due to possible than 1% or 2%) and generally higher in clays (say 3%
disturbance from the drilling method. In dense sands, or more). The interpretation of sandy clays, clayey
very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm sands and material with a high silt content is more
penetration may not be practicable and the test is difficult, but intermediate values (between 1% and 3%)
discontinued at a reduced penetration. would be expected. Highly organic clays and peats
In the case where full penetration is obtained with generally have a friction ratio in excess of 5%.
successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say 4, 6 Static cone data is recorded in the field on disc for later
and 7 blows, the record shows, presentation using computer aided drafting.
4, 6, 7 N = 13 The equipment can be operated from any conventional
In a case where the test is discontinued short of full drill rig. A total applied load in the range of 4 to 10
penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm tonnes is required for practical purposes, although
and 30 blows for the next 40 mm, the record shows: lighter loads may be used. The cone penetrometers
15, 30/40mm are available with various capacities of cone resistance
The results of the test can be related empirically to the ranging up to 100 MPa for general purpose
engineering properties of the soil. investigations, while a range of 0 to 10 MPa can be
Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mm used where more sensitive investigations of soft clay
diameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In are required.
such circumstances, it is noted on the borehole logs. The cone resistance value provides a continuous
A modification to the SPT test is where the same measure of soil strength or density, and together with
0
driving system is used with a solid 60 tipped steel the friction ratio, provide very useful indications of the
cone of the same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. presence of narrow bands of geotechnically significant
The solid cone can be continuously driven for some layers such as thin, soft clay layers or lenses of sand
distance in soft clays or loose sands, or may be used which might otherwise be missed using conventional
where damage would otherwise occur to the SPT. The drilling methods.
results of this Solid SPT are shown as "Nc" on the The lithology of the encountered soils is interpreted
borehole logs, together with the number of blows per from static cone data and is generally presented on the
150 mm penetration. static cone log sheets.
Cone Penetration Tests - Test Method - Cone It is important to note that the lithology is interpreted
Penetration Tests (CPT) are carried out in accordance information and is based on research by Schmertmann
with AS 1289 Test 6.5.1-1977, using an electrical (1970), Sanglerat (1972), Robinson and Campinalli
friction-cone penetrometer. (1986), modified to suit local conditions as indicated by
The test essentially comprises the measurement of borehole information and laboratory testing.
resistance to penetration of a cone of 35.7 mm As soils generally change gradually it is sometimes
diameter pushed into the soil at a rate of 10-20 mm per difficult to accurately describe depths of strata
second by hydraulic force. The resistance to changes, although greater accuracy is obtained with
penetration is recorded in terms of pressure on the end the static cone compared with conventional drilling. In
area of the cone (cone resistance, qc, in MPa) and addition, friction ratios decrease in accuracy with low
friction on the side of the 135 mm long sleeve cone resistance values, and in desiccated soils. As a
immediately above the top of the cone (friction result, some overlap and minor discrepancies may
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 26
-4-
exist between static cone and nearby borehole GROUNDWATER
information. Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes,
Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers - Portable there are several potential problems.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried wAlthough groundwater may be present in lower
out by driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight permeability soils, it may enter the hole slowly or
hammer and measuring the blows for successive perhaps not at all during the time the hole is open.
100mm increments of penetration. wA localized perched water table may lead to an
The DCP comprises a Cone of 20 mm diameter with erroneous indication of the true water table.
30 degree taper attached to steel rods of smaller wWater table levels will vary from time to time with
section. seasons or recent weather changes and may not be
The cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer falling 510 the same at the time of construction.
mm (AS. 1289 Test 6.3.2). The test was developed wThe use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask
initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and any groundwater inflow. Water has to be bailed out of
empirical correlations of the test results with California the bore and mud must be washed out of the hole or
Bearing Ratio have been published by various Road "reverted" if water observations are to be made.
Authorities. The Company has developed their own
More reliable measurements can be made by use of
correlations with Standard Penetration tests and
standpipes which are read after stabilizing at periods
Density Index tests in sands.
ranging from several days to perhaps weeks for low
LOGS permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular
The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are an stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or
engineering and/or geological interpretation of the where there may be interference from perched water
subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend tables or surface water.
to some extent on the frequency of sampling and the FILL
method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous
The presence of fill materials can often be determined
undisturbed sampling or core drilling will enable the
only by the inclusion of foreign objects (eg. bricks,
most reliable assessment but is not always practicable
steel, etc.) or by distinctly unusual colour, texture or
or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any
fabric. Identification of the extent of fill materials will
case, the boreholes or test pits represent only a very
also depend on investigation methods and frequency.
small sample of the total subsurface conditions.
Where natural soils similar to those at the site are used
The attached explanatory notes define the terms and for fill, it may be difficult with limited testing and
symbols used in preparation of the logs. sampling to reliably determine the extent of the fill.
Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, The presence of fill materials is usually regarded with
and its application to design and construction, should caution as the possible variation in density, strength
therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or and material type is much greater than with natural soil
test pits, the method of drilling or excavation, the deposits. Consequently, there is an increased risk of
frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of adverse engineering characteristics or behaviour. If
other than "straight line" variations between the the volume and quality of fill is important to a project,
boreholes or test pits. Subsurface conditions between then frequent test pit excavations are preferable to
boreholes or test pits may vary significantly from boreholes.
conditions encountered at the borehole or test pit
locations.
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 27
-5-
LABORATORY TESTING If differences occur, the Company will be pleased to
Laboratory testing is normally carried out in assist with investigation or advice to resolve any
accordance with Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of problems occurring.
Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes". Details of the SITE ANOMALIES
test procedure used are given on the individual report In the event that conditions encountered on site during
forms and the attached explanatory notes summarize construction appear to vary from those expected from
important aspects of the Laboratory Test Procedures the information contained in the report, the Company
adopted. requests that it immediately be notified. Most
ENGINEERING REPORTS problems are more readily resolved when conditions
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified are exposed than at some later stage, well after the
personnel and are based on the information obtained event.
and on current engineering standards of interpretation Extreme events including but not limited to the results
and analysis. The information provided in Soil Surveys of climate change, eg. flood levels above previously
Engineering reports is opinion and interpretation and identified levels, beach scour or erosion beyond
not factual. The client/contractor increases their risk normal expectations (as identified by local authorities)
by not retaining the person who authored the extreme rainfall events, war, espionage, sabotage may
geotechnical report, to carry out site inspection and result in different conditions between time of
review (overseeing role) during construction, to confirm investigation and time of construction.
opinion and interpretation expressed in the report is REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FOR
accurate. Where the report has been prepared for a CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES
specific design proposal the information and Attention is drawn to the document “Guidelines for the
interpretation may not be relevant if the design Provision of Geotechnical Information in Construction
proposal is changed. If this happens, the Company will Contracts (1987)”, published by the Institution of
be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of Engineers, Australia. Where information obtained from
the investigation work. this investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to is recommended that all information, including the
interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of written report and discussion, be made available. In
geotechnical aspects and recommendations or circumstances, where the discussion or comments
suggestions for design and construction. Since the section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it
test sites in any exploration represent a very small may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited
proportion of the total site and since the exploration document. The Company would be pleased to assist
only identifies actual ground conditions at the test sites, in this regard and/or to make additional report copies
even under the best circumstances actual conditions available for contract purposes at a nominal charge.
may vary from those inferred to exist. No responsibility REVIEW OF DESIGN
is taken for:- Where major civil or structural developments are
wUnexpected variations in ground and/or groundwater proposed or where only a limited investigation has
conditions. been completed or where the geotechnical conditions/
wChanges in policy or interpretation of policy by constraints are quite complex, it is prudent to have a
statutory authorities. joint design review which involves a senior
wThe actions of other persons. geotechnical engineer. We would be happy to assist in
wAny work where the company is not given the this regard as an extension of our investigation
opportunity to supervise the construction using the commission. Construction drawings should be
Companies designs/recommendations. reviewed by Soil Surveys Engineering, with sufficient
time to allow changes if required, prior to inspections.
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 28
-6- Otherwise Soil Surveys Engineering reserves the right conservatism which is commensurate with the to refuse to carry out inspections. consequences of the risk of error. SITE INSPECTION Estimates of volumes based on our findings require The Company will always be pleased to provide interpolation and extrapolation between test locations engineering inspection services for geotechnical and as such may be significantly different from actual aspects of work to which this report is related. volumes. i) Site visits during construction to confirm reported ground conditions ii) Site visits to assist the contractor or other site personnel in identifying various soil/rock types such as appropriate footing or pier founding depths, the stability of a filled or excavated slope; or iii) Full-time engineering presence on site. In the vast majority of cases it is advantageous to the principal for the geotechnical engineer who wrote the investigation report to be involved in the construction stage of the project. The geotechnical engineer cannot take responsibility for variations in encountered conditions, where he is not given the opportunity to review plans for the proposed development with sufficient time to allow review and make changes to the proposed development if required, and where he is not given the opportunity to inspect the site and oversee construction methods with regard to site conditions with sufficient time to observe all relevant site conditions and operations. RESPONSIBLE USE OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION Recommendations in our report are for design purposes only and provided on the basis that inspections are carried out to allow finalisation of opinions and recommendations contained in our report. The geotechnical investigation consisting of field and laboratory testing has been carried out to indicate typical conditions by indicating conditions and parameters at the specific locations of boreholes/test pits. Subsurface conditions are indicated at these locations only and the inference of conditions between or away from these locations (interpolation and extrapolation) involves a certain degree of risk. Persons inferring such conditions or carrying out such inferences should do so with a degree of caution and NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT - SEPT 2013 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 29
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE RECORD SHEETS
Page 30
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 01
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511107 Northing: 7079142 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
coarse grained, light grey and dark brown mottled, trace of
fine to medium sized gravel and organics, moist.
0.75
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
1.0
light grey, moist.
1.50
SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, fine to medium grained,
light grey, moist.
2.0
2.20
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
grey, moist.
2.60
HAND AUGER HA 01 TERMINATED AT 2.60 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 5.49m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 2.60m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 31
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 02
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511105 Northing: 7079150 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
0.25
coarse grained, light grey and dark brown mottled, trace of
0.50 fine to medium sized gravel and organics, moist.
SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to coarse grained, light grey and
0.80 dark brown mottled, trace of fine to medium sized gravel,
1.0 moist.
SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to coarse grained, light grey and
dark grey mottled, trace of fine to medium sized gravel,
moist.
1.60
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
light grey, moist.
1.90
2.0 SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, fine to medium grained,
2.10
light grey, moist.
SAND (SP) Loose to medium dense, fine to medium
grained, light grey, moist.
HAND AUGER HA 02 TERMINATED AT 2.10 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 6.39m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 2.10m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 32
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 03
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511107 Northing: 7079148 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.15 DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
medium grained, dark grey, trace of organics, moist.
D
SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to coarse grained, dark grey
0.70 and dark brown mottled, trace of fine sized gravel and
organics, moist.
1.0 NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
light grey, moist.
1.70
SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, fine to medium grained,
2.0 light grey, moist.
2.10
HAND AUGER HA 03 TERMINATED AT 2.10 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 5.29m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 2.10m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 33
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 04
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: Northing: RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
coarse grained, light grey and dark brown mottled, trace of
organics and fine to medium sized gravel, moist.
0.65
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
1.0 light grey, trace of root fibre, moist.
1.90
2.0
HAND AUGER HA 04 TERMINATED AT 1.90 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 5.19m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 1.90m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 34
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 05
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511096 Northing: 7079134 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
coarse grained, light grey and dark brown mottled, trace of
organics and fine sized gravel, moist.
0.70
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
1.0 light grey, trace of root fibre, moist. D
2.0
2.10
SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, fine to medium grained,
2.40 light grey, trace of root fibre, moist.
HAND AUGER HA 05 TERMINATED AT 2.40 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 5.79m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 2.40m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 35
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 06
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511086 Northing: 7079128 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
DISTURBED NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to
coarse grained, light grey and dark brown mottled, trace of
organics and fine to medium sized gravel, moist.
0.60
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
light grey, trace of root fibre, moist.
1.0
1.20
SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained, light grey,
moist.
2.0 2.00
SAND (SP) Loose, fine to medium grained, light grey, moist.
2.30
2.50 SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
grey, moist.
HAND AUGER HA 06 TERMINATED AT 2.50 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 6.39m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 2.50m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 36
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited HAND AUGER RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Milton: ph +61 7 3369 6000 [email protected]
Location Number: HA 07
Gold Coast: ph +61 7 5500 0465 [email protected]
Project Number: 115-17158
Project Name: Proposed Residence
Location: 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511094 Northing: 7079125 RL: Client: John Jamieson
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/03/2015 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
FILL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained, light
grey, trace of fine sized gravel and organics, moist.
0.50
NATURAL SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained,
light grey, trace of root fibre, moist.
1.0
1.20
SAND (SP) Very loose, fine to medium grained, light grey
and light brown mottled, trace of root fibre, moist.
1.90
2.0
HAND AUGER HA 07 TERMINATED AT 1.90 m
3.0
4.0
SOIL_SURVEYS_00 LIBRARY 2012-05.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG 1-17158.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/04/2015 15:58 8.30.004 Developed by Datgel
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
U50
XW - Extremely weathered
1) Groundwater not encountered. DW - Distinctly weathered
2) DCP refusal at 6.19m. SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
3) HA refusal at 1.90m. Rock Strength Disturbed
VW - Very weak
W - Weak
Sample
MS - Medium strong
S - Strong
Bulk Approved: JD
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VS - Very strong
ES - Extremely strong
Date: 9/04/2015
Page 37
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
APPENDIX C
SITE PLAN
Page 38
HA7 HA6
HA5
HA4
BH1
BH2
BH3
CLIENT TITLE
JOHN JAMIESON PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOCATION
38 PARK CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
SCALE
2.5 0 7.5 12.5m
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY.LTD.
DRAWING NO. DATE CHECKED CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
A4 CJ
115-17158-01 01/04/2015
Page 39
Project No. 115-17158
April, 2015
Ref: 1-17158, 2015-04-08, BR VER 1
John Jamieson – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Residence, 38 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
APPENDIX D
HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION
GUIDELINES EXTRACT FROM
AUSTRALIAN GEOMECHANICS VOL 42
NO. 1 MARCH, 2007
Page 40
AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)
HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE
Sensible development practices are required when building on hillsides, particularly if the hillside has more than a low
risk of instability (GeoGuide LR7). Only building techniques intended to maintain, or reduce, the overall level of landslide
risk should be considered. Examples of good hillside construction practice are illustrated below.
WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES GOOD?
Roadways and parking areas - are paved and incorporate kerbs which prevent water discharging straight into the
hillside (GeoGuide LR5).
Cuttings - are supported by retaining walls (GeoGuide LR6).
Retaining walls - are engineer designed to withstand the lateral earth pressures and surcharges expected, and include
drains to prevent water pressures developing in the backfill. Where the ground slopes steeply down towards the high
side of a retaining wall, the disturbing force (see GeoGuide LR6) can be two or more times that in level ground.
Retaining walls must be designed taking these forces into account.
Sewage - whether treated or not is either taken away in pipes or contained in properly founded tanks so it cannot soak
into the ground.
Surface water - from roofs and other hard surfaces is piped away to a suitable discharge point rather than being allowed
to infiltrate into the ground. Preferably, the discharge point will be in a natural creek where ground water exits, rather
than enters, the ground. Shallow, lined, drains on the surface can fulfil the same purpose (GeoGuide LR5).
Surface loads - are minimised. No fill embankments have been built. The house is a lightweight structure. Foundation
loads have been taken down below the level at which a landslide is likely to occur and, preferably, to rock. This sort of
construction is probably not applicable to soil slopes (GeoGuide LR3). If you are uncertain whether your site has rock
near the surface, or is essentially a soil slope, you should engage a geotechnical practitioner to find out.
Flexible structures - have been used because they can tolerate a certain amount of movement with minimal signs of
distress and maintain their functionality.
Vegetation clearance - on soil slopes has been kept to a reasonable minimum. Trees, and to a lesser extent smaller
vegetation, take large quantities of water out of the ground every day. This lowers the ground water table, which in turn
helps to maintain the stability of the slope. Large scale clearing can result in a rise in water table with a consequent
increase in the likelihood of a landslide (GeoGuide LR5). An exception may have to be made to this rule on steep rock
slopes where trees have little effect on the water table, but their roots pose a landslide hazard by dislodging boulders.
Possible effects of ignoring good construction practices are illustrated on page 2. Unfortunately, these poor construction
practices are not as unusual as you might think and are often chosen because, on the face of it, they will save the
developer, or owner, money. You should not lose sight of the fact that the cost and anguish associated with any one of
the disasters illustrated, is likely to more than wipe out any apparent savings at the outset.
ADOPT GOOD PRACTICE ON HILLSIDE SITES
174 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 41
AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)
WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES POOR?
Roadways and parking areas - are unsurfaced and lack proper table drains (gutters) causing surface water to pond and
soak into the ground.
Cut and fill - has been used to balance earthworks quantities and level the site leaving unstable cut faces and added
large surface loads to the ground. Failure to compact the fill properly has led to settlement, which will probably continue
for several years after completion. The house and pool have been built on the fill and have settled with it and cracked.
Leakage from the cracked pool and the applied surface loads from the fill have combined to cause landslides.
Retaining walls - have been avoided, to minimise cost, and hand placed rock walls used instead. Without applying
engineering design principles, the walls have failed to provide the required support to the ground and have failed,
creating a very dangerous situation.
A heavy, rigid, house - has been built on shallow, conventional, footings. Not only has the brickwork cracked because
of the resulting ground movements, but it has also become involved in a man-made landslide.
Soak-away drainage - has been used for sewage and surface water run-off from roofs and pavements. This water
soaks into the ground and raises the water table (GeoGuide LR5). Subsoil drains that run along the contours should be
avoided for the same reason. If felt necessary, subsoil drains should run steeply downhill in a chevron, or herring bone,
pattern. This may conflict with the requirements for effluent and surface water disposal (GeoGuide LR9) and if so, you
will need to seek professional advice.
Rock debris - from landslides higher up on the slope seems likely to pass through the site. Such locations are often
referred to by geotechnical practitioners as "debris flow paths". Rock is normally even denser than ordinary fill, so even
quite modest boulders are likely to weigh many tonnes and do a lot of damage once they start to roll. Boulders have
been known to travel hundreds of metres downhill leaving behind a trail of destruction.
Vegetation - has been completely cleared, leading to a possible rise in the water table and increased landslide risk
(GeoGuide LR5).
DON'T CUT CORNERS ON HILLSIDE SITES - OBTAIN ADVICE FROM A GEOTECHNICAL PRACTITIONER
More information relevant to your particular situation may be found in other Australian GeoGuides:
• GeoGuide LR1 - Introduction • GeoGuide LR6 - Retaining Walls
• GeoGuide LR2 - Landslides • GeoGuide LR7 - Landslide Risk
• GeoGuide LR3 - Landslides in Soil • GeoGuide LR9 - Effluent & Surface Water Disposal
• GeoGuide LR4 - Landslides in Rock GeoGuide LR10 - Coastal Landslides
• GeoGuide LR5 - Water & Drainage • GeoGuide LR11 - Record Keeping
The Australian GeoGuides (LR series) are a set of publications intended for property owners; local councils; planning authorities;
developers; insurers; lawyers and, in fact, anyone who lives with, or has an interest in, a natural or engineered slope, a cutting, or an
excavation. They are intended to help you understand why slopes and retaining structures can be a hazard and what can be done with
appropriate professional advice and local council approval (if required) to remove, reduce, or minimise the risk they represent. The
GeoGuides have been prepared by the Australian Geomechanics Society, a specialist technical society within Engineers Australia, the
national peak body for all engineering disciplines in Australia, whose members are professional geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists with a particular interest in ground engineering. The GeoGuides have been funded under the Australian governments’
National Disaster Mitigation Program.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 175