Original source · versioned page text
Appendix E_Geotechnical Investigation
Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0109 Geotech and Bushfire Hazard reports - Links Drive Noosa Heads.
APPENDIX E – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION [OCR of page images] ———— ra URBANCONSULTANTS APPENDIX E — GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
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 pages 2 to 29 (of 45)
Page 2
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Unit Development
Precincts E2 & F
Resort Drive, Noosa Springs
Report For Altum Constructions
Report 15193-002-Rev0
11 November 2015
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899 Buderim Qld 4556
Mobile: 0437 755 750 / 0437 756 711
www.tectonicgeo.com.au
A.B.N. 83 165 727 828
Page 3
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Document Review
Document No. Revision Prepared By Reviewed By Date Issued
002 0 Brad Walsh Darryn Quinn 11 November 2015
Report Distribution
Document Revision Method of Delivery Issued To
Mr Rob McCready
002 0 Electronic Altum Constructions
([email protected])
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Brad Walsh BEng GradIEAust Darryn Quinn RPEQ 7602
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 i
Page 4
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Executive Summary
This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed development of
Precincts E2 and F located on Resort Drive, Noosa Springs (Lots 6 and 7 on SP178340). The investigation
was performed by Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd (Tectonic) for Altum Constructions. This report summarises
the results of the investigation and includes a slope stability assessment. Recommendations are provided
regarding design of earthworks, retaining structures, footings, and drainage.
It is our understanding that the proposed development layout for both Precincts E2 and F is preliminary and
is subject to change. Preliminary architectural drawings indicate that the Precinct E2 development will
comprise construction of multiple units within seven buildings. Access to the development will be gained via
a new driveway from the end of the Resort Drive cul-de-sac. The Precinct F development comprises a
central common area (restaurant, stores, staff facility, pool) surrounded by residential units. Access will be
from Resort Drive.
The site investigation comprised a walk-over survey combined with drilling of thirteen boreholes to depths
ranging from 5 m to 6 m below ground level (BGL). The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes
can be divided into two distinct areas, being Areas 1 (ridge and flanks of ridge) and 2 (flat area at toe of
slope).
Area 1 mostly comprised natural very loose to loose silty sand/sand to depths of up to 1.6 m BGL, overlying
medium dense to very dense silty sand/sand to depths up to 6.0 m BGL, with very dense indurated sand
from a depth of 5.5 m BGL in borehole BH7 only.
Area 2 encountered uncontrolled fill consisting of loose medium dense silty sand and stiff sandy clay, with
some building rubble and green waste, to depths up to 3.6 m BGL (up to 5 m in Soil Surveys Engineering
2000 investigation); then natural medium dense to very dense sands.
Groundwater seepage was only observed in Boreholes BH6 and BH7 at depths of 4.6 m and 5.5 m BGL,
respectively.
Based upon the existing site conditions, and subject to the implementation of recommendations given within
this report, it is our assessment that building sites with a Low (L) Risk of global slope instability (with a
factor of safety against slope instability of at least 1.5) are achievable. The extent of building (unit
construction) works, including cut/fill, must be limited to maintain slope stability. Control of stormwater flows
via channels and/or pipes will also be essential to maintain slope stability.
Investigation results indicate that future operational and/ or building works, including service trenching
together with the limited building earthworks, should be possible by adopting conventional earthmoving
equipment (e.g. large tracked excavators).
Based on the results of the investigation, the indicative site classification for this site is Class P in
accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings, due to the existing steep slope and
uncontrolled fill. If not for the uncontrolled fill and steep slopes the site would have the characteristics of a
Class M site in accordance with AS2870.
Depending on the extent of future earthworks, footings for all structures in Area 1 should be founded on
screw piles or bored piers taken at least 3 m into natural medium dense (or denser ) sands and be designed
for an allowable bearing capacity of 300 kPa. Footings for structures in Area 2 will be dependent on the
extent of removal and replacement of uncontrolled fill.
Temporary cuts in very loose to loose sands may be formed no steeper than 1V:2H, with permanent batter
slopes in such materials formed at 1V:3H. Excavations in medium dense (or denser) sands may be battered
at 1V:2H.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 ii
Page 5
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Precinct E2 ................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Precinct F ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 AIMS & METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Review of Previous information .................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Fieldwork (2015) ........................................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................................. 2
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Subsurface Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 7
6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................................... 9
6.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Stability Assessment..................................................................................................................................... 9
6.2.1 Qualitative Assessment........................................................................................................................... 9
6.2.2 Quantitative Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 11
7.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 12
7.1 Development Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 12
7.2 Earthworks.................................................................................................................................................. 12
7.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability ......................................................................................................... 12
7.2.2 Excavations........................................................................................................................................... 12
7.2.3 Filling..................................................................................................................................................... 13
7.3 Building Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 13
7.3.1 Indicative Site Classification.................................................................................................................. 13
7.3.2 Footing Design...................................................................................................................................... 13
7.4 Retaining Structures ................................................................................................................................... 14
7.5 Drainage ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 iii
Page 6
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
TABLES
Table 1: Stability Risk Levels ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Table 2: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007......................................................................... 10
Table 3: Retaining Structure Design Parameters .............................................................................................................. 14
TEXT FIGURES
Text Figure 1: Precincts E2 and F preliminary development layout (courtesy of Blackburne Jackson Design)................... 1
Text Figure 2: Site Location (courtesy NSC Maps) ............................................................................................................. 3
Text Figure 3: Site Location with 1 m contours (courtesy NSC Maps) ................................................................................ 4
Text Figure 4: Looking west towards borehole BH1 (Precinct F2) ...................................................................................... 4
Text Figure 5: Looking north towards borehole BH7 (Precinct E) ....................................................................................... 5
Text Figure 6: Looking south-east towards borehole BH10 (Precinct E2) ....................................................................... 5
Text Figure 7: Looking west towards borehole BH13 (Precinct E2) .................................................................................... 6
Text Figure 8: Extract of Gympie geological map................................................................................................................ 7
Text Figure 9: Extract from NSC Landslide Susceptibility Mapping .................................................................................... 9
Text Figure 10: Slope W model ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Text Figure 11: Footing depth required to minimize risk of undermining........................................................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Plan
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
APPENDIX B
AGS Guidelines - Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property
Some Guidelines for Hillside Construction
APPENDIX C
Limitations
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 iv
Page 7
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed development of
Precincts E2 and F located on Resort Drive, Noosa Springs (Lots 6 and 7 on SP178340). The investigation
was performed by Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd (Tectonic) for Altum Constructions (Altum), in accordance
with Proposal P15275-Rev0 dated 24 September 2015.
The investigation comprised drilling of boreholes at thirteen locations across Precincts E2 and F. This report
summarises the results of the investigation and includes a slope stability assessment. Recommendations
are provided regarding design of earthworks, retaining structures, footings, and drainage.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development layout for both Precincts E2 and F is preliminary and
is subject to change. The descriptions below are based on preliminary architectural drawings provided by
Blackburne Jackson Design.
2.1 Precinct E2
Preliminary architectural drawings indicate that the Precinct E2 development will comprise construction of
multiple units within seven buildings (Blocks A to G). Access to the development will be gained via a new
driveway from the end of the Resort Drive cul-de-sac.
2.2 Precinct F
Preliminary architectural drawings indicate that the Precinct F development comprises a central common
area (restaurant, stores, staff facility, pool) surrounded by residential units. We understand that Precinct F
development could comprise construction of 153 units housed in nineteen buildings (Blocks A to R). Access
will be from Resort Drive.
Text Figure 1 below shows the preliminary layout prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design (Ref. Pan No
7038-MPO1).
Text Figure 1: Precincts E2 and F preliminary development layout (courtesy of Blackburne Jackson Design)
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 1
Page 8
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
3.0 AIMS & METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
The main aim of the investigation is to address geotechnical (including slope stability) issues for the
proposed developments on Precincts E2 and F. It is understood that this report will be submitted to Noosa
Shire Council (NSC) in support of a Development Application. The investigation and report have therefore
been designed to address the requirements of the relevant SCC codes and polices.
3.1 Review of Previous information
Tectonic acknowledge the receipt of the Soil Surveys Engineering (SSE) report detailed the geotechnical
investigation conducted in 2000 (Project No. 300-1484, dated: October 2000). That site investigation
comprised drilling and sampling ten boreholes (BH1 to BH10) to depths of 3 m to 6 m below ground level
(BGL) with a 4WD mounted lightweight Jacro 105 drilling rig across Precinct F only. Where access was not
possible for the drilling rig, (i.e. on steeply sloping ground) (BH7 and BH9), the boreholes were drilled using a
hand augering method. We have included the findings from the SSE investigation in this report, and the
locations are shown on Figure 1 at the end of this report.
3.2 Fieldwork (2015)
An experienced geotechnical engineer from Tectonic undertook a site walk-over on 8 and 12 of October
2015 to visually assess any indicators of past slope instability. The walk-over included assessment of soil
and rock outcrops, surface drainage conditions, topography, evidence of erosion, and vegetation
coverage/condition
This was incorporated with a subsurface investigation comprised a total of thirteen boreholes drilled to
depths ranging between 5 m and 6 m below ground level (BGL). Nine boreholes (BH3, BH4, BH6 to BH8,
and BH10 to BH13) were drilled using a 4WD mounted drill rig utilising solid flight augering methods, owned
and operated by Contract Drilling. The remaining four boreholes (BH1, BH2, BH5 and BH9) were drilled
using hand auger methods due to difficult site access.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was carried out adjacent/within all boreholes.
Full results of the boreholes are shown on the Engineering Logs attached in Appendix A, together with
explanatory notes. Borehole coordinates were obtained using a hand-held GPS unit with a reported
accuracy of +/- 5 m. Borehole locations are shown on Figure 1.
Drilling was undertaken in the presence of an experienced geotechnical engineer from Tectonic on 8 and 12
October 2015. Boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings on completion, and excess spoil mounted at
the surface.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of this investigation comprises Lots 6 and 7 on SP178340, covering a total area of 5.44 ha. The site
is of irregular shape with approximately 300 m frontage to Resort Drive, Noosa to the west. The site is
bound by thick bushland to the north, east and south. Noosa Springs Resort/Golf Club and residential
properties are located on the western side of Resort Drive.
The northern part of the site is relatively densely vegetated, whilst the central and parts of the southern area
of the site have a lower density cover of trees, including a large un-vegetated sand dune located centrally
within proposed precinct F. The ground surface was mostly overgrown by grass at the time of our site visit.
Some existing tracks were present throughout both sites providing limited vehicular access to borehole
locations. Stockpiles of building rubble (concrete, timber, etc.) and green waste was noted across the
central to southern part of Precinct F.
Access to the site was via a carpark located at the northern most point of the site and access road/ramp off
resort drive entering both precincts E2 and F. The site location is shown in Text Figure 2 on the following
page.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 2
Page 9
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Precinct F
Precinct E2
Stockpiles of
uncontrolled fill
Text Figure 2: Site Location (courtesy NSC Maps)
The topography of the site is dominated by a ridge, gently dipping in a south-easterly direction on the eastern
boundary of the site. The proposed construction area is located mostly on the western flank of the ridge,
with the ground surface dipping to the west, and on the relatively flat ground at the toe of the slope.
Precinct F site is dominated by a crescent moon shaped sand dune (amphitheatre). The existing topography
may have been shaped as a result of past excavation activities (white sand has been removed from site for
construction elsewhere).
Ground surface contours (1 m intervals) are shown on Text Figure 3 on the following page. The site has a
maximum ground level of RL 38 m AHD, in the northern corner grading to a minimum RL 7 m AHD in the
south-western corner of the site.
The ground surface across the proposed building areas across Precincts F and E2 range from approximately
<5° to 29° (<9% to 36%) and 5° to 20° (9% to 37%), respectively.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 3
Page 10
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Text Figure 3: Site Location with 1 m contours (courtesy NSC Maps)
Text Figures 4 and 7 on the following pages illustrate the site conditions at the time of the investigation.
Text Figure 4: Looking west towards borehole BH1 (Precinct F2)
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 4
Page 11
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Text Figure 5: Looking north towards borehole BH7 (Precinct E)
Lake Weyba
Text Figure 6: Looking south-east towards borehole BH10 (Precinct E2)
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 5
Page 12
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Text Figure 7: Looking west towards borehole BH13 (Precinct E2)
Our observations of surface features relevant to the slope stability assessment of the site (Precincts E2 and
F) are summarised as follows:
Ground surface across the likely building areas across Precincts F and E2 range from approximately
<5° to 29° (<9% to 55%) and 5° to 20° (9% to 36%), respectively.
No indications of global slope instability were observed; i.e. no landslide scarps, ‘hummocky’ ground
or groundwater seepage was evident within the vicinity of the likely building areas.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 6
Page 13
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
5.1 Regional Geology
The 1:100,000 Series Gympie Special Geological Map (Sheet 9445 & Part 9545, First Edition 1999)
indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary (Pleistocene) age ‘quartz sand’ (dune sand).
An extract of the relevant geological map is shown in Text Figure 8.
Dune sand
Indicative site location
Text Figure 8: Extract of Gympie geological map
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes indicate that the site may be divided into two areas
(Refer Figure 1). Area 1 includes the boreholes drilled along the ridge line within Precinct F and across the
eastern part of Precinct E2. Area 2 includes the boreholes drilled within the flatter areas (south-eastern
section) of Precinct F and the western part of Precinct E2. Subsurface conditions from those two Areas are
summarised below:
Area 1: (Boreholes BH1, BH2, BH5, BH7 to BH13)
Natural very loose to loose silty sand/sand to depths ranging between 0.4 m to 1.6 m BGL; over
Medium dense to very dense silty sand/sand to depths ranging between 5.0 m and 6.0 m BGL;
(termination of BH1, BH2, BH5, BH8 to BH13); and at BH7, underlain by
Very dense indurated sand from 5.5 m to 6.0 m (termination depth).
Area 2: (Boreholes BH3, BH4 and BH6)
Uncontrolled fill consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand to depths ranging from 0.55 m to 3.0
m BGL; over
Uncontrolled fill consisting of very stiff sandy clay to a depth of 3.6 m BGL (in borehole BH4 only);
then
Natural medium dense to very dense sand to termination depth of 6.0 m BGL.
Groundwater seepage was only encountered in boreholes BH6 and BH7 at depths of 4.6 m and 5.5 m BGL,
respectively. It should be notes that ‘perched’ groundwater seepage may develop at the interface between
the very dense sands soils and the less dese soils above, following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 7
Page 14
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are provided on the
Engineering Logs in Appendix A, along with definition sheets which describe terms and abbreviations used
on the report sheets.
SSE Boreholes (2000)
SSE boreholes BH7 to BH10 are located within the area defined as Area 1 above, and encountered 0.4 m
to 1.8 m of loose sand, becoming medium dense and dense with depth.
SSE boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH6 were located over the southern part of the flat area (Area 2), and
encountered uncontrolled fill to depths of 1.8 m to 5.0 m BGL overlying natural dense sand (including
indurated sand). SSE boreholes BH3 to BH5, located across the northern part of the flat area, encountered
0.6 m to 0.9 m of uncontrolled fill over natural loose sand, becoming medium dense and dense with depth.
Groundwater was encountered in SSE boreholes BH4 to BH6 at depths of 1.3 m, 2.6 m, and 1.4 m,
respectively. Those three boreholes are located at the toe of the steep sand embankment.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 8
Page 15
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
6.1 Existing Conditions
NSC natural hazard overlay mapping indicates that the site may be susceptible to landslide (blue shading, as
shown in Text Figure 9).
Text Figure 9: Extract from NSC Landslide Susceptibility Mapping
It should be noted that the NSC map is a broad-scale indication of the potential landslide susceptibility and is
superseded by site specific investigation and analysis works. The site does not exhibit any indicators or
global, natural slope instability. No landslide back scarps or areas of naturally ‘hummocky’ ground were
observed. It is inferred that the landslide susceptibility rating is due to the steep slope of the flanks of the
ridge.
6.2 Stability Assessment
6.2.1 Qualitative Assessment
The risk assessment for this project has been carried out following AGS 2007 Practice Note Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management. Relative levels of risk and their implications are given in Table 1 below and the
Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property is also attached in Appendix B.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 9
Page 16
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Table 1: Stability Risk Levels
Risk Level Example Implications(1)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning
Very High
VH and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too
Risk
expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of
H High Risk treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in
relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but requires
Moderate
M investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce risk to Low.
Risk
Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk
L Low Risk
to this level, ongoing maintenance required.
Very Low
VL Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
Risk
Note: (1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may
depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.
Considering the existing site conditions (Ref. Section 2), and subject to the implementation of
recommendations given below, it is our opinion that there is a Low (L) Risk of global slope instability affecting
the proposed development. Regulators (NSC) normally require that a Very Low or Low Risk of landslide
affecting the property must be demonstrated to enable development approval. Summarised in Table 2 below
is our qualitative assessment of landslide risk for the development site. A summary of qualitative terminology
for use in assessing risk to property is attached in Appendix B (taken from AGS 2007).
Table 2: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence
Risk
Comments
Given the mostly shallow depth of loose sands
(above medium dense and dense sand), lack of
groundwater and low to moderate to steep ground
slopes (away from the steep bank), it is considered
1: Shallow failure through
Unlikely that a landslip would develop in these
natural soils above foundation Unlikely Medium Low
materials. Subject to implementation of the
level (
recommendations in Section 4 (including founding in
dense sand), there would be a potential Medium
impact from such instability, and the resultant risk
being Low as per AGS 2007.
The likelihood of a deep failure through the medium
dense to very dense sands is assessed as Rare due
2: Deep failure through
to the strength of these materials, lack of groundwater,
medium dense to very dense Rare Major Low
and no signs of any slope instability. Although the
sands
consequence of such a failure could be Major, the
resultant risk is Low as per AGS 2007.
The potential impacts on slope stability of the development components have been assessed, and the
measures recommended below in Section 4 have been designed to mitigate those impacts.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 10
Page 17
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
6.2.2 Quantitative Assessment
In order to calculate the factor of safety (FOS) against slope instability for the proposed unit developemt
across Precincts E2 and F, numerical analysis has been conducted using the Slope/W computer program for
the assumed ‘worst case’ conditions. Based upon the results of our investigation and the 2000 SSE
investigation, the worst case profile through the site has been taken along an approximate north-east/south-
west alignment (down gradient) section line thorough Block H (within Precinct F). The ground slopes at
approximately 29° (55%) down from the gently sloping ridge plateau.
The ‘worst case’ soil profile comprises very loose to loose sands to a depth of 0.5 m BGL, overlying medium
dense (or denser) sands. In order to replicate possible loads from a single storey light weight structure, a
uniformly distributed load of 10 kPa has been applied at 1 m BGL to this model. Our recommendations are
that all footings are to be founded within the underlying dense sand. The Slope/W model replicates buildings
founded in the dense sand.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes on the sloping part of the site, and was therefore
not included in the Slope/W model.
Results of the numerical slope stability analysis are illustrated in Text Figure 10. The key points from our
analysis are summarised as follows:
Unit weight and shear strength parameters adopted for the soil strata were taken from the mid-range
of values recommended for similar materials in Appendix D of Australian Standard AS4678-2002
‘Earth Retaining Structures’.
Analysis was undertaken for a specified entry and exit zones, with a resulting minimum FOS value of
1.5, with the result satisfying the generally accepted requirements slope instability (i.e. minimum
FOS of 1.5).
Our analysis indicates that the proposed development will achieve at least the required minimum FOS.
Subject to implementation of the recommendations made in Section 7 during both operational and building
works, there will be a Low Risk of slope instability affecting the proposed development.
Text Figure 10: Slope W model
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 11
Page 18
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
7.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
7.1 Development Limitations
In order to achieve a FOS against slope instability of at least 1.5, with a consequent Low Risk, on the sloping
part of the site, and to provide a suitable building platform on the flatter area, development limitations must
be implemented. The following limits shall apply:
No filling is to be undertaken on the sloping ridge or flanks of the ridge, unless assessed and
approved by a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer. Any filling will need to be
supported by an engineer designed retaining wall.
All footings must be founded within the dense sand layer.
Remove all uncontrolled fill and replace with select, compacted and certified fill.
Once the design for building layouts and earthworks are finalised, this report will need to be reviewed
to confirm the recommendations provided herein.
7.2 Earthworks
7.2.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability
Following clearing of vegetation, trees stumps and large root must be ‘grubbed out’ and any organic rich
topsoil stripped from the construction area, along with any existing uncontrolled fill. Organic topsoils and
garden soils must not be re-used in structural fill, however may be retained on site for later use across
landscaping areas, if required.
Note: Where no buildings are proposed, vegetation is not to be removed, and any bare areas must be
planted out. Bare areas may require covering with jute matting (or similar) to allow for re-growth of plants.
Additional deeper stripping will be required in the flatter area (Area 2) to remove the uncontrolled fill. SSE
boreholes indicate uncontrolled fill to depths up to about 5 m, but mostly less than 2 m.
After stripping, the subgrade is expected to comprise natural loose to medium dens or dense sand.
Following stripping and bulk excavation (depending on scope of earthworks), the subgrade must be
inspected by a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer to determine whether any site
improvement (e.g. compaction and/or over-excavation and replacement) is required to achieve a stable
subgrade for construction activities.
The site should be graded to shed surface water runoff away from construction areas. Swale drains should
be constructed along the toes of any cuts, and above cuts where possible, with the drains graded to
discharge collected waters to a control point before release off-site.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures must be installed prior to commencement of earthworks
at this site.
7.2.2 Excavations
The scope of future excavations was not known at the time of reporting. However, it is assumed that
excavations will be required to depths up to about 5 m BGL to remove uncontrolled fill, and up to about 2 m
to 3 m depth to provide suitable building areas and pavements
Excavations in fill and natural sands should be achievable using conventional earth moving equipment (e.g.
large tracked excavators).
Temporary cuts in very loose to loose sands may be formed no steeper than 1V:2H, with permanent batter
slopes in such materials formed at 1V:3H. Flatter batters may be required if groundwater seepage is
encountered, or if earthworks are undertaken during a period of heavy rainfall.
Temporary excavations in medium dense (or denser) sands may be battered at 1V:1H, with permanent
excavations in such material to be no steeper than 1V:2H. Flatter batters may be required if groundwater is
encountered, or if excavations are carried out during/following wet weather.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 12
Page 19
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Any excavations required adjacent to existing structures, will need to be specifically designed to ensure that
the structures are not adversely affected (e.g. 'undermined').
The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable to
excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
7.2.3 Filling
Except for replacement of uncontrolled fill, it is expected that filling will be minimal (less than 1 m) for the
proposed development. The existing uncontrolled fill (where clear of vegetation or other deleterious
material) and natural soils are expected to be suitable for re-use as structural fill, subject to appropriate
moisture adjustment.
All fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content for
Standard Compaction. Fill particles greater than 100 mm must be excluded. Fill should be placed in
maximum 250 mm thick (loose thickness) layers and be compacted by repeated rolling to achieve a dry
density ratio of at least 98% of the maximum Dry Density Ratio (DDR) for building fill and 100% DDR for fill
within 0.3 m depth of pavement subgrades (all Standard Compaction method), or 75% of the Dry Density
Index for cohesionless fills (e.g. sands).
Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. Details for inspection and testing of
fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments. We recommend placement of fill to Level 1 standard if fill is to support buildings.
Batters in controlled fill are to be formed no steeper than 1V:2H.
7.3 Building Foundations
7.3.1 Indicative Site Classification
Site classifications for footing design are determined in accordance with AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs and
Footings, and depend on the depth of cut / fill undertaken at a site, variations in the natural soil / rock depths
and reactivity of the in situ soil and any imported fill materials.
Based on the results of the investigation, the indicative site classification for this site is Class P in
accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings, due to the existing steep slope and
uncontrolled fill. If not for the uncontrolled fill and steep slopes the site would have the characteristics of a
Class M site in accordance with AS2870. The estimated characteristic surface movement (‘ys’) at this site is
expected to range from 20 mm to 40 mm. It should be noted that the predicted order of movement is based
on the existing natural soil profile (i.e. no cutting or filling), and moisture content changes within soils due to
normal seasonal moisture variations only.
The site classification must be reviewed following finalisation of earthworks and building layouts.
7.3.2 Footing Design
Future buildings and associated structures on the ridge and flanks of the ridge shall be supported on piled
foundations (screw piles or open bored piles) taken at least 3 m into medium dense (or denser) sands.
Based on our investigation, founding depths are estimated to range between 3.8 m and 6.6 m BGL (existing
natural surface level).
Piles so founded may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 300 kPa.
Should open-hole bored pile construction be adopted, sidewall collapse due to the dry and very loose to
loose nature of the sands will likely be encountered within the top 1 m to 1.5 m of excavation, resulting in
‘belling out’ of the pile hole. To minimse over-excavation at pile locations a temporary steel liner could be
inserted during the drilling process to prevent side wall collapse. The casing could then be removed. The
casing could then be removed after the concrete pour and re-used. Alternatively, the pile excavation could
be allowed to ‘bell out’, with a ‘formatube’ type liner installed after reaching the target founding depth to
minimise the volume of concrete required. Excavated sand could be replaced around the ‘formatube’ after
pouring.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 13
Page 20
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
Buildings and structures located on the flatter part of the site (i.e. Area 2) are expected to be founded in
future controlled and certified fill (fill placed after removal of existing uncontrolled fill). The allowable bearing
capacity (ABC) will be dependent on the type and compaction of the future fill material, however, it is
anticipated that an ABC of at least 100 kPa would be achievable.
Foundations and allowable bearing capacities must be confirmed following inspection by a Geotechnical
Engineer during construction.
All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations, batter
slopes, trenches (e.g. possibly associated with light pole structures along then northern boundary of the
boardwalk), or retaining walls that are not designed to support loads. To minimise the potential for any
adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane extending 1 m horizontally from the
base of trenches/excavations/retaining walls, then rising up at 1V:1H. This requirement is illustrated in Text
Figure 11 below.
Text Figure 11: Footing depth required to minimize risk of undermining
Footing bases must be cleaned following mechanical excavation to expose undisturbed materials over the
full base area. It is recommended that footings be inspected by an experienced engineer prior to placement
of steel reinforcement to confirm allowable bearing pressures and cleanliness of excavations.
If any soil conditions encountered during construction are found to differ from those noted in the geotechnical
investigation, Tectonic should be notified immediately and an inspection carried out to determine if changes
to footing design are required.
7.4 Retaining Structures
Retaining walls may be required for both residential construction and the new roads depending on the extent
of earthworks.
Design for temporary or permanent retaining structures could be carried out using a triangular pressure
distribution applicable to the wall type and based on the parameters listed in Table 3. The values in Table 3
assume that the walls are fully drained and no allowance is included for hydrostatic pressures, construction
loading, up-slope footing loadings, the effects of sloping ground and backfill compaction stresses.
Table 3: Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Lateral earth pressure coefficients
Unit Friction
Retained material weight angle
Ka Ko
(t/m3) (Degrees) Kp
(Cantilever wall) (Non-yielding wall)
Very loose/loose sand 1.8 30 0.33 0.5 3.0
Medium dense (or
1.9 34 0.3 0.45 3.3
denser) sand
Future Fill * * * * *
Note: * depends on fill material type and level of compaction.
Retaining structure footings must be founded as recommended in Section 7.3.2.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 14
Page 21
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
7.5 Drainage
Adequate site drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water runoff is directed away from building
footings and walls. This could be achieved by constructing swales around structures, together with grated
channel drains along pathways and along/across access corridors. Surface diversion drainage should be
constructed up slope of building areas and along the crest of any new cut embankment (e.g. grassed or
landscaped swales or diversion mounds).
Subsurface drainage must be installed behind any retaining walls in order to prevent the development of
hydrostatic pressure (e.g. slotted ‘aggi’ pipe wrapped in filter ‘sock’ placed in gravel backfill).
All collected waters (including overflow from any rainwater tanks) must be directed by pipes or lined channels
to the legal point of downstream discharge.
Subsurface disposal of stormwater must not be undertaken (including infiltration pits).
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document “Report Limitations”, which is included in Appendix C of this report.
The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of
this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with
the services provided by Tectonic for this project.
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0 15
Page 22
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899
Buderim Qld 4556
M: 0437 755 700 / 0437 756 711
BH5 PROJECT:
BH8 BH12 BH13
BH1 BH9 PROPOSED PRECINCTS E2 & F
BH2
UNITS
RESORT DRIVE, NOOSA SPRINGS
BH4 BH10 BH11
AREA 1 BH6 TITLE:
BH5 SITE PLAN
BH1 BH8 BH9
BH2
BH10 BH7 CLIENT:
BH3
ALTUM CONSTRUCTIONS
BH4
DRAWN: DATE:
BH3
AREA 2 BIW 06/11/2015
BH7 CHECKED: DATE:
DJQ 06/11/2015
BH6
SCALE:
As Shown
LEGEND:
Tectonic Borehole
Locations (2015)
Soil Surveys Borehole
Locations (2000)
Area 2
PROJECT NO.: FIGURE: REV:
15193 1 0
Page 23
PROPOSED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRECINCTS E2 & F, NOOSA SPRINGS
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
11 November 2015
Report No. 15193-002-Rev0
Page 24
Borehole No.
BH01
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 12/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 12/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, grey and pale 0.00: 1
grey VL 0.10: 0
0.20: 0
0.30: 1
becoming pale grey 0.40: 1
0.50: 1
0.60: 1
0.70: 1
0.80: 1
L 0.90: 1
1 1.00: 2
1.10: 1
1.20: 2
1.30: 2
1.40: 2
1.50: 3
1.60: 4
MD 1.70: 3
1.80: 4
1.90: 5
2 2.00: 4
2.10: 4
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
2.20: 5
2.30: 5
2.40: 6
2.50: 6
2.60: 6
2.70: 7
2.80: 7
2.90: 8
3 M
HA
3.00: 8
3.10: 10
3.20: 10
3.30: 11
3.40: 12
3.50: 14
3.60: 14
3.70: 22
D
4
5
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Page 25
Borehole No.
BH02
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 12/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 12/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, grey and pale 0.00: 0
VL 0.10: 0
grey
0.20: 1
becoming pale grey 0.30: 1
0.40: 1
0.50: 1
0.60: 1
0.70: 1
0.80: 1
L 0.90: 1
1 1.00: 2
1.10: 2
1.20: 1
1.30: 2
1.40: 2
1.50: 3
1.60: 4
1.70: 4
1.80: 5
1.90: 5
2 2.00: 6
2.10: 6
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
2.20: 7
2.30: 6
2.40: 6
M
HA
2.50: 6
2.60: 7
2.70: 7
2.80: 8
2.90: 8
3 3.00: 8
3.10: 9
3.20: 9
D 3.30: 11
3.40: 12
3.50: 14
3.60: 18
3.70: 14
3.80: 22
4
5
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
6
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Page 26
Borehole No.
BH03
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 08/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 08/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Edson CP1 Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Contract Drilling
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained, 0.00: 2
dark grey, with some vegetation and timber 0.10: 2
0.20: 1
0.30: 1
L 0.40: 2
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained, 0.50: 2
dark grey, with some medium plasticity clay 0.60: 1
fines, trace of fine sized angular gravel 0.70: 2
0.80: 3
SP SAND, fine grained, pale grey 0.90: 10
1 1.00: 11
1.10: Augered to 1.4m
1.40: 6
1.50: 6
1.60: 7
1.70: 6
1.80: 7
1.90: 8
2 2.00: 10
2.10: 10
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
2.20: 14
2.30: Augered to 3.0m
AD/T
3 M 3.00: 7
3.10: 10
3.20: 15
3.30: Augered to 3.6m
D to
VD
3.60: 10
3.70: 18
3.80: Augered to 4.5m
4
4.50: 15
4.60: 18
5
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Page 27
Borehole No.
BH04
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 08/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 08/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Edson CP1 Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Contract Drilling
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained, 0.00: 2
dark grey, with some fine to medium sized 0.10: 1
angular gravel, with some organics 0.20: 4
0.30: 3
0.40: 2
0.50: 1
0.60: 1
L 0.70: 2
0.80: 1
0.90: 1
1 1.00: 1
1.10: 1
1.20: 1
1.30: 3
1.40: 6
1.50: 5
1.60: 7
1.70: 7
1.80: 6
1.90: 12
2 2.00: Augered to 2.3m
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained,
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
dark grey, with some medium plasticity clay MD
fines
2.30: 5
2.40: 7
2.50: 7
2.60: 6
2.70: 6
2.80: 6
2.90: 5
AD/T
3 M 3.00: 5
Sandy CLAY (FILL), medium plasticity, grey
and pale grey, fine to medium grained sand, 3.10: 6
trace of fine sized angular gravel 3.20: 7
VSt 3.30: 10
3.40: Augered to 3.6m
SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey 3.60: 1
3.70: 3
3.80: 2
3.90: 5
4 4.00: 5
4.10: 20
4.20: Augered to 4.5m
4.50: 8
4.60: 7
D to 4.70: 9
VD 4.80: 14
4.90: 19
5
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Page 28
Borehole No.
BH05
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 12/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 12/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, grey and pale 0.00: 0
grey 0.10: 0
0.20: 0
becoming pale grey 0.30: 1
VL to 0.40: 1
L 0.50: 1
0.60: 1
0.70: 1
0.80: 1
0.90: 1
1 1.00: 2
1.10: 2
1.20: 2
1.30: 3
MD 1.40: 2
1.50: 3
1.60: 2
1.70: 3
1.80: 4
1.90: 4
2 2.00: 5
2.10: 5
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
2.20: 6
2.30: 6
2.40: 7
M
HA
2.50: 7
2.60: 6
2.70: 7
2.80: 8
2.90: 8
3 3.00: 8
3.10: 8
3.20: 7
3.30: 8
D 3.40: 9
3.50: 11
3.60: 12
3.70: 11
3.80: 10
3.90: 18
4
5
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
6
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Page 29
Borehole No.
BH06
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 15193
Client: Altum Constructions Commenced: 08/10/2015
Project Name: Proposed Precinct Developments Completed: 08/10/2015
Hole Location: Resort Drive, Noosa Springs Logged By: BIW
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: Edson CP1 Inclination: RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: Datum: Operator: Contract Drilling
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Penetration
Pocket DCP Test (Depth:Blows/100mm)/
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer Structure and
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
Support
Symbol UCS Additional Observations
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained, 0.00: 1
dark brown, with some organics 0.10: 1
0.20: 2
becoming dark grey 0.30: 1
0.40: 1
L 0.50: 1
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey 0.60: 1
0.70: 2
0.80: 2
0.90: 1
1 1.00: 2
1.10: 2
1.20: 3
1.30: 2
1.40: 2
1.50: 4
1.60: 3
1.70: 4
MD 1.80: 3
1.90: 3
2 2.00: 3
2.10: 4
TECTONIC 1.01.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 15193.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 09/11/2015 13:06 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19 Prj: Tectonic 1.01.1 2015-01-19
2.20: 4
M 2.30: 4
2.40: 5
2.50: 5
2.60: 6
2.70: 7
2.80: 7
2.90: 7
AD/T
3
Groundwater seepage encountered at 4.6m BGL
3.00: 10
3.10: 10
3.20: 10
3.30: Augered to 3.5m
3.50: 8
3.60: 8
3.70: 10
3.80: 14
3.90: 18
4 4.00: Augered to 4.4m
D
4.40: 7
4.50: 8
4.60: 8
4.70: 9
4.80: 10
4.90: 15
5 5.00: 22
W
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Support Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
T - Timbering < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
The text continues on page 30.