Original source · versioned page text
Appendix B - Geotech and Acid Sulfate report - MCU19-0030
Geotechnical & Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation Report Proposed Unit Development 217-219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville Prepared for: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd C/- Ms Sasha Hopkins The A Team Property Group PO Box 523 Bentleigh East VIC 3165 Report Number: J000799-002-R-Rev0 December 2018
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 38 (of 67)
Page 2
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a geotechnical and Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) investigation carried out for a
proposed unit development at 217 to 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. The proposed development is to
comprise a three-storey apartment building with a single level basement carpark.
The general subsurface profile comprised loose to dense silty sand topsoil, overlying; alluvial soils
comprising loose to medium dense, grading to dense to very dense sands; underlain by medium to high
plasticity, firm to stiff, clay and silty/sandy clay materials. Residual soils were encountered beneath the
alluvial soils at depths of between 7.5 m and 8.5 m (RL -5.7 m and RL -6.8 m AHD), and comprised stiff to
very stiff, medium plasticity, silty sandy clay.
Groundwater inflow was encountered in all boreholes between 1.2 m and 1.5 m BGL (RL 0.17 m and RL
0.55 m AHD). Groundwater in the standpipe in borehole BH1 was measured at 2 m BGL (RL -0.23 m AHD).
Excavation for the basement to approximately 2 m BGL (~RL -0.3 m AHD) should encounter mainly loose to
medium dense (or denser) sands. Such excavation should be achievable using conventional earthmoving
equipment (e.g. 12 to 20 tonne tracked excavators).
Anticipated building wall and column loads (up to 2500 kN) could be supported by 3 m square pad footings.
The subgrade at the basement excavation must be compacted/densified with a smooth drum vibrating roller
with water applied if necessary, to achieve the required allowable bearing pressure (i.e. approximately
300 kPa) for the nominated pad footings. Total settlements of up to 30 mm and differential settlements of up
to 15 mm are anticipated below the nominated pad footings.
A suitably designed stiffened raft slab could also be used. Anticipated total settlements for a raft should be
less than 50 mm with differential settlements less than 25 mm. Alternatively, if these settlements cannot be
tolerated, the building could be supported on screw/driven piles.
Temporary shoring of the basement excavation using engineer-designed anchored (or internally propped)
sheet-pile walls will be required during basement construction. Sheet pile walls can also be used as
permanent basement walls thus reducing ‘lost’ space.
Provided that the sheet piles are founded in the stiff clay, sump pumps in the excavation base should be a
suitable dewatering method.
Consideration must be given to the effect of groundwater drawdown on neighbouring properties and in-
ground services during construction dewatering. Re-injection of the groundwater outside of the excavation
could reduce the impacts of groundwater drawdown effects.
The results of aggressivity laboratory analysis indicates an exposure classification of ‘Mild’ to ‘Non-
Aggressive’ in accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) and Table 6.4.3(C) of AS 2159-2009.
The results from the investigation indicate that low levels of existing acidity and potential ASS (PASS) are
distributed throughout the natural sands across the site. Calculation of liming rates required for full
neutralisation of combined existing and potential acidity are presented below:
Natural Sands (0 m to 1 m BGL) 5 kg CaCO3/m³
Natural Sands (Below 1 m BGL) 15 kg CaCO3/m³
Given the anticipated volume of soils that will be disturbed and required lime treatment, management of
existing and potential acidity at this site would be classified as VH (very high). The SPP14 guidelines require
that for Category VH treatment, a stand-alone ASS Management Plan (ASSMP) must be provided.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page i
Page 3
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................. 2 4.1 Review of available information .............................................................................................................. 2 4.2 Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................ 2 5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 3 5.1 Published Geological Information & Acid Sulfate Soil Information ......................................................... 3 5.2 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................................ 4 5.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................... 4 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 5 6.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability ........................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Excavatability & Stability ......................................................................................................................... 5 6.2.1 Temporary Support & Dewatering ...................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Material Suitability for Re-use ................................................................................................................. 6 6.4 Basement Design ................................................................................................................................... 6 6.5 Foundations ............................................................................................................................................ 6 6.5.1 High Level Footings ............................................................................................................................ 6 6.5.2 Piles .................................................................................................................................................... 7 6.5.3 General ............................................................................................................................................... 7 6.6 Retaining structures ................................................................................................................................ 8 6.7 Drainage ................................................................................................................................................. 8 6.8 Aggressivity of soils ................................................................................................................................ 8 7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 9 7.1 ASS Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 9 8.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 10 C1.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS INVESTIGATION METHOD AND RESULTS ................................................ 15 C1.1 Laboratory testing ................................................................................................................................. 15 C1.2 Groundwater Quality Analysis .............................................................................................................. 15 C1.3 Preliminary Screening........................................................................................................................... 16 C1.4 Quantitative Soils Analysis ................................................................................................................... 16 Tables Table 1: Summary of laboratory testing............................................................................................................. 3 Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Conditions (14 November 2018) ............................................................... 4 Table 3: Retaining structure design parameters. .............................................................................................. 8 Table 4: Liming Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 9 J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page ii
Page 4
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Figures Figure 1 – Site Plan Appendices Appendix A Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates Appendix C ASS Summary Table C1 & ASS Laboratory Test Certificates Appendix D Limitations J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page iii
Page 5
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soils (ASS) investigation carried out by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) for a proposed unit development at 217 to 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. The work was carried out for Gympie Terrace Noosaville Ltd, in accordance with our proposal Q001837-001- L-Rev0, dated 26 October 2018. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is to comprise a three-storey apartment building with a single level basement carpark (excavation depth of approximately 2 m). A concept sketch of the proposed development is shown in Image 1. Column loads are anticipated to be about 2000 kN to 2500 kN. Image 1: Concept sketch of proposed development (Image from Chris Clout Design, Dwg No. C4.0). 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 217 to 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville; covering a total area of approximately 0.11 hectares. The site was generally flat and clear at the time of our investigation, comprising short grass and a few small to medium sized trees located in the south east corner. Site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown in Photograph 1. J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 1
Page 6
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Photograph 1: Site conditions at the time of fieldwork, looking south west from borehole BH1. 4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 4.1 Review of available information To assess likely ground conditions a review of published geological maps, acid sulfate soils maps and available geotechnical information was undertaken (refer Section 5.1). 4.2 Fieldwork Fieldwork was conducted on 14 November 2018 in the presence of an engineering geologist from Core. Four boreholes (designated BH1 to BH4) were drilled across the proposed development footprint at the locations shown in Figure 1. The boreholes were drilled to depths of between 9 m and 10 m BGL using a trailer-mounted auger drill rig. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was undertaken adjacent to and within the boreholes to assess the consistency/density of the soils. Soil samples were recovered from the boreholes for subsequent laboratory testing (refer Section 4.3). A standpipe was installed in borehole BH1 to 2.3 m depth for groundwater monitoring. Details of the standpipe construction are shown on the borehole report in Appendix A. Borehole positions were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS unit. Surface elevations were inferred from the provided survey information (refer Murray & Associates Job No. 61915 DTM). Reports of Boreholes are attached in Appendix A, together with explanatory notes. Subsurface conditions are discussed in Section 5.2. 4.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory classification testing was performed at the NATA accredited laboratory of Geotech (S.C.) Pty Ltd and comprised Atterberg limits tests. Soil aggressivity testing was undertaken by Eurofins MGT. Laboratory results are summarised in Table 1, and laboratory test certificates are attached in Appendix B. J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 2
Page 7
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
Table 1: Summary of laboratory testing
Sample Depth Atterberg Limits Aggressivity
Sample Material Type Liquid Plastic Plastic pH Sulfate Chloride
Location From To (USC) Limit Limit Index (SO4) mg/kg
(m) (m)
(%) (%) mg/kg
Silty Sandy
BH1 8.5 8.7 47 19 28 - - -
CLAY (CI)
BH2 7.0 7.2 CLAY (CI-CH) 49 17 32 - - -
BH1 3.0 3.2 SAND (SP) - - - 5.7 <30 <5
The laboratory test results generally confirm field soil classifications. Test results are further discussed in
Section 6.0.
5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
5.1 Published Geological Information & Acid Sulfate Soil Information
Published information 1 indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary aged “estuarine channels and banks
comprising sandy mud, muddy sand and minor gravel.” An extract of the relevant geological map is shown in
Image 2.
The subsurface conditions encountered (described in Section 5.2) generally confirm the published geology;
and are similar to conditions previously encountered on nearby sites.
Approximate Site Location
Image 2: Extract from published geology map.
Published ASS maps 2 indicate that the site is in an area zoned as SDL, Disturbed land likely to contain ASS.
Image 3 below illustrates the sites location on the relevant ASS map.
1 GYMPIE SPECIAL 1:100,000 Geol. Map, Sheet 9445 and Part 9545, DME, 1999
2 Acid Sulfate Soils Redcliffe to Teewah Map 2 DNR-SEA-I-A0 3235
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 3
Page 8
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
Approximate Site Location
Image 3: Extract from ASS Map.
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprised the following:
TOPSOIL: comprising loose to dense silty sand and ranging between 100 mm to 200 mm thick,
overlying
ALLUVIAL SOILS: generally comprising loose to medium dense, grading to dense and very dense,
sands to between 5 m and 6.1 m depth; underlain by medium to high plasticity, firm to stiff, clay and
silty/sandy clay materials, underlain by
RESIDUAL SOILS: comprising stiff to very stiff, medium plasticity, silty sandy clay from depths of
between 7.5 m and 8.5 m (RL -5.73 m and RL -6.8 m AHD).
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater inflow was encountered in all boreholes during our investigation. Table 2 summarises the
groundwater conditions encountered.
Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Conditions (14 November 2018)
Borehole Location Groundwater Depth m BGL (~RL m AHD)
BH1 1.5 (0.27)
BH2 1.2 (0.55)
BH3 1.5 (0.20)
BH4 1.5 (0.17)
Groundwater in the standpipe in borehole BH1 was measured at 2 m BGL (RL -0.23 m) on 14 November
2018.
Given the sites close proximity to the Noosa River, groundwater levels will likely vary with tidal influence and
prevailing weather conditions. Previous experience in the area indicates that the groundwater level can rise
close to the ground surface following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 4
Page 9
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Site Preparation and Trafficability
Site preparation in construction areas should include the following:
Removal of trees and other vegetation including root systems
‘Proof roll’ the stripped surface by several passes of a minimum 10 tonne roller to identify loose or
soft areas. Proof rolling in areas of cut (i.e. basement excavation) may be deferred until after
excavation.
An experienced geotechnical engineer from Core should carry out an inspection of the subgrade 'proof roll'.
Loose or soft areas identified by proof rolling may require treatment by either of the following methods:
Over-excavation and replacement with suitable fill compacted in layers; or
Re-compaction of the loose or soft material provided that it does not contain substantial organic
matter or deleterious substances (e.g. construction waste after demolition of existing structures).
Due to the potential for poor trafficability in soil across the site during periods of wet weather, it would be
prudent to allow for the placement of a nominal 250 mm thick (or thicker depending on traffic loadings)
granular layer to facilitate movement of construction machinery.
6.2 Excavatability & Stability
Excavation for the basement to approximately 2 m BGL (~RL -0.3 AHD) should encounter mainly loose to
medium dense (or denser) sands.
Such excavation should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment (e.g. 12 to 20 tonne
tracked excavators).
A standing groundwater level was recorded at 2 m BGL (RL -0.23 m) in the standpipe installed in borehole
BH1. Groundwater inflow is expected to be encountered during the basement excavation, particularly if
conducted during/following a period of heavy or prolonged rainfall, and therefore dewatering will likely be
required (refer Section 6.2.1).
Based on conceptual sketches provided, the use of temporary batter slopes during basement excavation are
not anticipated due to space constraints. However, if temporary batter slopes are to be used; the loose to
medium dense sand above the groundwater level will be expected to temporarily stand unsupported at
slopes of 1V:2H (without loads behind the batter crest). A minimum distance of at least 2.5 m (horizontal)
between the crest of such batter slopes and any adjacent services or structural elements is recommended.
Excavations in wet sands will not stand unsupported and will require the installation of temporary support
(refer Section 6.2.1).
Excavations must consider the presence of adjacent structures and services. A dilapidation survey of
adjacent structures is recommended prior to basement excavation, and consideration must be given to
construction vibration impacts.
Care should be taken to confirm underground service locations, as instability of trench backfill can impact the
temporary support of the basement excavation.
6.2.1 Temporary Support & Dewatering
As groundwater will likely be encountered, temporary shoring of the basement excavation using engineer-
designed anchored (or internally propped) sheet-pile walls will be required during basement construction.
Additional measures such as grouting the joints in sheet piles should reduce groundwater inflows.
Based on our experience on similar basement excavation projects, steel sheet piles will need to be propped
or anchored to limit bending moments and deflections and to provide control of soil movements behind the
wall. These movements will be both lateral and vertical, occurring at the crest of and behind the excavated
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 5
Page 10
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
faces as a result of relaxation of these faces. Such movement has the potential to damage adjacent in-
ground services and buildings.
Provided that the sheet piles are founded in the stiff clay, sump pumps in the excavation base should be a
suitable dewatering method
Sheet pile walls can also be used as permanent basement walls thus reducing ‘lost’ space. The walls can
be sprayed with shotcrete and trowelled to provide an acceptable finish or covered by prefabricated panels
or blockwork.
The temporary basement support and dewatering system must be designed by a suitably qualified and
experienced engineer (RPEQ), and advice from specialist contractors should be sought regarding the design
and construction. The temporary support system adopted would need to prevent the loss of support to
adjacent buildings and other structures, whilst also acting to limit groundwater seepage into the excavation.
Upward infiltration of groundwater through the excavation base could significantly disturb the subgrade
resulting in loosening of the sands (‘boiling’ or liquefaction). The temporary support and dewatering system
must take this into account.
Consideration must also be given to the effects of dewatering during construction and the effect of
groundwater drawdown on neighbouring properties and in-ground services. Drawdown will likely be less for
sheet piles combined with sump pumps in the excavation base, rather than spear-point dewatering. To
reduce groundwater drawdown, consideration could be given to the re-injection of groundwater outside the
temporary shoring system (provided that the shoring system is suitably designed for hydrostatic pressure).
Groundwater must be tested and treated in accordance with relevant Council/State guidelines prior to
discharge to the stormwater system.
Shoring will also be required to enable safe personnel entry into trenches (with vertical sides) deeper than
1 m. The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable
to excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
6.3 Material Suitability for Re-use
Based on laboratory results and our field classifications, site won materials from excavations would generally
be suitable for re-use as fill (excluding materials containing organic matter or deleterious substances) and
over-size particles.
6.4 Basement Design
The basement structure is anticipated to be a fully waterproofed (‘tanked’) design. The basement should
therefore be designed to withstand a hydrostatic pressure that assumes groundwater could rise to the
surface during ‘extreme’ events.
6.5 Foundations
6.5.1 High Level Footings
Considering the foundation materials expected at the proposed basement excavation level and the likely
order of building column loads, either a pad footing system or raft slab could be considered.
Anticipated building wall and column loads (up to 2500 kN) could be supported by 3 m square pad footings
founded in the natural sands. In order to achieve the necessary allowable bearing pressure to support the
nominated pad footings (i.e. 2500 kN / 9m2 ~ 300 kPa), the natural sand subgrade at the basement
excavation must be compacted with a smooth drum vibrating roller with water applied if necessary. Further
geotechnical assessment (i.e. DCP tests) must be carried out following compaction to assess the density of
the sands following compaction. Total settlements of up to 30 mm and differential settlements of up to 15
mm are anticipated below 3 m square pad footings.
A suitably designed stiffened raft slab could also be used. Anticipated total settlements below a raft should
be less than 50 mm with differential settlements less than 25 mm.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 6
Page 11
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
Alternatively, the building could be supported on screw/driven piles (refer Section 6.5.2).
Any loose or wet materials at the base of footings after excavation should be ‘cleaned out’ prior to pouring
concrete.
If any soil conditions encountered during the footing excavations are found to differ from those noted in the
geotechnical investigation, Core should be notified immediately, and an inspection of the footing excavations
should be carried out to determine if changes to the footing design are required.
6.5.2 Piles
Steel screw piles with a 0.6 m diameter helix, founding in the dense sand below approximately 4 m depth
could be designed using an allowable end bearing pressure of 600 kPa. For uplift, the capacity of screw piles
should also be checked against the weight of the enclosing cylinder of soil above the helix together with
friction developed on the walls of this cylinder. An average soil density of 18 kN/m3 should be used for the
sands above the water table and an average buoyant soil density of 8 kN/m3 should be used for the sands
below the water table, with a friction angle of 32o.
The actual capacity of steel screw piles depends not only on the soil conditions, but also on structural
considerations of the piles such as the strength of the helix and the helix/shaft joint. It is considered that the
structural section capacity as well as geotechnical capacity will need to be considered where the required
load carrying capacity of individual steel screw piles is greater than (say) 600 kN. Measurement of
installation torque should not be relied on to indicate pile capacity, as it has been documented that
significantly misleading results can be obtained. For this reason, piling contractors must be responsible for
assessment of actual pile capacities for their piles. Structural capacity of the steel screw pile should be
checked, and due allowance made for inclined or eccentric loads, and possible corrosion effects.
Lateral capacity of steel screw piles could be increased by constructing concrete pile caps or by using
proprietary head attachments which are dragged into the soil providing additional lateral resistance at the
pile head. The lateral support is generally limited and is generally suited to non-critical structures that can
accommodate some lateral movement such as light poles, signs and small towers.
Where limit state methods are used to design the piles, the ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) can be
calculated by multiplying the allowable values by the adopted factor of safety of 3 and then by a suitable
geotechnical strength reduction factor (Фg) to obtain the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g). The design
geotechnical strength Rd,g of a single pile is determined by multiplying Rd,ug by a suitable geotechnical
strength reduction factor Φg. Where no load testing is proposed, the Φgb value may be adopted for Φg. After
assessing the overall design average risk rating (ARR) in accordance with the guidelines presented in
AS 2159-2009, a Φgb value of 0.45 is suggested for the site, design and installation risk factors anticipated.
Specialist piling contractors should be consulted with respect to selection of suitable pile types, detailed
design of piles, the potential vibration effects caused by pile driving, and suitable dynamic pile testing
methods and testing frequency.
6.5.3 General
All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations, batter
slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building loads. To minimise the potential
for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane extending 1 m horizontally
from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls, then rising up at 1V:1H. This
requirement is illustrated in the diagram below.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 7
Page 12
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
6.6 Retaining structures
Permanent perimeter retaining walls for the basement structure could be designed using the parameters
given in Table 3. The values 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. Surcharge loads and hydrostatic pressures for non-drained walls will be in
addition to the wall loadings calculated using the parameters set out in Table 3.
Table 3: Retaining structure design parameters.
Lateral earth pressure coefficient
Unit Friction Non-
Cohesion, Yielding
Retained material weight angle yielding
cu (kPa)
(t/m3) (degrees)
Ka
Kp Ko
(cantilever)
Loose sand 1.7 27 N/A 0.41 2.46 0.58
Medium dense (or denser) sand 1.9 33 N/A 0.3 3.33 0.45
Notes:
Ka - active; Ko - at rest; Kp - passive
For yielding walls active state develops when: Deflection > 0.001H to 0.004H (granular soil),
or deflection > 0.01H to 0.04H (cohesive soil)
6.7 Drainage
Site grades should shed water and prevent ponding. Subsurface drains adjacent to slabs and pavements are
recommended.
Collection/cut-off drains should be installed up-slope of all excavations, and surface run-off should be
prevented from entering excavations.
6.8 Aggressivity of soils
Chemical analysis can provide an indication of the potential for long term damage to foundations, buried
pipelines, in-ground structures, services and other infrastructure. Soil texture is also important in this regard,
as granular soils allow oxygen exchange (oxidation) to occur more readily and are also more permeable.
Australian Standard AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation provides the range of exposure
classification of the surface of steel piles and concrete piles based on the range of chemical conditions in the
soil and the possibility of changes in groundwater levels.
The results of laboratory analysis undertaken on the sand sample from borehole BH1, indicates an exposure
classification of ‘Mild’ to ‘Non-Aggressive’ in accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) and Table 6.4.3(C) of AS 2159-
2009.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 8
Page 13
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT
The development of ASS is commonly the result of marine or estuarine deposition of sulfate and iron bearing
sediments in the presence of an abundant source of readily decomposable organic matter resulting in the
deposition of pyrite. This pyrite is stable within the soil so long as anoxic conditions prevail. Oxidation of this
material produces acidic conditions and oxidation typically occurs as the material is exposed above the water
table by excavation, and by lowering the water table during dewatering processes.
Previous experience and available guidelines indicate that ASS are normally restricted in extent to recent
(Holocene to Pleistocene age) soil horizons deposited in a saline environment below RL 5 m AHD. The State
Planning Policy, July 2014 (SPP14) applies to land, soil and sediment at or below 5 m AHD where the
natural ground level is less than 20 m AHD. Within such areas the SPP14 applies to development involving
any of the following:
Excavating or otherwise removing 100 m³ or more of soil or sediment; or
Filling of land involving 500 m³ or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 m or greater.
The topography of the site is consistent with the above criteria (i.e. the surface elevation is below RL 5 m
AHD) and the proposed development involves excavations that would exceed the above trigger levels.
SPP14 is therefore applicable to the proposed development and an assessment of potential disturbance of
ASS is required.
The aims of this investigation were to:
Conduct an ASS assessment in general accordance with SPP14 and the Queensland Sampling
Guidelines
Quantitatively identify the presence or absence of ASS across the site
If necessary, assess the likely impact of the proposed development on ASS and groundwater
If necessary, provide prudent management measures so that the release of acid leachate from
disturbed soil and groundwater does not have significant adverse effects on the natural and built
environment or human health.
Details and results of the ASS assessment are provided in Appendix C, along with laboratory test
certificates. The outcome of the ASS assessment is summarised in Section 7.1.
7.1 ASS Summary
The results from this investigation indicate that low levels of existing acidity and potential ASS (PASS) are
distributed throughout the natural sands across the site.
The SPP14 Guidelines require that the level of treatment for management of ASS is based on treatment of
all existing and potential acidity. The results of the laboratory testing have been accumulated in an Acid-
Base Account to give the Net Acidity for each sample in units of mol H+/tonne as presented in Table C1.
This value has been calculated from sulfur trail potential acidity (SCr) plus actual acidity (TAA).
Liming rates have been calculated in kg CaCO3/m³ using a factor of safety (fineness factor) of 1.5 and an
assumed bulk density of 1.8 tonne/m3. Calculation of liming rates required for full neutralisation of combined
existing and potential acidity are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Liming Rates
Material Type Depth Treatment Rate
0 m – 1 m BGL 5 kg CaCO3/m³
Natural Sands
Below 1 m BGL 15 kg CaCO3/m³
Given the anticipated volume of soils that will be disturbed and required lime treatment, management of
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 9
Page 14
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
existing and potential acidity at this site would be classified as VH (very high) treatment in accordance with
Queensland Soil Management Guidelines V4.0 - Table 4.2 (i.e. between 5 and 25 tonnes of aglime).
The SPP14 guidelines require that for Category VH treatment, a stand-alone ASS Management Plan
(ASSMP) must be provided. Recommendations on strategies to be included in the ASSMP are as follows:
Excavated soil must be managed by neutralisation of existing and potential acidity. Good quality
agricultural lime should be thoroughly mixed with the spoil. Any lime treatment should be carried out in
accordance with Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil Management Guidelines (Ver.
4.0. 2014).
Treatment should be carried out on prepared pads. The earthworks strategy should be formulated to
provide an appropriately sized pad to enable practical spreading, mixing and drying, so that adequate
time is available to complete the treatment and verification before placing the next layer of soil. Should
an area not be available for a treatment pad due to space restrictions treatment could be carried out
in-situ.
Stormwater should be diverted away from treatment/fill areas.
Verification sampling and analysis is to be carried out on the treated soil to confirm that appropriate
amounts of the neutralising agent have been incorporated into the soil.
Groundwater quality should be monitored through new groundwater monitoring wells located across
the site.
Management of groundwater seepage and rainfall collected in excavations and other works areas on
site, including treatment recommendations, must be incorporated into the ASSMP.
During construction, it is recommended that all waters collected from groundwater or surface water inflow, be
retained, monitored and if needed, treated to comply with the appropriate discharge criteria prior to discharge
offsite.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Should you require any further information please contact the undersigned. We draw your attention to the
document, Limitations, which is included in Appendix D.
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 10
Page 15
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Core Consultants Pty Ltd Brodie Hare BE(Civil)(Hons) Geoff Hurley MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716 Geotechnical Engineer Director BH/SM/GAH/bh A.B.N. 75 603 384 050 J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 11
Page 16
C CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT.
A C E
T E RR
PIE
GYM
BH1
BH4
BH2
BH3
0 5 10 15 m
1:250
LEGEND CLIENT PROJECT
GYMPIE TERRACE NOOSAVILLE PTY LTD PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 217-219 GYMPIE TERRACE
DRAWN BY DATE DRAWING TITLE
Denotes approximate borehole location
BH 20/11/2018
CHECKED BY DATE SITE PLAN
GAH 29/11/2018
SCALE SHEET SIZE PROJECT No DOC No DOC TYPE FIGURE No REVISION
Aerial image sourced from Nearmap Pty Ltd, image dated 4 November 2018. Annotations by Core Consultants Pty Ltd.
www.coreconsultants.com.au 1:250 A3 J000799 002 R 001 0 SHEET 1 OF 1
Plot Date: 20 November 2018 Time:2:13:23 PM By: CAD Path: J:\2018 - J579 -\J000799 - SCG-Unit-Gympie Tce\PHASE 1000\Figures Drawings - File Name:J000799-001-L-Rev0.dwg
Page 17
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Appendix A Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 12
Page 18
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
EAST: 506404.0 m
NORTH: 7080279.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty LTD SURFACE RL 1.77 m LOGGED: MC
PROJECT: Proposed Unit Development CONTRACTOR: All-Tech Drilling Services LOGGED DATE: 14/11/18
LOCATION: 217 - 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000799 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 22/11/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.3-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.15 ASS 0.00-3.00 m SM SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown, D-M L
1.62 ASS samples collected SP with rootlets
at 0.25 m intervals
SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale brown
M
1.00
1
0.77 Brown
M-
W
1.50
0.27 Grey
Groundwater inflow encountered at 1.5 m depth
MD
2
DS 2.00-2.20 m
Augered to this depth before
3 re-commencing DCP test
DS 3.00-3.20 m
D
W
L 4 VD
DS 4.00-4.20 m
ADT
5
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000799.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/11/2018 12:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
D
5.50
-3.73 Dark brown, with cemented fragments
5.80
SP SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, yellow brown, M- D-
6.00 W VD
6 trace high plasticity clay
-4.23 CI-
CH CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, pale grey,
orange brown and red brown, zones of sand
St
DS 6.50-6.70 m W
(=PL)
7.00
7
-5.23 DS 7.00-7.20 m CI- SILTY SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity,
CH F - St
7.30 grey and orange brown, fine grained sand
DS 7.30-7.50 m CI- SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, grey W F
7.50 (>PL)
CH and orange brown, fine to medium grained sand
-5.73
CI
SILTY SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, pale
grey, orange brown and red brown, fine to medium grained sand
8.00
8
-6.23 CI SILTY SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, pale
L-M grey and orange brown, medium to coarse grained sand, trace
fine to medium sized, sub-rounded sandstone gravel
8.50
-6.73 DS 8.50-8.70 m Pale grey, orange brown and red brown
W
St
(=PL)
9
M
10.00
10
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
STANDPIPE INSTALLED
11
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 19
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
EAST: 506404.0 m
NORTH: 7080279.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty LTD SURFACE RL 1.77 m LOGGED: MC
PROJECT: Proposed Unit Development CONTRACTOR: All-Tech Drilling Services LOGGED DATE: 14/11/18
LOCATION: 217 - 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000799 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 22/11/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR PIEZOMETER DETAILS
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0 0.7 m Stickup
0.15 ASS 0.00-3.00 m SM D-M L
BH1
SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown,
1.62 ASS samples collected SP with rootlets Backfill
at 0.25 m intervals Bentonite
SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale brown
M
1.00
1
0.77 Brown
M-
W
1.50 Sand
0.27 Slotted Screen
Grey
Groundwater inflow encountered at 1.5 m depth
MD
2
DS 2.00-2.20 m
Octoplug
3
DS 3.00-3.20 m
D
W
L 4 VD
DS 4.00-4.20 m
ADT
5
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000799.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/11/2018 12:38 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
D
5.50
-3.73 Dark brown, with cemented fragments
5.80
SP SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, yellow brown, M- D-
6.00 W VD
6 trace high plasticity clay
-4.23 CI-
CH CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, pale grey,
orange brown and red brown, zones of sand
St
DS 6.50-6.70 m W
(=PL)
7.00
7
-5.23 DS 7.00-7.20 m CI- SILTY SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity,
CH F - St
7.30 grey and orange brown, fine grained sand
DS 7.30-7.50 m CI- SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, grey W F
7.50 (>PL)
CH and orange brown, fine to medium grained sand
-5.73
CI
SILTY SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, pale
grey, orange brown and red brown, fine to medium grained sand
8.00
8
-6.23 CI SILTY SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, pale
L-M grey and orange brown, medium to coarse grained sand, trace
fine to medium sized, sub-rounded sandstone gravel
8.50
-6.73 DS 8.50-8.70 m Pale grey, orange brown and red brown
W
St
(=PL)
9
M
10.00
10
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
STANDPIPE INSTALLED
11
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 20
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2
EAST: 506392.0 m
NORTH: 7080268.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty LTD SURFACE RL 1.75 m LOGGED: MC
PROJECT: Proposed Unit Development CONTRACTOR: All-Tech Drilling Services LOGGED DATE: 14/11/18
LOCATION: 217 - 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000799 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 22/11/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.3-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.15 ASS 0.00-3.00 m SM SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown to D-M
1.60 ASS samples collected SP dark grey, with rootlets
at 0.25 m intervals D
0.50 SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, brown
1.25 Pale grey M
1.00
1 M-
0.75 Grey
W MD
Groundwater inflow encountered at 1.2 m depth
2
DS 2.00-2.20 m
L L
Augered to this depth before
3 re-commencing DCP test
DS 3.00-3.20 m MD
W
4.00
4
DS 4.00-4.20 m With strongly cemented fragments MD -
4.20
-2.45 D
Dark brown
ADT
L-M
5.00
5
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000799.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/11/2018 12:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
-3.25 Grey and brown
>20
5.50 VD
-3.75 SP SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, yellow brown,
trace fines M-
W
6 6.10
-4.35 CI- SILTY SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity,
CH grey and orange brown, fine to medium grained sand
7.00
M 7 F
-5.25 DS 7.00-7.20 m CI- CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, grey, with fine
CH grained sand
8.00 W
8
-6.25 CI SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, grey, orange (=PL)
brown and red brown, fine grained sand
St
9.00
9
-7.25 Dark yellow brown and red brown
M-H VSt
10.00
10
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
11
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 21
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH3
EAST: 506363.0 m
NORTH: 7080248.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty LTD SURFACE RL 1.70 m LOGGED: MC
PROJECT: Proposed Unit Development CONTRACTOR: All-Tech Drilling Services LOGGED DATE: 14/11/18
LOCATION: 217 - 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000799 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 22/11/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.3-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.20 ASS 0.00-3.00 m SM SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown to D - M MD -
ASS samples collected D
GW inflow at 1.5 m depth
1.50 SP dark grey, with rootlets
at 0.25 m intervals D
SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale brown
M
1.00
1
0.70 Grey
M-
W
MD
2
L
Augered to this depth before
3 re-commencing DCP test
W
D-
VD
4
4.50
ADT
-2.80 Grey and brown
VD
5.00
5
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000799.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/11/2018 12:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
5.20 With high plasticity clay, tending into clay
-3.50 CI- CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, grey, trace
CH fine grained sand
6.00
L-M 6
-4.30 Grey and orange brown F - St
7.00
7 W
-5.30 CI- CLAY (POSSIBLE ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity,
CH (=PL)
grey and dark yellow, with fine to medium grained sand
8 St
M
8.50
-6.80 DS 8.50-8.70 m CI SANDY SILTY CLAY (POSSIBLE RESIDUAL SOIL): medium
plasticity, dark yellow brown and red brown, fine grained sand
9.00
9
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
10
11
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 22
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH4
EAST: 506368.0 m
NORTH: 7080260.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty LTD SURFACE RL 1.67 m LOGGED: MC
PROJECT: Proposed Unit Development CONTRACTOR: All-Tech Drilling Services LOGGED DATE: 14/11/18
LOCATION: 217 - 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville DRILL RIG: ID3300 CHECKED: BH
JOB NO: J000799 INCLINATION: -90° HOLE DIA. 100 mm CHECKED DATE: 22/11/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.3-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
ASS 0.00-3.00 m SM SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown to D-M D
1.57 ASS samples collected SP dark grey, with rootlets VD
at 0.25 m intervals
SAND (ALLUVIAL SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale brown
M
1 MD
M-
W
1.50
0.17 Grey
Groundwater inflow encountered at 1.5 m depth
2
L
Augered to this depth before
3 re-commencing DCP test
W
4.00 D-
L 4
-2.33 Dark brown fragments of cemented sand VD
4.50
-2.83 With zones of clay
5.00
ADT
5
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000799.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/11/2018 12:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
-3.33 CI- CLAY (ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity, grey, trace
CH fine grained sand
5.50
F
-3.83 Grey and orange brown
6.00
6
-4.33 CI- CLAY (POSSIBLE ALLUVIAL SOIL): medium to high plasticity,
CH grey, orange brown and red brown
>20
7
7.50 W
-5.83 CI SILTY SANDY CLAY (RESIDUAL SOIL): medium plasticity, pale (=PL)
grey, dark red brown and orange brown, fine to medium grained
sand
8 St
9.00
M 9
-7.33 Medium grained sand
10.00
10
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
BACKFILLED
11
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 23
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V - Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
T TC - Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatubre Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance . Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used
M Medium resistance. Excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from equipment used
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the digging implement
or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools,
and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level shown at date Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in
OBSERVED of the borehole/test pit.
GROUND WATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in less permeable strata.
ENCOUNTERED Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed Sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Dynamic cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quantity Designation (%)
Page 24
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT
REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL,CI, or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or SW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in AS 1726 - 2017. The material proper-
ties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
PARTICLE SIZE PLASTIC PROPERTIES
Major
Sub Division Particle Size
Division
Boulders >200 mm
Cobbles 63 - 200 mm
Gravel Coarse 20 - 63 mm
Gravel Medium 6.7 - 20 mm
Gravel Fine 2.36 - 6.7 mm
Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36 mm
Sand Medium 0.21 - 0.6 mm
Sand Fine 0.075 - 0.21 mm
Silt 0.002 - 0.075 mm
Clay <0.002 mm
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR COARSE GRAINED SOIL AS 1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Non-cohesive and free running
M Moist Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, tends to stick together
W Wet Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, soil sticks together, free water forms when handling
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
W<PL Moist dry of liquid limit Hard and friable or powdery
W = PL Moist near plastic limit Soils can be molded at a moisture condition approximately equal to the plastic limit
W >PL Moist, wet of plastic limit Soils usually weakened and free water forms on hands when handling
W = LL Wet near plastic limit
W > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
CONSISTENCY TERMS FOR AS1726—2017 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE GRAINED SOILS AS1726—2017
COHESIVE SOILS
Symbol Term Density Index % SPT ‘N’ #
Symbol Term Undrained Shear
VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
Strength
L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with
the observed behaviour of the material.
H Hard Above 200 kPa
Page 25
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH & WEATHERING AND
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION AS1726—2017
Symbol Term Uniaxial Point Load Field Guide
Strength Is (50)
Compressive
(MPa)
Strength (MPa)
VL Very Low 0.6 to 2 0.03 to 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick. Pieces up to 30 mm thick can
Strength be broken with finger pressure.
L Low Strength 2 to 6 0.1 to 0.3 Easily scored with knife. Indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm
blows of the pick point. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm may be broken by hand. Sharp
edges of core are friable and break during handling.
M Medium 6 to 20 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm can be broken by hand
Strength with difficulty.
H High Strength 20 to 60 1 to 3 A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick
with a single firm blow. Rock rings under hammer.
VH Very High 60 to 200 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow. Rock rings under hammer.
Strength
EH Extremely High Above 200 Above 10 Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material. Rock
Strength rings under hammer.
= Diametral Point Load Test = Axial Point Load Test
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL AS1726—2017
WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
RS Residual Soil (Note 1) Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
fabric of original rock are no longer visible but the soil has not been significantly transported.
XW Extremely Weathered Material is weathered to such an extent that is has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
(Note 1) fabric of original rock are still visible.
HW Highly Weathered (Note 2) The whole rock mass is discoloured, usually by iron staining or beaching to the extent that the colour of the
original rock is not recognizable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary miner-
als have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to
deposition of weathering products in pores.
MH Moderately Weathered The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the
(Note 2) colour of the original rock is not recognizable, but shows little or no change in strength from fresh rock.
SW Slightly Weathered Pock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength
from fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no signs of decomposition of individual minerals or colour change.
Note 1 The term ‘Extremely Weathered rock’ is misleading as the material has soil properties. The word ‘rock’ should be replaced with the name
of the original rock of the word ‘material’, eg. Extremely Weathered granite or Extremely Weathered material.
Note 2 Where it is not possible to distinguish between ‘Highly Weathered’ and ‘Moderately Weathered’ rock the term ‘Distinctly Weathered’ may
be used.
DEFECT TYPE/DESCRIPTION DEFECT PROFILE DEFECT ROUGHNESS
Symbol Description DESCRIPTION
B Bedding Parting V Vein
PL Planar
Symbol Description
J Joint HB/DB Handling/Drilling St Stepped
Break Sl Slickenside
Un Undulating
EW Extremely Weathered C Contact Sm Smooth
DEFECT INFILL DESCRIPTION
Seam
Symbol Description Ro Rough
FZ Fracture Zone L Cleavage Vertical Boreholes - The dip
Cn Clean: No visible
coating (inclination from horizontal) for the
CZ/S Crushed Zone/Seam X Foliation defect is given.
Sn Stain: Coated 1 to
3 mm Inclined Boreholes - The inclination
IS Infilled Seam S Schistocity is measured as the acute angle to the
Vr Veneer: < 1 mm core axis.
SZ/S Sheared Zone/Seam Ct Coating: 1 to 3
mm
Page 26
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 13
Page 27
Atterberg Limits Report
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G18003 - 252/1
Client Address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G18003 Report Date: 21/11/2018
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number: -
Location Job No:J000799 , 217-219 Gympie Terrace,Noosaville Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 113886 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 14/11/2018 Bore 1
Date Tested: 20/11/2018 Depth 8.5 - 8.7m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 15/11/18
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Spec Description: -
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
Plasticity Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification
Minimum Maximum
Liquid Limit (%) AS1289.3.1.2 47
Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 19
Plastic Index AS1289.3.3.1 28
Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289.3.4.1 12.5
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing
REP AATT-1-3
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 28
Atterberg Limits Report
Client: Core Consulants Pty Ltd Report Number: G18003 - 253/1
Client Address: 55 Kingsford Smith Parade Maroochydore QLD 4558
Job Number: G18003 Report Date: 21/11/2018
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number: -
Location Job No:J000799 , 217-219 Gympie Terrace,Noosaville Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 113887 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 14/11/2018 Bore 2
Date Tested: 20/11/2018 Depth 7.0 - 7.2m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 15/11/18
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site Spec Description: -
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
Plasticity Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification
Minimum Maximum
Liquid Limit (%) AS1289.3.1.2 49
Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 17
Plastic Index AS1289.3.3.1 32
Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289.3.4.1 14.0
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing
REP AATT-1-3
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 29
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd Appendix C ASS Summary Table C1 & ASS Laboratory Test Certificates J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 14
Page 30
December 2018 TABLE C1 - SUMMARY OF ACID SULFATE SOIL FIELD AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS J000799-002-R-Rev0
Quick Screening Test Existing Acidity Potential Acidity Acid Neutralising Capacity Retained Acidity Acid Base Accounting
acidity -
AASS PASS Chromium Acid acidity - Acid sulfidic - Acid acidity - Net sulfidic - Net KCl HCl ANC
Required Lime Rate
Titratable Chromium Net Acid Net Acidity Net Acidity
pHF pHFOX Reaction Remark pH KCl Reducible Neutralising Neutralising Neutralising Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Extractable Extractable Fineness
likelihood1 likelihood 2 Actual Acidity Reducible Soluble Sulfur (sulfur units) (acidity units)
Sulfur Capacity Capacity Capacity Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Factor
BH ID Depth (m) BH Sulfur
pH Unit pH Unit pH Unit mole H+ / t %S mole H+ / t % CaCO3 mole H+ / t % pyrite S %S mole H+ / t % pyrite S %S %S %S mole H+ / t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m3
0.0_0.25 BH1_0.0_0.25 6.1 L 3.9 M 2
0.25_0.5 BH1_0.25_0.5 6 L 3.7 M 2 5.3 2.9 < 0.005 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 < 0.02 < 10 <1 1
0.5_0.75 BH1_0.5_0.75 6.1 L 4.3 L 2
0.75_1.0 BH1_0.75_1.0 6.4 L 4.3 M 1
1.0_1.25 BH1_1.0_1.25 6.4 L 3.4 M 1
BH1
1.25_1.5 BH1_1.25_1.5 5.9 L 2.3 H 4 4.7 8.6 0.07 41.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.07 49 3.7 7
1.5_1.75 BH1_1.5_1.75 6.3 L 2.4 H 4
1.75_2.0 BH1_1.75_2.0 6.3 L 2.5 H 4
2.0_2.25 BH1_2.0_2.25 6.3 L 2.4 H 4
2.25_2.5 BH1_2.25_2.5 6.2 L 2.2 H 4 4.7 12.0 0.16 98.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.16 110 8.3 15
2.5_2.75 BH1_2.5_2.75 6.1 L 2.3 H 4
2.75_3.0 BH1_2.75_3.0 6.1 L 2.2 H 4
0.0_0.25 BH2_0.0_0.25 5.6 L 3.6 M 2
0.25_0.5 BH2_0.25_0.5 6.1 L 4.4 L 2
0.5_0.75 BH2_0.5_0.75 6 L 3.6 M 2
0.75_1.0 BH2_0.75_1.0 6.3 L 4.2 M 1
1.0_1.25 BH2_1.0_1.25 5.5 L 2.7 H 4 4.8 8.6 0.05 30.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.05 39 2.9 5
1.25_1.5 BH2_1.25_1.5 6.1 L 2.3 H 4
BH2
1.5_1.75 BH2_1.5_1.75 6 L 2.3 H 4
1.75_2.0 BH2_1.75_2.0 5.8 L 2.3 H 4 4.8 7.2 0.10 59.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.10 67 5.0 9
2.0_2.25 BH2_2.0_2.25 5.8 L 2.5 H 4
2.25_2.5 BH2_2.25_2.5 5.8 L 2.3 H 4
2.5_2.75 BH2_2.5_2.75 5.6 L 2.2 H 4 4.7 12.0 0.12 72.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.12 84 6.3 11
2.75_3.0 BH2_2.75_3.0 5.6 L 2.3 H 4
0.0_0.25 BH3_0.0_0.25 6.2 L 3.5 M 3
0.25_0.5 BH3_0.25_0.5 6.4 L 3.7 M 3
0.5_0.75 BH3_0.5_0.75 6.3 L 4.1 M 3
0.75_1.0 BH3_0.75_1.0 6.3 L 4.6 L 3
1.0_1.25 BH3_1.0_1.25 5.6 L 4.1 L 3
1.25_1.5 BH3_1.25_1.5 5.2 L 3.4 L 2
BH3
1.5_1.75 BH3_1.5_1.75 5.1 L 3 H 4 4.9 7.4 0.01 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 < 0.02 12 <1 1
1.75_2.0 BH3_1.75_2.0 5.1 L 2.5 H 4
2.0_2.25 BH3_2.0_2.25 5.2 L 2.5 H 4 4.7 13.0 0.12 77.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.15 91 6.8 12
2.25_2.5 BH3_2.25_2.5 5.1 L 2.4 H 4
2.5_2.75 BH3_2.5_2.75 5.4 L 2.2 H 4 4.9 11.0 0.08 50.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.08 62 4.6 8
2.75_3.0 BH3_2.75_3.0 5.6 L 2.5 H 4
0.0_0.25 BH4_0.0_0.25 6.8 L 4.2 M 3
0.25_0.5 BH4_0.25_0.5 6.9 L 4.1 M 3
0.5_0.75 BH4_0.5_0.75 6.9 L 4.6 M 2
0.75_1.0 BH4_0.75_1.0 6.9 L 4.6 M 2
1.0_1.25 BH4_1.0_1.25 6.8 L 4.4 M 2
BH4
1.25_1.5 BH4_1.25_1.5 6.2 L 3.2 M 1 5.0 4.0 0.01 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 < 0.02 12 <1 1
1.5_1.75 BH4_1.5_1.75 6 L 2.3 H 4
1.75_2.0 BH4_1.75_2.0 6.2 L 2.3 H 4
2.0_2.25 BH4_2.0_2.25 6.1 L 2.2 H 4 4.9 7.0 0.13 82.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.13 89 6.7 12
2.25_2.5 BH4_2.25_2.5 6.1 L 2.2 H 4
2.5_2.75 BH4_2.5_2.75 6.3 L 2.4 H 4
2.75_3.0 BH4_2.75_3.0 6.3 L 2.2 H 4 4.9 7.4 0.12 74.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 0.12 81 6.1 11
1. Actual Acid Sulfate Soil (AASS) likelihood is indicated by Low (L & no shade)(pHF > 5), Medium (M & yellow shade)(pHF 5 ≤ pHF < 4) and High (H & red shade)(pHF ≤ 4).
2. Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) likelihood is indicated by Low (L & no shade)(∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is < 2 pH units), Medium (M & yellow shade)(∆ pH from pHF to
pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH units OR pHFOX is <3)) and High (H & red shade)(∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH units AND pHFOX is <3)
3. Reaction (1) L = Low strength, (2) M = Medium strength, (3) H = High strength, (4) X = Extreme strength.
Page 31
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
C1.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS INVESTIGATION METHOD AND RESULTS
C1.1 Laboratory testing
A total of 48 samples were screened to assess field pH (pHF) and pH after oxidation (pHFOX) using 30%
hydrogen solution.
The pHF/pHFOX screening method consists of two steps. In the first step, the field pH of a 1:5 soil/water
suspension is measured (pHF). In the second step, a 30% Hydrogen Peroxide solution is added to a second
sample of the same material which is then heated to accelerate the oxidation of the sample. The pH after
oxidation (pHFOX) is then measured. A significant difference between the pHF and pHFOX results is indicative
of PASS; however, test results may be affected by other inclusions such as shell material and organics.
Based upon the results of these screening tests, 12 samples were selected and dispatched to Eurofins/MGT
to undergo quantitative analysis by the Chromium Reducible Sulfur (Scr) suite in accordance with ASS
Method 23F and 22B laboratory procedures of Ahern et al (2004).
This method includes analysis of ‘inherent buffering capacity’ from naturally occurring alkaline materials (i.e.
calcite, coral debris, fine shell fragments) and 'retained acidity' which includes sulfur held in stable oxidation
minerals such as 'jarosite' and allows for calculation of 'net acidity'.
An overall acid-base accounting method was used to calculate a ‘net acidity’ value which is used to qualify
analytical test results and calculate liming rates. This equation is:
Net Acidity = Actual Acidity (as TAA) + Retained Acidity (as SNAS) + Potential Acidity (as SCR) - insitu Acid
Neutralising Capacity (ANC).
The laboratory certificates of analysis, chain of custody documents and laboratory quality control documents
are attached, and the results are summarised in Table C1, attached.
C1.2 Groundwater Quality Analysis
A groundwater sample was collected from BH1 on 14 November 2018 to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the
groundwater conditions. The results of groundwater analysis are summarised in Table C2.
Table C2: Results of Groundwater Analysis
Parameter BH1
Field Results
Groundwater level (m below ground surface) 2.0
Field pH 5.4
Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) 1.5
Observations Brown
Laboratory Results
Acidity as CaCO3 (mg/L) 140
Sulfate as S (mg/L) 42
Chloride (mg/L) 290
Cl:SO4 Ratio 6.9
Dissolved Aluminium (mg/L) < 0.05
Dissolved Iron (mg/L) 15
Total Aluminium (mg/L) 310
Total Iron (mg/L) 440
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 15
Page 32
Gympie Terrace Noosaville Pty Ltd
The field pH result (pH 5.4) indicates that the groundwater is slightly acidic. The measured electrical
conductivity (EC) value of 1.5 mS/cm indicates that the groundwater is brackish.
Dissolved iron and aluminium concentrations are low. Total iron and aluminium concentrations recorded
were consistent with other sites located along the coastal areas of Southeast Queensland.
C1.3 Preliminary Screening
Results of preliminary screening are summarised in Table C1. Soil pH (represented by pHF results) was
found to range between pH 5.1 and pH 6.9 (moderately acidic to slightly acidic). The pHFOX ranged from
pH 2.2 to pH 4.6, suggesting a generally moderate to high potential for the presence of PASS.
C1.4 Quantitative Soils Analysis
Table C3 below shows the ASS action levels adopted in Queensland. These categories are used to identify
whether action / management of ASS spoil is required, based on ‘net acidity’. Action criterion of 0.03% S
equivalents (18 moles/tonne) was adopted for this investigation.
Results of the 12 samples analysed are summarised as follows:
No samples returned Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA) results above the action criteria of 18 mol H+/
tonne (0.03% S).
Nine samples returned Oxidisable Sulfur as SCR at levels above the action criteria of 0.03% S.
No samples returned a pH-KCl value exceeding pH 6.5, therefore were not tested for acid
neutralising capacity (ANC).
No samples returned pH-KCl values of less than or equal to pH 4.5, therefore were not tested for
retained acidity (SNAS).
Table C3: ASS Action Criteria.
Action Criteria
Action Criteria
> 1000 tonnes disturbed
Type of Material 1-1000 tonnes disturbed
(and major fill projects)
Existing + Potential Acidity Existing + Potential Acidity
Equivalent sulfur Equivalent acid
Texture range Approx. clay Equivalent sulfur Equivalent acid
%S oxidisable mol H+/ tonne
McDonald et al. (1990) content (%) %S oxidisable mol H+/ tonne
(oven-dry basis) (oven-dry basis)
Coarse Texture
≤5 0.03 18 0.03 18
Sands to loamy sands
Medium Texture
Sandy loams to light 5 – 40 0.06 36 0.03 18
clays
Fine Texture
Medium to heavy clays ≥40 0.10 62 0.03 18
and silty clays
J000799-002-R-Rev0 Page 16
Page 33
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Core Consultants Pty Ltd Site Number 20794
55 Kingford Smith Parade Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or
Maroochydore measurements included in this document are traceable
to Australian/national standards.
QLD 4558
Attention: Walter Mastenbroek
Report 627963-S
Project name SCG/UNIT/GYMPIE TERRACE
Project ID J000799
Received Date Nov 15, 2018
Client Sample ID BH1 0.0-0.25 BH1 0.25-0.50 BH1 0.50-0.75 BH1 0.75-1.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20221 B18-No20222 B18-No20223 B18-No20224
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.9 3.7 4.3 4.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0
Client Sample ID BH1 1.00-1.25 BH1 1.25-1.50 BH1 1.50-1.75 BH1 1.75-2.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20225 B18-No20226 B18-No20227 B18-No20228
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.4 5.9 6.3 6.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.4 2.3 2.4 2.5
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH1 2.00-2.25 BH1 2.25-2.50 BH1 2.50-2.75 BH1 2.75-3.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20229 B18-No20230 B18-No20231 B18-No20232
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 1 of 12
Date Reported: Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
Page 34
Client Sample ID BH2 0.00-0.25 BH2 0.25-0.50 BH2 0.50-0.75 BH2 0.75-1.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20233 B18-No20234 B18-No20235 B18-No20236
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.6 6.1 6.0 6.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0
Client Sample ID BH2 1.00-1.25 BH2 1.25-1.50 BH2 1.50-1.75 BH2 1.75-2.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20237 B18-No20238 B18-No20239 B18-No20240
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.5 6.1 6.0 5.8
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH2 2.00-2.25 BH2 2.25-2.50 BH2 2.50-2.75 BH2 2.75-3.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20241 B18-No20242 B18-No20243 B18-No20244
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH3 0.00-0.25 BH3 0.25-0.50 BH3 0.50-0.75 BH3 0.75-1.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20245 B18-No20246 B18-No20247 B18-No20248
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.5 3.7 4.1 4.6
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Client Sample ID BH3 1.00-1.25 BH3 1.25-1.50 BH3 1.50-1.75 BH3 1.75-2.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20249 B18-No20250 B18-No20251 B18-No20252
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.1
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.5
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 2 of 12
Date Reported: Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
Page 35
Client Sample ID BH3 2.00-2.25 BH3 2.25-2.50 BH3 2.50-2.75 BH3 2.75-3.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20253 B18-No20254 B18-No20255 B18-No20256
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.5
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH4 0.00-0.25 BH4 0.25-0.50 BH4 0.50-0.75 BH4 0.75-1.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20257 B18-No20258 B18-No20259 B18-No20260
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.6
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Client Sample ID BH4 1.00-1.25 BH4 1.25-1.50 BH4 1.50-1.75 BH4 1.75-2.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20261 B18-No20262 B18-No20263 B18-No20264
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.8 6.2 6.0 6.2
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.4 3.2 2.3 2.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH4 2.00-2.25 BH4 2.25-2.50 BH4 2.50-2.75 BH4 2.75-3.00
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20265 B18-No20266 B18-No20267 B18-No20268
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018 Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Client Sample ID BH1 DS 3.0-3.2
Sample Matrix Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-No20269
Date Sampled Nov 14, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chloride 5 mg/kg <5
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) 0.1 pH Units 5.7
Sulphate (as SO4) 30 mg/kg < 30
% Moisture 1 % 20
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 3 of 12
Date Reported: Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
Page 36
Sample History
Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction and analysis is reported.
A recent review of our LIMS has resulted in the correction or clarification of some method identifications. Due to this, some of the method reference information on reports has changed. However,
no substantive change has been made to our laboratory methods, and as such there is no change in the validity of current or previous results (regarding both quality and NATA accreditation).
If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.
Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time
Chloride Melbourne Nov 19, 2018 28 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4090 Chloride by Discrete Analyser
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) Melbourne Nov 19, 2018 7 Day
- Method: LTM-GEN-7090 pH in soil by ISE
Sulphate (as SO4) Melbourne Nov 19, 2018 28 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4110 Sulfate by Discrete Analyser
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test Brisbane Nov 15, 2018 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7060 Determination of field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests
% Moisture Melbourne Nov 19, 2018 14 Day
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 4 of 12
Date Reported: Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
Page 37
Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth
2-5 Kingston Town Close Unit F3, Building F 1/21 Smallwood Place 2/91 Leach Highway
Oakleigh VIC 3166 16 Mars Road Murarrie QLD 4172 Kewdale WA 6105
ABN– 50 005 085 521 Phone : +61 3 8564 5000 Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Phone : +61 7 3902 4600 Phone : +61 8 9251 9600
e.mail : [email protected] NATA # 1261 Phone : +61 2 9900 8400 NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 NATA # 1261
web : www.eurofins.com.au Site # 1254 & 14271 NATA # 1261 Site # 18217 Site # 23736
.
Company Name: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Nov 15, 2018 3:30 PM
Address: 55 Kingford Smith Parade Report #: 627963 Due: Nov 22, 2018
Maroochydore Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4558 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: SCG/UNIT/GYMPIE TERRACE
Project ID: J000799
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Iron
Iron (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.)
Sulphate (as SO4)
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity (speciated)
Alkali Metals
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BH1 0.0-0.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20221 X
2 BH1 0.25-0.50 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20222 X
3 BH1 0.50-0.75 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20223 X
4 BH1 0.75-1.00 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20224 X
5 BH1 1.00-1.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20225 X
6 BH1 1.25-1.50 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20226 X
7 BH1 1.50-1.75 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20227 X
8 BH1 1.75-2.00 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20228 X
9 BH1 2.00-2.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20229 X
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 5 of 12
Date Reported:Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
Page 38
Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth
2-5 Kingston Town Close Unit F3, Building F 1/21 Smallwood Place 2/91 Leach Highway
Oakleigh VIC 3166 16 Mars Road Murarrie QLD 4172 Kewdale WA 6105
ABN– 50 005 085 521 Phone : +61 3 8564 5000 Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Phone : +61 7 3902 4600 Phone : +61 8 9251 9600
e.mail : [email protected] NATA # 1261 Phone : +61 2 9900 8400 NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 NATA # 1261
web : www.eurofins.com.au Site # 1254 & 14271 NATA # 1261 Site # 18217 Site # 23736
Company Name: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Nov 15, 2018 3:30 PM
Address: 55 Kingford Smith Parade Report #: 627963 Due: Nov 22, 2018
Maroochydore Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4558 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: SCG/UNIT/GYMPIE TERRACE
Project ID: J000799
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Iron
Iron (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.)
Sulphate (as SO4)
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity (speciated)
Alkali Metals
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
10 BH1 2.25-2.50 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20230 X
11 BH1 2.50-2.75 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20231 X
12 BH1 2.75-3.00 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20232 X
13 BH2 0.00-0.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20233 X
14 BH2 0.25-0.50 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20234 X
15 BH2 0.50-0.75 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20235 X
16 BH2 0.75-1.00 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20236 X
17 BH2 1.00-1.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20237 X
18 BH2 1.25-1.50 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20238 X
19 BH2 1.50-1.75 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20239 X
20 BH2 1.75-2.00 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20240 X
21 BH2 2.00-2.25 Nov 14, 2018 Soil B18-No20241 X
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 6 of 12
Date Reported:Nov 26, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 627963-S
The text continues on page 39.