Council archive · source document
RESPONSE TO FURTHER ADVICE -Geotechnical Report · MCU25/0054
Geotechnical Investigation Report
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
Proposed Residential Development
20 William Street, Noosaville
28 April 2025
www.ptgconsulting.com.au
1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 28 pages
Page 2
REPORT DETAILS
Unique Document Identification
Document Title Interim Geotechnical Investigation Report - Proposed Residential Development
Project Number PTG/02023
Document ID PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
Client SCG Consulting Engineers for Ross Palazzesi
Client Contact Tom Harrington
PTG Office Details
Location Sunshine Coast
Address U2/9-13 Matheson Street, Baringa, QLD, 4551
Telephone 1300 911 304
Email [email protected]
Web www.ptgconsulting.com.au
Revision Details
Revision No. Date Comments
0 23 April 2025 Issue of report
1 28 April 2025 Minor terminology ammendment
Document Approval
Written By: Reviewed By:
Philip White Justin Taing
Geotechnical Engineer Regional Director - Geotechnical (RPEQ 30087)
p | (07) 5647 0457 p | (07) 5647 0411
e | [email protected] e | [email protected]
Page 3
1 REPORT SCOPE 4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 4
CONTENTS 4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION 7
6 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL 7
7 LABORATORY TESTING AND RESULTS 7
ENVIRONMENTAL – ACID SULPHATE SOILS 8
8 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS 9
SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SITE MOVEMENTS 10
FOUNDATIONS & RETENTION OPTIONS 10
9 PRELIMINARY ACID SULFATE SOILS (ASS) COMMENTS 10
10 LIMITATIONS 11
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Materials Encountered in Boreholes ................................................................................................ 7
Table 2: Summary of Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Testing ....................................................................................................8
Table 3: Texture Based Action Criteria for ASS. ................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Test Location Plan
Appendix 2 Borehole Logs
Appendix 3 Laboratory Testing
3
Page 4
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
1 REPORT SCOPE
This report presents the results of the interim geotechnical investigation carried out by PTG Consulting (PTG) for the
proposed residential development to be located at 20 William Street, Noosaville. The investigation was commissioned
by Tom Harrington on behalf of SCG Consulting Engineers for Ross Palazzesi.
Preliminary sketches and communication provided via the client indicate that the final usage of the site will comprise
a three-story duplex residential building with a single-level basement.
The geotechnical investigation included three (3) auger boreholes with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing
and laboratory testing of selected samples undertaken in general accordance with PTG’s proposal, ‘AS 1726:2017-
Geotechnical Site Investigations’ and ‘AS 1289-Methods of Testing for Engineering Purposes’.
This report includes a description of the fieldwork procedures, the results of the fieldwork and laboratory testing, and
reporting on the following:
» Site classification and predicted ground surface movement (ys) in accordance with ‘AS 2870:2011’;
» Allowable bearing pressures for high level footings and estimated settlements;
» Suitable pile types, ultimate base bearing, skin frictions and estimated settlement (if required);
» Exposure classification for concrete or steel pile design in soil;
» Presence of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS); and
» Any other geotechnical issues identified that would need management (if any).
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the concept sketches provided the development is understood to comprise:
» Demolition of the existing residence;
» Construction of a new three level residential duplex building;
» Boxing out and construction of new pavement driveways; and
» Installation of underground services from the boundary to the building.
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 20 William Street, Noosaville and is identified as Lot 3 on RP63813. The site has an area of 551 m2
and is bordered by residential blocks to the north, east and south, and William Street to the west. Figure 1 shows an
aerial view of the site and surrounds with the approximate site boundary shown in red.
Figure 1: Aerial view of the site from QLD Globe. Site extents indicated in red.
4
Page 5
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
LiDAR data available on QLD Globe indicates that the that the site is currently flat with an elevation between
RL 1 m AHD and 2 m AHD.
At the time of the investigation, there was a house located in the middle of the site, an astroturf lawn between the
house and the street, and natural gardens at the rear of the property comprising well-kept grass surrounded by
gardens with many mature palm trees up to 10 m tall. Figures 2 and 3 are images that were taken at the time of the
investigation and show the general site conditions.
Figure 2: Site condition at the time of investigation (front). Figure 3: Site condition at the time of investigation (rear).
4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Reference to available geology mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene aged estuarine channels
and banks (Qpe), typically characterised by 'sandy mud, muddy sand and minor gravel'.
Figure 4 below shows an aerial view of the site (red location marker) with the regional geology overlay.
Figure 4: Regional geology as extracted from the Queensland Geotechnical Database.
5
Page 6
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
It is known that in this area significant land reclamation was undertaken in the second half of last century. Historic
aerial imagery available on the Queensland Government’s QImagery website reveals that the site is unlikely to
encounter significant areas of fill as it can be identified on the earliest recorded images prior to land reclamation.
Figure 5 shows the area in 1964.
Figure 5: Aerial view of Noosaville from 1964 (from QImagery website) with approximate site location marked.
As the site is located below RL 5 m AHD in a coastal area, it has been mapped as having a high probability (>70%) of
encountering ASS. Figure 6 below shows Noosaville with the ASS probability overlay applied.
Figure 6: Noosaville with the ASS overlay (from QGD website). Maroon colours indicate a high probability (>70%).
6
Page 7
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The fieldwork scope was intended to comprise four (4) boreholes drilled to between 3.0 m and 6.0 m depth using a
4WD utility mounted GT-10 drilling rig fitted with 100 mm diameter solid flight augers for the deeper borehole and a
67 mm diameter hand auger for the shallower boreholes. Before beginning the fieldwork, it was unknown that the front
lawn comprised of astroturf underlain by concrete. Assessment was undertaken at the time of works and the borehole
BH1 was abandoned due to inability to penetrate the underlying concrete. As a result, the fieldwork comprised three
(3) boreholes drilled to depths of 0.3 m to 3.0 m using a hand auger at the rear of the property. The drilling was
undertaken by an experienced driller and geotechnician who logged the bores and collected samples. Refusal of the
hand auger was encountered at borehole BH4 on localised tree root systems.
Disturbed samples of representative soil types were collected from the boreholes for soil description and classification
purposes and subsequent laboratory testing. The visual-tactile description and classification methods undertaken on
disturbed samples, and shown on the attached logs, are described in accordance with AS 1726:2017.
DCP testing was undertaken adjacent to the boreholes from the surface with the number of blows to achieve 100 mm
depth penetration recorded in accordance with AS 1289.6.3.2.
Soil consistency and relative density described on the borehole logs were inferred from the DCP results, tactile
assessment and published correlations.
The approximate borehole locations and numbers are shown on the Test Location Plan attached in Appendix 1. The
borehole log report sheets are attached in Appendix 2.
It is anticipated that further field investigation will be required in order to attain a satisfactory depth for further
commentary to be provided regarding the property.
6 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
In summary, the soil profile encountered within the boreholes in the rear portion of the property generally comprised
a surficial 0.1 m thick layer of topsoil then silty sand to the termination depth. Table 1 summarises the soils
encountered within the boreholes.
Table 1: Summary of Materials Encountered in Boreholes
Borehole No. Topsoil (m) Silty Sand (m)
BH2 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 – 3.0TD
BH3 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 – 3.0TD
BH4 0.0 – 0.1 0.1 – 0.3R
Notes: NE = not encountered, R = refusal depth, TD = termination depth
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing undertaken indicated topsoil and silty sand have a loose relative density
gradually increasing in density with depth.
Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of the boreholes. It should be noted that groundwater levels can
be perched and fluctuate seasonally and during and after heavy rainfall events. Given this natural variability, the sandy
soils encountered, and the site’s relative proximity to a tidal river, it is prudent to assume that water levels can and
will fluctuate.
7 LABORATORY TESTING AND RESULTS
Soil samples collected from the completed boreholes were submitted for subsequent laboratory testing. Given the
inability to complete the investigation, limited sampling was undertaken at the time of fieldwork. A subsequent follow-
up investigation is to be undertaken when access is deemed appropriate. Below, testing has been undertaken to
provide commentary on the severity and presence of acid sulphate soils.
7
Page 8
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
ENVIRONMENTAL – ACID SULPHATE SOILS
Soil samples were recovered every 0.25 m from the boreholes. Laboratory testing was undertaken in accordance with
the ‘National Acid Sulfate Soils Guidance: National acid sulfate soils sampling and identification methods manual’
(Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018).
Laboratory testing included field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests in order to assess for the possible
presence of ASS. A summary of the results is presented below in Table 2. Laboratory reports of test results are
attached in Appendix 3.
Table 2: Summary of Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Testing
Borehole pHF pHFOX Reactivity pH Change
Depth (m) Material
No. (pH units) (pH units) Number (pH units)
BH2 0.25 Sand 6.9 2.9 3 4.0
0.50 Sand 7.3 3.2 3 4.1
0.75 Sand 6.8 2.8 3 4.0
1.00 Sand 6.8 3.0 2 3.8
1.50 Sand 6.9 3.0 2 3.9
2.50 Sand 6.6 3.1 2 3.5
2.75 Sand 6.8 3.0 2 3.8
3.00 Sand 6.8 2.2 2 4.6
BH3 0.25 Sand 6.0 2.6 2 3.3
0.50 Sand 6.1 2.9 2 3.4
0.75 Sand 5.9 3.0 2 3.2
2.00 Sand 6.0 2.9 2 2.9
2.50 Sand 6.0 2.8 2 3.1
2.75 Sand 6.1 2.8 2 3.2
3.00 Sand 6.0 2.6 2 3.3
Note: Reactivity numbers classify the reaction rate from 1 (slight) to 4 (extreme).
The results of the above table are presented graphically in the following figures. The pink zones in these figures
highlight which results indicate the possible presence of Actual ASS (AASS), the possible presence of Potential ASS
(PASS), and a significant change in pH as a result of oxidisation. The samples that were selected for follow up testing
are circled in red.
Field pH (pHF) measurements
0
0.5
1
Depth (m)
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Field pH (pH units)
Figure 7: Field pH test results. The pink zone (pH < 4) indicates the possible presence of Actual ASS (AASS).
8
Page 9
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
Field pH after Oxidisation (pHFOX) measurements
0
0.5
1
Depth (m)
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pHFOX (pH units)
Figure 8: Field pH after peroxide (pHFOX) test results. The pink zone (pH < 3) indicates the possible presence of Potential ASS (PASS).
Change in pH following oxidation
0
0.5
1
Depth (m)
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drop in pH after peroxide (pH units)
Figure 9: Change (drop) in pH following oxidisation. The pink area indicates a drop in pH of greater than 1.0 pH units.
After receiving the results of the above testing, a subsequent selection of samples was sent for further Chromium
Reducible Sulfur (CRS) testing. The results of the CRS testing will be presented in a revised report. At the time of
writing this report, the provided commentary is not deemed to be in accordance with QAASTM. Subsequent
investigation will need to be undertaken to ensure regulatory guidelines are met for the site.
8 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS
The geotechnical comments in this report are based on information collected during the fieldwork, common practice,
local experience and published literature; however, they are fundamentally opinions.
In summary, the ground conditions that are likely to be encountered at the site can be characterised as comprising a
surficial layer of topsoil, then silty sand. Further investigation will be required to provide sufficient commentary for the
proposed development.
9
Page 10
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
Based on an understanding of the preliminary ground conditions, it is likely that the most suitable foundation system
for the buildings would comprise of screw piles into competent strata.
SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SITE MOVEMENTS
In accordance with ‘AS2870-2011: Residential Slabs and Footings’, the site is classified as ‘P’ due to:
» The bearing strength is less than that specified in Clause 2.4.5 as per Section 2.1.3(a);
» The site may be subject to moisture changes due to site conditions more severe than the normal site conditions
described in Clause 1.3.2:
o Removal of an existing building or structure likely to have significantly modified the soil moisture conditions
under the footprint of the footing system of the building as per section 1.3.3 (a);
o Removal of trees prior to construction as per section 1.3.3(b); and
o Presence of trees on the building site or adjacent site as per section 1.3.3(c).
The site is in a Wet Coastal climatic region with a depth of suction (Hs) of 1.5 m. The encountered soil material is sand
to the depth of the soil suction profile. Applying the empirical methods described in Section 2.3 of AS 2870:2011, the
characteristic ground surface movement will most likely be negligible, consistent with a site class ‘A’.
This classification is relevant to sites subject to normal moisture conditions. Abnormal moisture conditions, such as
from the removal or planting of trees (including on adjacent sites), poor site drainage, and development of gardens
adjacent to the footings, may cause higher movements to occur, possibly resulting in damage, which may or may not
be within acceptable limits.
FOUNDATIONS & RETENTION OPTIONS
Based on an interpretation of the typical structural loads anticipated, and subsurface conditions encountered during
the investigation, screw or piled foundations could be considered suitable for the development. Due to limited
information available on the underlying strata foundation, design parameters cannot be accurately provided at the
time of writing this report. Additional work will need to be completed to provide commentary on foundations and
retention options.
9 PRELIMINARY ACID SULFATE SOILS (ASS) COMMENTS
No Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) has been prepared at the time of writing and therefore these
comments are limited to commenting on the test results obtained and information referenced from the National ASS
Guidelines.
Possible Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS) are typically indicated by pHF results below 4.0. None of the samples
recorded these test results. The lowest pHF result was 5.9 as recorded in the sample from borehole BH3 at a depth of
2.0 m.
Possible Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) are typically indicated by pHF results above 4.0 along with pHFOX results
below 3.0 and showing a reaction to added peroxide. Most of the tested samples met these criteria, apart from two
samples in borehole BH2 that had a pHFOX of just over 3.0. The following samples indicated possible PASS:
» BH2 – 0.50 m, 0.75 m to 1.50 m inclusive and 2.75 m to 3.00 m inclusive; and
» BH3 – 0.25 m to 3.0 m inclusive.
Based on the pH screening test results (pHF and pHFOX), possible PASS were indicated by the test results and on this
basis, Chromium Reducible Sulfur (CRS) testing has been arranged to confirm the presence or absence of ASS.
The texture of the soil sediment influences soil behaviour and therefore treatment if excavated. The equivalent sulfur
and equivalent acidity action criteria thresholds for different soil textures are shown in Table 3. The following table is
from Table 2 of the ‘Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil Management Guidelines V5.1’.
10
Page 11
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
Table 3: Texture Based Action Criteria for ASS.
Soil Texture 1 – 1000 t disturbed > 1000 t disturbed
Equivalent Sulfur Equivalent Equivalent
Equivalent Sulfur
Texture Category Texture Range Acidity Acidity
(%S) (%S)
(mol H+/t) (mol H+/t)
Sands to loamy
Coarse 0.03 18
sand and peats
Clayey sands to
Medium 0.06 36
light clays 0.03 18
Light, medium to
Fine heavy clays and 0.10 62
silty clays
As sand-based soils were encountered in the boreholes and the samples tested, the applicable action criterion is
18 mol H+/t, irrespective of the quantity of soil to be disturbed.
The final area and volume of soil disturbance (cut and/or fill) below RL 5 m AHD must be assessed to determine if
further borehole drilling, sampling and testing is required.
10 LIMITATIONS
PTG Consulting has prepared this report (or services) for this project in accordance with PTG's proposal and
acceptance received from the Client. These limitations apply whether the report was created under PTG’s own terms
and conditions or otherwise.
This report is provided for the exclusive use of the SCG Consulting Engineers for the Geotechnical scope of works at
20 William Street, Noosaville. The report should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the
same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as
stated above, and without the express written consent of PTG, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse
to PTG for any loss or damage. In preparing this report, PTG has necessarily relied upon information provided by the
client and/or their agents.
PTG's advice is based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling supplemented by
knowledge of local geology and experience. The accuracy of the advice provided by PTG in this report may be affected
by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing
locations. For this reason, our reports include an interpretation of conditions between the test points. There are
unknowns or variations in ground conditions between test locations that cannot be inferred or predicted. Such
variations may occur after PTG's field testing has been completed. The precision and reliability of interpretive
assessment between discrete points is dependent on the uniformity of the subsurface strata, as well as the frequency,
detail, and method of sampling or testing.
Geotechnical information represents an opinion and is based extensively on judgment of both data and interpretive
assessments or observation. This report and its associated documentation are provided explicitly based on PTG’s
opinion of the site at the time of inspection, and cannot be extended beyond this. Any recommendations or design
suggestions will need to be verified on site during project implementation or construction. Inspection and verification
on site may be conducted by a suitably qualified geotechnical consultant or engineer, and where subsurface conditions
or interpretations differ from those provided in this document or otherwise anticipated, PTG must be notified and be
provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations
The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory
testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. The information and
interpretation may not be relevant if the development proposal is changed. If this happens then PTG will be pleased
to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work.
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, and the discussion and
recommendations or suggestions relating to the geotechnical aspects of the scope of works. However, PTG cannot
always anticipate or assume responsibility for:
» Unexpected variations in ground conditions;
» Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or
11
Page 12
PTG/02023 – 0001 – Rev1
» The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.
The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components, as required by Health and Safety Legislation
and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction
and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such
assessment being dependent upon factors relating to the likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to
property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role
respectively of PTG.
This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached documents and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual pages or sections. PTG cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by
others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome, or conclusion stated in this
report.
12
Page 13
Appendix 1 Test Location Plan
Page 14
Site locality
BH03
BH04
Legend
BH02 Borehole
BH01
Client: SCG Consulting Engineers
Site: 20 William Street,
Noosaville, QLD, 4566
Title: Test Location Plan
Date: Drawn: Checked:
20/03/2025 LG JT
Project: Drawing No: Revision
PTG/02023 1 0
Page 15
Appendix 2 Borehole Log Reports
Page 16
BOREHOLE BH1
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: SCG Consulting Engineers DATE: 21/03/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 507240 m
LOCATION: 20 William Street, Noosaville QLD NORTHING: 7080480 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/02023 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: Mapstone Geo Services RIG: 4WD GT-10 LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: JT
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 FILL - ASTROTURF and SAND
0.02 FILL - CONCRETE (unknown depth)
Bore terminated at 0.02m.
4WD GT-10 refusal on concrete.
1.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 1.5
0.0 2.0
-0.5 2.5
17/4/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG-02023 20 WILLIAM ST NOOSAVILLE BH.GPJ
-1.0 3.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m accuracy). Refer to Test Location Plan. Approximate surface elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 17
BOREHOLE BH2
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: SCG Consulting Engineers DATE: 21/03/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 507260 m
LOCATION: 20 William Street, Noosaville QLD NORTHING: 7080490 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/02023 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: PTG RIG: Handheld auger LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: JT
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 TOPSOIL - SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, fine to medium grained,
moist. 1
0.10 SM Silty SAND, brown, loose, fine to medium grained, moist.
1
0.25
pHf = 6.9; pHfox = 1
2.9; Reactivity = 3
1
1
1.5 0.5
0.5
pHf = 7.3; pHfox =
0.50 ~ dark brown to light grey. 3.2; Reactivity = 3
2
2
0.75
pHf = 6.8; pHfox = 2
2.8; Reactivity = 3
3
Loose
3
1.0 1.0
1
pHf = 6.8; pHfox =
3.0; Reactivity = 2
3
3
1.25 3
4
hand auger
3
0.5 1.5
1.5
pHf = 6.9; pHfox =
3.0; Reactivity = 2
3
3
1.75 3
1.80 ~ loose to medium dense.
4
5
0.0 2.0
2
5
5
2.25 4
Loose to Medium Dense 3
3
-0.5 2.5
2.5
pHf = 6.6; pHfox =
3.1; Reactivity = 2
4
17/4/25
4
_BH NON-CORE PTG-02023 20 WILLIAM ST NOOSAVILLE BH.GPJ
2.75
pHf = 6.8; pHfox = 4
3.0; Reactivity = 2
5
-1.0 3.0
3
pHf = 6.8; pHfox =
Bore terminated at 3.00m. 2.2; Reactivity = 2
Target depth achieved.
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m accuracy). Refer to Test Location Plan. Approximate surface elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 18
BOREHOLE BH3
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: SCG Consulting Engineers DATE: 21/03/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 507255 m
LOCATION: 20 William Street, Noosaville QLD NORTHING: 7080495 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/02023 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: PTG RIG: Handheld auger LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: JT
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 TOPSOIL - SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, fine to medium grained,
moist. 1
0.10 SM Silty SAND, brown, loose, fine to medium grained, moist.
1
0.25
pHf = 6.1; pHfox = 1
2.8; Reactivity = 2
1
1
1.5 0.5
0.5
pHf = 6.0; pHfox =
0.50 ~ dark brown light grey. 2.6; Reactivity = 2
2
Loose 2
0.75
pHf = 6.1; pHfox = 3
2.9; Reactivity = 2
3
3
1.0 1.0
1
3
2
1.25 3
1.30 ~ loose to medium dense.
4
hand auger
4
0.5 1.5
1.5
3
3
1.75 3
4
4
0.0 2.0
2
pHf = 5.9; pHfox =
3.0; Reactivity = 2
4
Loose to Medium Dense
3
2.25 4
3
3
-0.5 2.5
2.5
pHf = 6.0; pHfox =
2.9; Reactivity = 2
4
17/4/25
4
_BH NON-CORE PTG-02023 20 WILLIAM ST NOOSAVILLE BH.GPJ
2.75
pHf = 6.0; pHfox = 4
2.8; Reactivity = 2
4
-1.0 3.0
3
pHf = 6.1; pHfox =
Bore terminated at 3.00m. 2.8; Reactivity = 2
Target depth achieved.
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m accuracy). Refer to Test Location Plan. Approximate surface elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 19
BOREHOLE BH4
PAGE 1 of 1
CLIENT: SCG Consulting Engineers DATE: 21/03/2025
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation EASTING: 507265 m
LOCATION: 20 William Street, Noosaville QLD NORTHING: 7080495 m
PROJECT NUMBER: PTG/02023 SURFACE ELEV: 2 m
DRILLER: PTG RIG: Handheld auger LOGGED: ZK CHECKED: JT
Sampling & Testing
Drilling method
Strength
Layer Depths
Graphic Log
(Consistency/ Dynamic
Material Description Relative Density) Results & Penetrometer Test
Type (blows per 100 mm)
Comments
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 5 10 15 20
0.00 TOPSOIL - SM Silty SAND, dark brown light grey, dense, fine to
medium grained, moist. With grass rootlets. 3
hand auger
Loose
0.10 SM Silty SAND, dark brown light grey, dense, fine to medium grained,
moist. 2
Loose to Dense 16
Bore terminated at 0.30m.
Handheld auger refusal on tree roots.
1.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 1.5
0.0 2.0
-0.5 2.5
17/4/25
_BH NON-CORE PTG-02023 20 WILLIAM ST NOOSAVILLE BH.GPJ
-1.0 3.0
Remarks:
Approximate Easting and Northing from Google Maps (+/- 10 m accuracy). Refer to Test Location Plan. Approximate surface elevation from contour data in QLD Globe (+/- 1 m).
Page 20
Appendix 3 Laboratory Test Results
Page 21
0 0.00 True
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Work Order : EB2510288 Page : 1 of 5
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : LUKE GOODLUCK Contact : Customer Services EB
Address : 35 LIMESTONE STREET Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
DARRA
Telephone : ---- Telephone : +61-7-3552-8685
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville Date Samples Received : 25-Mar-2025 11:11
Order number : PO-0784 Date Analysis Commenced : 04-Apr-2025
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 07-Apr-2025 13:17
Sampler : ----
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/111
No. of samples received : 15
No. of samples analysed : 15
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted, unless the sampling was conducted by ALS. This document shall
not be reproduced, except in full.
This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:
l General Comments
l Analytical Results
Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with
Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Layla Hafner Acid Sulphate Soils - Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
right solutions. right partner.
Page 22
Page : 2 of 5
Work Order : EB2510288
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by ALS have been developed from established internationally recognised procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures
are fully validated and are often at the client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing
purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contract for details.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.
~ = Indicates an estimated value.
l ASS: EA003 (NATA Field and F(ox) screening): pH F(ox) Reaction Rate: 1 - Slight; 2 - Moderate; 3 - Strong; 4 - Extreme
Page 23
Page : 3 of 5
Work Order : EB2510288
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 0-0.25 BH2 0.25-0.5 BH2 0.5-0.75 BH2 0.75-1 BH2 1.25-1.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025]
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2510288-001 EB2510288-002 EB2510288-003 EB2510288-004 EB2510288-005
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.9 7.3 6.8 6.8 6.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.0
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 3 3 3 2 2
Page 24
Page : 4 of 5
Work Order : EB2510288
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH2 2.25-2.5 BH2 2.5-2.75 BH2 2.75-3 BH3 0-0.25 BH3 0.25-0.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025]
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2510288-006 EB2510288-007 EB2510288-008 EB2510288-009 EB2510288-010
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.6 6.8 6.8 6.1 6.0
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.1 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.6
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 25
Page : 5 of 5
Work Order : EB2510288
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Sample ID BH3 0.5-0.75 BH3 1.75-2 BH3 2.25-2.5 BH3 2.5-2.75 BH3 2.75-3
(Matrix: SOIL)
Sampling date / time [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025] [25-Mar-2025]
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB2510288-011 EB2510288-012 EB2510288-013 EB2510288-014 EB2510288-015
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.1 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 26
15.0015
False
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Work Order : EB2510288 Page : 1 of 3
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : LUKE GOODLUCK Contact : Customer Services EB
Address : 35 LIMESTONE STREET Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
DARRA
Telephone : ---- Telephone : +61-7-3552-8685
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville Date Samples Received : 25-Mar-2025
Order number : PO-0784 Date Analysis Commenced : 04-Apr-2025
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 07-Apr-2025
Sampler : ----
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/111
No. of samples received : 15
No. of samples analysed : 15
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted, unless the sampling was conducted by ALS. This document shall
not be reproduced, except in full.
This Quality Control Report contains the following information:
l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report ; Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limits
l Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report ; Recovery and Acceptance Limits
l Matrix Spike (MS) Report ; Recovery and Acceptance Limits
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Layla Hafner Acid Sulphate Soils - Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
right solutions. right partner
Page 27
Page : 2 of 3
Work Order : EB2510288
Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd
Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by ALS have been developed from established internationally recognised procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures
are fully validated and are often at the client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract /digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from
standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
Key : Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot
CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
RPD = Relative Percentage Difference
# = Indicates failed QC
Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report
The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to a randomly selected intralaboratory split. Laboratory duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. The permitted ranges
for the Relative Percent Deviation (RPD) of Laboratory Duplicates are specified in ALS Method QWI -EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting: Result < 10 times LOR:
No Limit; Result between 10 and 20 times LOR: 0% - 50%; Result > 20 times LOR: 0% - 20%.
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report
Laboratory sample ID Sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Original Result Duplicate Result RPD (%) Acceptable RPD (%)
EA003 :pH (field/fox) (QC Lot: 6484308)
EB2510288-001 BH2 0-0.25 EA003: pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.9 7.0 0.0 0% - 20%
EA003: pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.9 3.1 4.3 0% - 20%
EB2510288-011 BH3 0.5-0.75 EA003: pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.1 6.1 0.0 0% - 20%
EA003: pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.9 2.8 0.0 0% - 20%
Page 28
Page : 3 of 3 Work Order : EB2510288 Client : PTG Consulting Pty Ltd Project : PTG/02023 William Street Noosaville Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) refers to a certified reference material, or a known interference free matrix spiked with target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of processed LCS. l No Method Blank (MB) or Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Results are required to be reported. Matrix Spike (MS) Report The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential matrix effects on analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference. l No Matrix Spike (MS) or Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Results are required to be reported.
Page 29
vy 5 = 2 Q < 9 5 a www.ptgconsulting.com.au
Used in these records
RESPONSE TO FURTHER ADVICE -Geotechnical Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 4.5 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.