Council archive · source document
Changes Application - MCU15/0023.02
Very large file (15.8 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
PopovBass
Architecture
Interiors
2 Glen St
Milsons Point
NSW 2061
Australia
t 02 9955 5604
e [email protected]
w popovbass.com,au
g'" June 2017
Noosa Council
Attn: Mark Lewis & Michael Cantori
POBox 141
TEWANTIN OLD 4565
Dear Mark & Michael
RE: Development Penm~ Amendment Application
Infiltration Pit Revision
44 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, OLD 4567
Let 58 RP 81810 - Property No. 141604
Development Penmlt MCU15/0023
Please find attached the Request to Change and Existing Approval for the property identifiec above. This change request
pertains to the recently submitted amendment documentation for the hydraulic strategy to address the failure of the previous
system as identified in the Breach Notification received from Council.
The attached documents include:
1 Completec Noosa Council 'Request to Change Existing Approval' Form
2 Owners Consent for the amendment letter
3 Document 88492 from Structures Engineering- Revised Geotechnical Review for the new location
4 Document 6532 C200 4 - Revisec Stomnwater Management Plan from BE Collective to outline the iocation
and function of the new design.
We hope thai this information adequately addressed the issues raised within your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us
should you require and further information
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brace
Associate
Directors
Aiex Popov nsw arb ~~94
Brian Bass nsw arb 6470
(BOX: .3Q5'\ R: .p.~
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 52 pages
Page 2
.- 111111 Request to Change Existing Approval and/or
Ill. NOOSA COUNCIL Extension to Relevant Period
Sustainable Planning Act 2009
ALL questions MUST be completed unless the form Indicatesotherwise.
This form must be submitted to Council accompaniedby the applicable fee.
Attach extra pages if there is insufficient space on the form.
If Councii was the Assessment Managerfor the existing approval,and the approvaiwas issued by the Court, then:-
(a) a request to change the development approval and/or conditions is made to the Court; and
(b) a request to extend the relevant period for the approval is made to Council.
All terms used on the form have the meaning given in the SustainablePlanningAct 2009 or the SustainablePlanning Regulation
2009.
Full name - individual or company ~O~J;1t.
\ \
Contact Name - for company f' VL €:ltf'r{.iC
Postal address '2.. c..teN ')T
Suburb VV\\\"SOI\IS POINt State ~t\.-."l Postcode 'lA'1
Business phone 01 "l "I ~ ~0 ~ NH phone () 4-"1\ (,41, ~ \ I Mobile 04-3\ &4-i> G II
Email address~ t.J..~(~L••~f.0V~ •.•..cu••••.
..br ••• ~\A Fax
2. Details of existing approval
Type of approval (please tick ALL applicable categories) Which entity issued approvai?
18 Development Permit Iiil Council
0 PreliminarY Approval 0 Other entity - please specify
0 Compliance Permit
0 Material Change of Use
0 Reconfiguring a Lot
0 Operational Works
0 Building Works
0 Plumbing or Drainage Works
0 Compliance Certificate
0 Environmentally Relevant Activity
Application number/council reference M( U \ S-/001'3> I Date issued S..6 ..'LO\ ~
Is the approval for a mobile and temporarY ERA? 1& No 0 Yes - complete be/ow
Insert the name of each local government area in which the mobile and temporary ERA is proposed to operate/operating
Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons author1sed to do so. Your personal information is dealt WIth JO~rdance 'Nith council's privacy policy.
W\WoI.noosa.gld.qov.au I [email protected] T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Old 4565 I ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of4
Page 3
•••
3. Nature of request (please tick ALL applicable categories)
~ To change the development 0 To change the development 0 To extend the relevant period
approval conditions before lapsing
Please attach documentation outlining the detail of and the reasons and justification for the requested change or
extension.
4. Location of the premises
Unit No. Street No t+ Street S5f>1VlEVv TeRRPlG~
Suburb QIN c;}-\ ,,,, ~ 11~f\{.11 State <3l-\..U Postcode 4-Sn
Lot no. Plan type & plan no.
5. Concurrence Agencies
Was there one or more concurrence agencies involved in the original approval? l8'"No
o Yes-provide details below
Note - Under s372 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the person making the request is required to give a copy of this request to all
concurrence agencies.
Concurrence Agency I Date copy given
6. Pre-request response notice
Has a pre-request response been given by a relevant entity (e.g. a concurrence agency) for this request?
o No 10 Yes
If yes, please attach a copy of the notice.
7. Owner's consent
Is the owner's consent required for this request? e:D::...:.N.:.:o=- j
o Yes- complete either Table A or Table B below
Note -If more than one owner of the land all owners' details are required
Table A - owner's consent provided on form Table B - owner's consent provided on form
Owner's name/s Owner's name/s
IflNe, the above-mentioned ownerls of the land, consent )I!t The owner's written consent is attached.
to the making of this request.
Signature/s
Date
Page 2 of 4
Page 4
NOTES: For question 7
Under section 371 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, if the person making the request is not the owner of the land to which the
approval reiates, the request must be accompaniedby the owner's consent.
However, owner's consent is not required if the approval:
relates to land the was acquisition land to which section 263(2)(d) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 applied when the
application for the approval was made; or
is for building work or operational work for the supply of community infrastructure on land designated for the community
infrastructure; or
the consent of the owner would not be required under section 263(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 if a development
application were made for the requested change.
Also, owner's consent is not required if the Assessment Manager is satisfied that
the number of owners of the land make it impractical to obtain owners' consent, and the requested change does not materially
affect the owners' land; or
having regard to the nature of the proposed change, the owner has unreasonably withheld consent and the requested change
does not materially affect the owner's land.
8. Does the request involve a State resource prescribed under the SustainablePlanning Regulation 2009,
Schedule 141
~No To Yes - complete below details
Nature of State owned resource:
Nature of Evidence required:
o Evidence of allocation of I entitlement to, the resource 10 Evidence the chief executive has agreed to the request
Attach a copy of the evidence required above
NOTES: For question 8
Section 370(3) and (4) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 requires that if an application for the development approval were made at
the time of making this request and evidence under section 264(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 would be required to support
the application, this request must be accompanied by the written agreement of the chief executive from whom evidence would be
required under section 264(1).
Section 264 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 provides that if a development involves a State resource, a regulation may require
the application to be supported by certain evidence prescribed under regulation. Schedule 14 of the Sustainable Planning Regulation
2009 prescribes the State resources for which evidence is required to be given, and the evidence required, to support the application.
9. Declaration of applicant
above information is correct in ali respects, at the time of lodgement of this
f the detaiis given in relation to this application be changed in the future, the
. a an such change being implemented.
Date e. b .11
Page 3 of4
Page 5
OFFICE USE ONLY
Application no. Amount paid Date paid Receipt no. Initial I Date stamp
1
Receiving Officer
Payment options
In person 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin: 8.30 am to 4.30 pm Monday to Friday (excludes public holidays).
By mail Cheque or money order to be made payable to Noosa Council.
o Cheque I 0 Money order o Mastercard o Visa
Card number Expiry date Amount $
Name on card Signature of cardholder
Phone Is a receipt required? DYes o No
Page 4 of 4
Page 6
PopovBass
Architecture
Interiors
2 Glen St
Milsons Point
NSW 2061
Australia
t 02 9955 5604
e [email protected]
w popovbass.com.au
9'" June 2017
Noosa Council
Attn: Mark Lewis & Michaei Cantori
POBox 141
TEWANTIN OLD 4565
Dear Mark & Michael
RE: Development Permit Amendment Application
Infiltration Pit Revision
44 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, OLD 4567
Lot 58 RP 81810 - Property No. 141604
Development Permit MCU 15/0023
We the undersigned as owners of the property give consent for this Development Permit Amendment Application to the
Development Permit MCU15/0023.
Owner 1 Owner 2
Signature Date Date
Name Name
Directors
Alex Popov nsw arb 4494
Brian Bass nsw arb 6470
Page 7
. J STRUCTURES
ENGINEERING DESIGN
Our ref: 58492
Attn: Paul Brace
POPOV BASS ARCHITECTS
44 Seaview Terrace,
Sunshine Beach, a, 4567.
Ref: Relocation of Infiltration Pit.
at 44 Seaview Terrace Sunshine Beach, Q, 4567,
Dear Paul.
I have reviewed the revised stormwater Management Plan completed by BE Collective [#6532, C200, May
2015, Rev 4J which shows the stormwater infiltration tank relocated from the rear of the residence Ibehind
the paoLI to the southern boundary and closer up the slope [between the existing concrete patio and
retaining walls!.
A further review of the existing report, "Geotechnical Investigation", #112-14608, Jan 2013 by Soil Surveys,
was conducted and I confirm that this new location of the infiltration pit will have no adverse effect on the
existing structural elements, Further, the concrete patio and pool are both piered using steel screw-in
piers as per our original structural documentation,
It has been concluded that this geological region has a moderate/high risk of slope instability, However,
with the adoption of the recommendations contained within the referenced report from Soil Surveys and
with the new location of the infiltration pit; this risk can be maintained as "low",
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any queries regarding this letter,
Yours faithfully,
Scott Brimetow
BEng (Civil/, CPEng
/EAust #530722/, (RPEQ #4942/. /NER/
Unit 7 -Ku/uin ViI/age South~. I Indiana PI. Kuluin. OLD, .&558. P: 5319 0950. E: recepfionlastructures.net.au. W: strucWres.net.au
Page 1 • Our ref: 58492
Page 8
SOIL SURVEYS
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
PROJECT NO. 112-14608
JANUARY, 2013
KARL YUNKER
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
44 SEAVIEW TERRACE
SUNSHINE BEACH
OFFICES IN BRISBANE, GOLD COAST, MACKAY AND NORTHERN RIVERS
Page 9
Difecto~
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limiled
Speeinhsls GoolcdlrllCS
in Applloo pJ Dixon BE(Hons} RPEa
AB.N 7005'1043831 NT P1lrklns BAppSc(AppGOClQ BEng(Hol's1) APEO
MVGaaia BEng(Civ.) MBA CPEn9 MIE Aust APEO
wwwsoilslltvoys..com.au
GEJ Gray
P Elkinglon BE(Civif} ~IE Aus! APEa
AssOCiates
SOIL SURVEYS J Irons BEngfHon'l FGS
CP Johnson BEng(Civd) APEO
Milton Office
REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15, BR VER o.
Author: Cameron Johnson
18th January, 2013
Karl Yunker
CI- Sparks Architects
POBox 198
PEREGIAN BEACH QLD 4573
ATTENTION: MR DAN SPARKS
Dear Sir,
RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
44 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH
Enclosed is one copy of our report for the above project dated January, 2013. Two copies of
the report have been issued.
The report has been prepared in general accordance with our proposal 112-14608 dated 11th
September, 2012.
Authority to proceed with the investigation was received on the 26th November, 2012.
Should you have any queries regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact Cameron
Johnson or Jim Dixon at our Milton Office.
Yours faithfully,
C. P. JOHNSON IRPEQ 70521
for and on behalf of
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
Brisbano Gold Coast Mackay Northern Rivers
Level 2, 19 Finchley Stroot Unit 8, 140 Miliaroo Drive 4 V"Klla Street Unit 16.39 CorporafJQn Circuil
Milton Old 4064 Hehmsvale Old 4212 Glellella Old 4740 T.•••.
eed I-'eads South
PO Bax317 PO Box 3429 PO Box 608S NSW2485
Paddlngton Old 4064 HelensvalQ TOtII'ICenlre Old 4212 Mad<.ay Old 4741 Autltralie
AtJslrlllla Auslraia Australia
Ph 6173369 6000 Ph 61755000465 Ph 617 4942 2907 Ph 6175523 4214
Fat 61733696660 Fax617S5000462 Fat 617 4942 8452 Fall' 617 5523 4577
bllSbaneOf\O;rsur~r.ys cornau [email protected] mac:kay@soiisurveys,comau norlhernrivelsO$OilsUMlYS com au
Page 10
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGA TlON 2
2.1 Site Description 2
2.2 Field Investigation 5
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL 6
3.1 Regional Geologv 6
3.2 Subsurface Profile 6
3.3 Groundwater 7
4.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 8
4.1 Traffickabilitv and Site Preparation 8
4.2 Earthworks 8
4.3 Excavation Stabilitv 9
4.4 Building Foundations 10
4.4.1 Site Classification 10
4.4.2 Shallow Foundations 11
4.4.3 Deep Foundations 11
4.5 Retaining Walls 15
4.6 Slope Stabilitv 17
4.7 Scour Protection 20
5.0 LIMIT A TlONS 21
APPENDICES
A Notes Relating to this Report
B Borehole Records
C Site Plan
o Good Hillside Construction Practice
Page 11
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation carried out by Soil
Surveys Engineering Pty. limited at the site of a proposed residence at 44 Seaview
Terrace, Sunshine Beach.
It is understood that a two storey 400m2 residence is proposed and is to be constructed
with off form conr.rete lower floor and a timber framed upper floor. A swimming pool and
deck is proposed at the rear of the site encroaching into the existing sand dune.
The objective of this study was to identify materials and material properties and
groundwater conditions to enable geotechnical assessment of the following:-
• Earthworks recommendations
• Foundation recommendations
Slope stability assessment
• Retaining wall design parameters
Construction and site management recommendations (where applicable)
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 12
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 2
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
2.1 Site Description
The site of the proposed residence is located on the eastern side of Seaview Terrace at
No. 44. The lot backs into the Sunshine Beach Foreshore Reserve. Refer Figure 1.
tr
r-,-...
j
Site
!~
I
I
I
,);
I
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION
At the time of the investigation, the previous dwelling on this lot had recently been
removed. The surface conditions across the majority of the site consisted of disturbed
very loose sand.
A number of medium sized trees and general low height vegetation were located at the
rear of the site.
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 13
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 3
The majority of the site is relatively level before sloping down within the Sunshine Beach
Foreshore Reserve at the back of the site. Generally the sand slopes at the back of the
properties along Seaview Terrace are moderately to steeply sloping with slope angles
approximately between 26° and 35°.
Photographs 1 to 3 indicate site conditions at the time of the investigation.
,
.•,.r:
PHOTOGRAPH 1 - EXISTING SITE FROM SEAVIEW TERRACE
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 14
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 4
PHOTOGRAPH 2 - REAR BOUNDARY OF THE SITE
PHOTOGRAPH 3 - BACK SLOPE BEHIND THE SITE
;;.. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 15
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013.01-15, BR VER O. Page 5
2.2 Field Investigation
Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling and sampling:-
• One borehole (BH1) to a depth of 29.0m using a truck mounted Scout drilling rig. In
this borehole, insitu testing in the form of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were
carried out at regular intervals.
• One borehole (BH2) to a depth of 11.50m using a 4WD mounted Jacro 200 drilling
rig. SPT's were carried out at regular intervals.
• Four dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests. The DCP tests were extended to
depths ranging approximately between 4.00m and 5.40m below existing ground
surface levels.
The field work was carried out on the 12th December, 2012 and 11th January, 2013.
The soil classification descriptions, field and laboratory testing were carried out in general
accordance with the following Australian Standards.
AS.1726 -1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations
• AS.1289 Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes
A description of the investigation method, borehole records and a site plan showing the
location of the boreholes are included in the Appendices.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 16
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 6
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
3.1 Regional Geo/ogv
The 1:100,000 Gympie Special geology sheet indicates this site is located on a
Pleistocene sand dune. The morphology of this area is related to a relatively old
(>10,000 years) deposition of wind blown sand (as a dune system) on the deeper
deposits of residual soils derived from weathering of the local bed rock (generally a
sandstone in this area).
The lower beach level dunes are deposited and eroded through wind and wave action
during periods of unstable conditions, and are considered to be a dynamic system,
continually undergoing changes due to climatic and wave actions.
3.2 Subsurface Profile
The subsurface profile consists of fine to medium grained sand inferred (as noted above)
to be deposited as a beach ridge dune.
The consistency of the sand was seen to be loose to medium dense sands for the upper
0.80m increasing to 4.00m at the east of the site overlying medium dense sand. Dense
sand was encountered at depths of 2.50m increasing to 9.50m.
At Borehole 1, indurated (very dense) sand was encountered at a depth of 10.90m to
14.30m. Dense and medium dense sands were then encountered to 20.40m, where very
dense sand was intersected to the base of the borehole.
A summary of the subsurface profile is presented in Table 1. Detailed borehole records
and DCP results are attached in Appendix B.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 17
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 7
TABLE 1 SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Test Sand Fill (m) Natural Sand (m) Tennination
Location Depth (m)
Loose Medium Dense Very Dense
Dense
BHl 0.00-1.10 NE 1.10-7.50 7.50-10.90 10.90-14.30 29.00
16.90-20.40 14.30-16.90 20.40-TO
BH2 0.00-2.20 2.20-4.00 4.00-9.50 9.50-TO NE 11.50
DCP1 NE 0.00-1.103} 1.10-3.70 3.70-TO NE 5.40
DCP2 NE 0.00-1.30 3} 1.30-3.30 3.30-TO NE 5.10
DCP3 NE O.OO-l.UU3} 1.00-2.60 2.60-TO NE ~AO
DCP4 NE 0.00-0.603} 0.60-2.50 2.50-TO NE 4.00
Notes:~
1) NE - Not Encountered; TO - Termination Depth.
2) All deplhs in metres below the existing ground surface at time of the investigation.
3) Possible Fill.
3.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes at the time of the investigation.
Seepage through the upper sandy soils could be expected following periods of prolonged
rainfall, although this would be a transient condition.
;;.. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 18
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 8
4.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
4.1 Traffickabilitv and Site Preparation
At the time of the Investigation, problems with traffickability problems were encountered in
vehicle accessible areas, due to the recent demolition work disturbing the surface sand
layers.
The use of a sub-base gravel overlay (MRS 11.05, Subtype 2.4, B or C Grading/150mm
nominal layer thickness) should be considered in vehicle access areas to improve general
tralfickability during construction. Use of tracked equipment may be necessary for
traffickability on the sand subgrade.
The relevant contractors should therefore fully inform themselves of the ground conditions
on site prior to commencement of earthworks.
Working Platforms For Tracked Plant and Heavy Construction Vehicles
The scope of Soil Surveys Engineering's study DOES NOT include the design of a
working platform for heavy construction vehicles or heavy tracked plant.
Detailed design of a working platform should be carried out considering the operation of
actual machinery proposed to be used. This is particularly important when considering
the use of heavy piling rigs and heavy cranes - the piling/crane contractor should be
consulted regarding their requirements.
4.2 Earthworks
It is envisaged that any earthworks will consist of only minor levelling works. Filling within
the back half of the site is not recommended due to the potential for destabilising the
existing slope.
All earthwork procedures should be carried out in a responsible manner in accordance
with AS.3798-2011 "Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments".
Earthwork procedures should include the following:-
Clearing, stripping and grubbing should be carried out In areas subject to earthworks
and construction. Also all soils containing organic matter should be stripped from the
construction area. This material is not considered suitable for use as structural fill.
~ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 19
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 9
Depressions formed by the removal of vegetation, underground elements etc. should
have all disturbed weakened soil cleaned out and be backfilled with compacted
select material.
The insitu soils, where free of organic and deleterious material, may be used for
structural fill provided the moisture content of the soils on placement approximates
the optimum moisture content required for compaction. This may require
conditioning to bring the soils to optimum.
Imported select fill material, if required, should be a good quality select fill material
with a soaked CBR >10% and a maximum aggregate size of 75mm.
Fill placed in the area of the building should be compacted in layers (approximately
200mm loose thickness) to a density not less than 95% of maximum dry density in
accordance with AS 1289 5.1.1 (Standard Compaction).
Field density testing should be carried out to check the standard of compaction
achieved and the placement moisture content. The frequency and extent of testing
should be as per guidelines in AS.3798-2011, Section 8.0.
The soils encountered on site (to borehole depth) should be within the excavation
limits of a small dozer (eg. Cat D4 or similar) in bulk earthworks and a medium sized
backhoe (eg. Case 580 or similar) in trench excavations.
4.3 Excavation Stability
The following general recommendations are made for short term stability of batters for
bulk excavation of the site.
• Batter angle not greater than 1V:2H above the horizontal.
• Top of batter to be a minimum of 2.0m inside any boundary line, in addition to 3.0
metres distance from any building or structure.
• If batters are to be left untreated for any length of time, a batter angle of 1V:3H is
recommended and berm width are to be strictly maintained.
:#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 20
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 10
4.4 Building Foundations
Due to the potential long term creep movement associated with sloping sand sites, it is
recommended that a stiffened raft type footing and slab system be adopted, supported on
deep and high level footings as appropriate. Alternatively, the entire structure should be
founded on deep footings extending to found in the medium dense to dense sands.
Outdoor deck and pool structures on the eastern side of the house should be supported
on deep foundations.
It is recommended that all footings extend to a depth below a 25 degree line from the toe
of the slope, and into medium dense sands (as a minimum). Therefore structures located
at the top of the crest of the slope will require deep foundations (eg. to a minimum depth
of 4.0m at BH2, with this depth likely to increase to the east of BH2). Structures located
further away from the crest of the slope and behind the 25 degree line maybe founded on
high level footings.
The location of the 25 degree line on the ground surface should be established by survey
prior to detailed design and construction.
SLOPE CREST
_-----~ 250EGREELINE
ALL FOOTINGS BELOW
THIS LINE
PILEO FOUNOATIONS AT
EXISTING GROUND LEAST 1,OM BELOW THIS
SURFACE LINE
BEACH
FIGURE 2
4.4.1 Site Classification
The investigation encountered only sandy materials, which are non-reactive, and
therefore ground surface movement due to variation in the soil moisture would not be
expected to occur. On this basis, the site may be designated Class 'A' in accordance
with AS.2870.1-2011 'Residential Slabs and Footings'.
#- SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 21
ProjectNo. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 11
It is recommended that the designers satisfy themselves that the use of AS.2870 is
applicable for the proposed design.
From a different classification viewpoint, this site has been classified by Sunshine Coast
Council to be within a sand dune problem area, based on its location on the sloping side
of a sand dune. Additional discussion on the stability of this site is included in Section
4.6.
4.4.2 Shallow Foundations
It is recommended that footings should extend to a minimum depth of 1.0m below a 25
degree line from the toe of the slope, and into medium dense sands (as a minimum).
The base of all footings should be individually recompacted using a vibrating plate
compactor prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete as soils may be loosened
during the excavation process by machinery action. If the sand is dry, it should be
saturated and left for a short period prior to vibration. Should any loose areas be
encountered in the footing excavations the density of these areas must be improved.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests should be carried out to confirm the adequacy
of the founding soils. Note that it may be necessary to use formwork to prevent trench
side collapse in the sand profile.
Table 2 outlines allowable bearing capacities for high level footings on the site
TABLE 2 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES FOR HIGH LEVEL FOOTINGS
Material Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Strip Footing Pad Footing
Sand - Loose NR NR
- Medium Dense 100 150
- Dense to Very Dense 150 225
4.4.3 Deep Foundations
It is considered that the most appropriate piling system would be that which involves the
least amount of ground vibration during construction. Therefore. continuous flight auger
(CFA) grout (or concrete) piles or screw-in piles are considered to be suitable.
Conventional bored piles are considered unsuitable for construction of piles in loose
sand. as the excavations would collapse.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 22
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 12
It is recommended that the deep foundation system on this project be designed in
accordance with AS 2159-2009 'Piling. Design and Installation'. This code uses the limit
state design method.
Compressional Capacity
The design of a single pile or a pile group must be such that both the geotechnical design
strength R•., and the structural design strength R., are greater than or equal to the design
action effect Ed, ie.
The design geotechnical strength (R..,) can be calculated as the ultimate geotechnical
design strength (R.",) multiplied by the geotechnical strength reduction factor O,.
However, specialist piling contractors should make their own assessment of pile type and
founding levels/length considering pile load requirements and subsurface conditions.
It is recommended that piled foundations should extend to a depth of at least 1.0m below
a 25 degree line from the toe of the slope, and into medium dense sands (as a minimum).
Any shaft friction values should be calculated below the 25 degree line only.
The design of piles in cohesionless soils may be carried out using the following method:
Rj.g = Rd.ug X tPg tPg . Refer Table 4.3.2 (c) AS2159
(For design tP = 0.45 is considered appropriate)
ultimate pile resistance
where:
Qb=Ab 'Pd.(Nq-l) ultimate base resistance
Qs = As . Pd' Ks . (tan6) ultimate skin friction
As = area of pile shaft
Ab = area of pile base
Pd = effective overburden pressure at depth d (Pd = Y X d)
~ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 23
ProjectNo.112-14608
January,2013 REF: 1.14608,2013-01.15,BR VER O. Page13
where y Loose = 17kN/m'
Medium Dense = 18kN/m'
Dense = 19kN/m'
Pd = average effective overburden pressure
K, = lateral earth pressure coefficient
<5 = pile-soil angle of friction
Nq = bearing capacity factor
(Nq = 60 for medium dense sands, Nq = 100 for dense sands)
Broms (1966) relates the lateral earth coefficient (K,) and pile-soil friction angle (0) to the
internai angie of friction of the soil (,p)and pile material as follows:
TABLE 3 LATERAL EARTH COEFFICIENTS
K.
Pile Material <5
Loose Medium Dense Dense
Steel 20' 0.50 0.75 1.00
Concrete 0.75' ,p 1.00 1.50 2.00
It should be noted that the calculated ultimate resistance of a given pile should also take
into account the installation effects of that particular type, I.e. whether displacement or
non-displacement pile performance can be expected.
Uplift and lateral capacities of piles are not considered, as these are both wholly
dependent on the specific pile type selected.
Steel screw piles involve a hollow steel stem with a flight attached to the toe of the pile
which are 'screwed' in the ground, reducing spoil and construction difficulties associated
with loose sands. The compression capacity is calculated based dominantly on the end
bearing capacity due to negligibie shaft friction. Shaft capacity of screw-in piles are
generally minimal and should not be taken into consideration for calculating design values
due to the nature of pile installation. Steel screw piles should also be suitably protected
from corrosion, egogalvanised, additional sacrificial wall thickness, concrete filled.
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 24
ProjectNo.112-14608
January,2013 REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15,BR VER O. Page14
Preformed driven or pushed piles may also be suitable, however the environmental
constraints that may be present at this site might preclude driven piles due to the noise
and vibration associated with this method. Pushed-in piles avoid these problems, but a
push-in rig of sufficient reaction capacity may not be able to successfully negotiate the
sloping site. Specialist contractors should be approached if this pile type is considered.
Skin Friction
Average values for ultimate unit skin friction for straight sided piles are shown in Table 4.
Vesic (1966) showed that at a penetration depth equivalent to 10 - 15 pile diameters, a
peak value of unit skin friction is achieved. Research has not yet established whether the
peak value is a constant in all conditions or whether it is related to grain size or angularity.
At present a maximum value of 11OkPa is given in the literature.
In the case of bored piles in cohesionless soils, some sand may be loosened due to the
boring operation. However, pressurised grout is expected to bond any disturbed material
and hence dense sand parameters can be used.
TABLE 4 AVERAGE ULTIMATE SKIN FRICTION VALUES
Sands
Relative Density Average Ultimate Unit Skin Friction for Straight
Sided Piles (kPa)
Less than 0.35 (loose) 10
0.35 - 0.65 (medium dense) 10 - 25
0.65 - 0.85 (dense) 25 - 70
More than 0.85 (very dense) 70 - 110
Note: (1) Highvaluesmaybepossiblesubjectto roughnessof the rocksocket.
End Bearing Capacity
For piles founded in sand, research has shown that at a certain depth a maximum value
of base resistance is reached which is not exceeded no matter how much deeper the pile
is installed. Published pile test results indicate that the maximum value is 11,000 kPa for
grout injected piles.
Piles founded within the critical thickness of about 10B (B - pile thickness) of the top of
the lower level medium dense sands, as encountered in Borehole 1 at a depth of 16.90m,
will result in a reduction of the ultimate base resistance.
:#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 25
Project No. 112.14608
January, 2013 REF: 1.14608, 2013.01.15, BR VER O. Page 15
Pile Capacities
It is normal to limit the capacities of 500mm diameter grout injected piles to 1200kN and
600mm diameter piles to 1500kN. If higher values are required, it is recommended that
pile ioad tests be carried out.
Pile Groups
Where high column loads are involved, pile groups may need to be used to achieve the
required load bearing capacities.
Where pile groups are required, a pile spacing of not less than 2.5 times the pile diameter
is recommended. Larger pile spacings can be used if the efficiency of the pile group
needs to be increased. Table 5 indicates the relationships between pile spacing and
group efficiency (after Tomlinson 1969).
TABLE 5 PILE GROUP EFFICIENCY
Pile Spacing Group Efficiency Ratio
2 x pile diameter 0.7
4 x pile diameter 0.8
6 x pile diameter 0.9
8 x pile diameter, or more 1.0
4.5 Retaining Walls
Retention systems shouid be designed in accordance with AS 4678.2002 'Earth
Retaining Structures'
The lateral earth pressure from the active pressure wedge, where:.
P = 0.5 K,YH'
P = active force resultant acting at a height of H/3
from the base (kN/m run of wall)
i' = density of sand, kN/m3
H, = height of wall (m)
K. = active pressure coefficient
~ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 26
ProjectNo.112.14608
January,2013 REF: 1-14608,2013.01-15,BR VER O. Page16
Until the base of the wall is prevented from inward movement by the strutting action. the
resistance of movement is provided by the friction of the soil beneath the base slab, and
by the passive resistance of the soil against the vertical face of the toe of the wall. The
intensity of passive resistance can be calculated from:-
P = 0.5 K, Y Hz'
Kp = passive pressure coefficient
H, = front face of wall contributing to passive resistance (m)
Pool side walls should be designed using a pressure coefficient for the at rest condition,
Ko.
The lateral pressure distributions shown in Figure 3 includes hydrostatic pressure and
show typical surcharge loadings pressure distribution. Due to possible long term
problems with blocking of gravel filters and drains and short term storm conditions that
could flood the fill behind retaining walls, it is recommended that all retaining walls be
designed for some water pressure distribution. A suggested water pressure distribution
for retaining walls on this site would be one third height water pressure.
For the calculation of sliding resistance, base friction for walls without a key may be taken
as tan (2/3 0). If the wall has a shallow base key the shearing resistance may be based
on tan 0. Refer to Table 6 for the friction angle of sand.
TABLE 6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Material Density Earth Pressure Coefficient Long Term
(kNlm') Ka Ko Kp Drained '"
(degrees)
Compacted Fill ' 19 0.41 0.58 2.46 25
Fill' 17 0.27 0.43 3.69 35
Loose Sand 17 0.33 0.50 3.00 30
Medium Dense Sand 18 0.29 0.46 3.39 33
Dense Sand 19 0.27 0.43 3.69 35
Notes:-
1) If fill is compacted against a retaining wall the actual earth pressure could exceed the vertical
pressure(ie.Ka > 1.0).
2) Infers granular free draining material placed behind the retaining wall as a drainage layer.
;If SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 27
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 17
TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION
Lateral Earth Pressure Lateral Pressure Due to Surcharge
H + +
:g. K(H-hwl'
hw
K H + hWyw(1-K)
K = appropriate earth pressure coefficent UDL Point Load or
H = Vertical height of the wall Strip Footing
hw = Height of design water table
y = Soil bulk density (kNlm3)
yw = Water bulk density (kN/m3)
FIGURE 3
4.6 Slope Stabilitv
The site is located within an area of Sunshine Beach known as "Sand Dune Problem
Areas". As such, an assessment of the overall stability of the site and surrounds has been
carried out by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer at the same time as the
geotechnical investigation.
Published contour information (Sunshine Coast Regional Council) has been used to
determine slope angles and slope heights. Refer Figure 4 below.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 28
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 18
I
1
>
/
~.
, =-.-.-.---------I
/
~:-':::':::::-=-.::.-===':'=
==--_. __._-
Sunshil1e
Coast
COUflCl
FIGURE 4
Figure 4 above shows contour elevation of 17.0m AHD just outside of the properly
boundary sloping down to 4.0m AHD at the base of the slope.
The crest of the slope at the rear of the property has been terraced with timber sleeper
retaining walls. The existing retaining wall is showing signs of distress with the timber
sleeper panel bowing outwards. This is indicative of ongoing soil creep which is typical of
steeply sloping sand sites.
Generally the sand slope along Seaview Terrace is moderate to steeply sloping with the
slope angle observed at the time of the investigation at between 26 and 35 degrees. The
above measurements are broadly consistent with available contour information, although
it is noted that there is some minor variation about this overall slope angle when
measured at a smaller scale.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 29
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 19
The existing slopes on the site are well vegetated with grasses and trees and are
considered to be at equilibrium, although observed to be somewhat uneven and irregular,
likely to be a result from some long term soil creep. Based on the observed and measure
slope angle and expected medium dense to dense sand profile downslope, a factor of
safety in the order of 1.0 - 1.3 is likely, which is low (at limiting equilibrium) to marginally
acceptable.
The cunstruction of any structures at tho crest of the slope will apply an additional load
that could be potentially destabilising and Is also likely to be subject to the effects of long
term soil creep. However, the aim of the proposed deep foundations discussed above, is
to carry the load down a depth below a 25 degree line from the toe of the slope into
medium dense sands, and not apply it to the loose surface sand. Survey of the slope
extending below the site boundaries may be required to confirm the position of this
influence line, and Figure 2 (Section 4.4) illustrates how such a 25 degree influence line
should be drawn.
Any development of this site will have to be carried out with care to ensure this stability
status is maintained. This will apply to both the temporary works during construction, as
well as the permanent building works, and the long term site maintenance.
It is recommended that heavy constnuction materials such as concrete blocks or
construction machinery should not be required to traverse or be placed on the slope, as
these may apply an unacceptably large surcharge load onto the slope.
Only non-vibrating construction techniques and activities should be selected, to ensure
that slumping of the sloping loose sand is prevented from occurring.
In addition to the recommendations on the design of foundations, we recommend that the
proposed construction works should follow good hillside constnuction practice, to ensure
the long-term stability of the developed site. Attached to this report are some guideline
notes of such practice for your reference (Australian Geomechanics Society - Landslide
Risk Management Subcommittee, Appendix J, AG Vol.35 NO.1 March 2000).
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 30
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BRVER O. Page 20
4.7 Scour Protection
It is important to recognise that loose unprotected sand will scour rapidly under action
from wind and water. Damaged services, in particular, can cause rapid and significant
scour and erosion in sands.
In addition to the above guideline notes, we recommend that the site surface surrounding
the building area be protected against erosion and scour by the installation of stormwater
and subsoil drainage where appropriate, and by the re-establishment of trees and shrubs
and ground cover vegetation. The re-establishment of a good coverage of vegetation is
considered to be a key strategy for preventing erosion by reinforcing the soil with plant
roots.
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 31
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608,2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 21
5.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the use of Karl Yunker and Sparks Architects, for
design purposes in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice
included in this report. This report has not been prepared for use by parties other than
Karl Yunker and Sparks Architects. It may not contain sufficient information for
purposes of other parties or for other uses.
Soil Surveys Engineering consider that a documentation review service (during the
design phase and prior to construction) to verify that the intent of geotechnical
recommendations is properly reflected in the design, along with construction inspections,
forms a very important component of the geotechnical engineering design
service/process.
This statement is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Soil
Surveys Engineering in accordance with our commission, but rather to ensure that all
parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in
doing so and the risks they accept should they decline to have Soil Surveys Engineering
carry out a geotechnical documentation review and geotechnical construction inspections.
The geotechnical review ensures geotechnical risks to our Client and their project are
minimised at the design and tender stage of the project. Further, with Soil Surveys
Engineering being commissioned to carry out geotechnical construction inspections, an
opportunity at the time of construction to confirm any assumptions made in the
preparation of the report and allow the effect of any normally occurring variation in ground
conditions to be assessed with respect to construction becomes available.
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 32
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013 REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O. Page 22
It is highly recommended that the Client avail themselves of these review and inspection
services; our standard rates will apply.
C. P. JOHNSON IRPEQ 70521 P. J. DIXON IRPEQ 41501
for-and on behalf of ----
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
~ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 33
Project No. 112.14608
January, 2013
REF: 1.14608, 2013.01.15, BR VER O.
I APPENDICES
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 34
Project No. 112.14608
January, 2013
REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O.
APPENDIX A
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 35
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
INTRODUCTION descriptive terms regarding weathering (AS1726-1993
These notes are provided by Soil Surveys Engineering Table A9), strength (refer Table 1 below), defects
Pty Limited (the Company) to complement the (AS1726-1993 Table Al0), etc. Where strength testing
geotechnical report in regard to classification methods (ie Point Loads) is carried out. AS1726-1993 Table A8
and field procedures. Not all notes are necessarily is used. Where relevant, further information regarding
relevant to all reports. rock classification is attached.
The ground is a product of continuing natural and
Table 1 Estimatedstren9th descriptionsgiven to rock
man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety
based on engineering examination
of characteristics and properties which vary from place
to place and can change with time. Geotechnical Stren9thTerm Approximate Qu (MPa)
engineering involves gathering and assimilating limited ExtremelyWeak < 1.0
information about these characteristics and properties
Very Weak 1.0-5.0
in order to understand or predict the behaviour of the
Weak 5.0 - 25
ground on a particular site under certain conditions.
This report may contain such information obtained by Medium Strong 25 - 50
inspection, excavation, probing, sampling, testing or Strong 50 - 100
other means of investigation. If so, they are directly Very Strong 100 - 250
relevant only to the ground at the place where and at
Extremely Strong > 250
the time when the investigation was carried out.
Ref ISRM "Suggested Methods for the Quantitative
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICA TlON METHODS
Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses"
Soils - The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
SAMPLING
Australian Standard 1726-1993 (Geotechnical Site
Sampling is carried out during drilling or from other
Investigations), where appropriate. In general,
excavations to allow en9ineering examination (and
descriptions cover the following properties - sailor rock
laboratory testing where required) of the sailor rock.
ype, colour, structure, strength or density, and
nclusions. Identification and classification of soil and Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide
ock involves judgement and the Company infers information on plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture
accuracy only to the extent that is common in current content, minor constituents and, depending upon
geotechnical practice. sample disturbance, (information on strength and
structure).
Soil types are described accordin9 to the dominant
particle size and behaviour as set out in AS Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin
1726-1993. walled sample tube, usually 50mm diameter (U50), into
the soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soil
Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength
contained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such
consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer,
samples yield information on structure and strength,
shear vane, laboratory testing or engineering
and are necessary for laboratory determination of
examination. The strength terms are defined in
shear strength, volume change potential and
AS1726-1993 Table A4.
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of
effective only in cohesive soils.
relative density usually based on insitu testing or
Details of the type and method of sampling used are
engineering examination (see AS1726-1993 Table AS).
given on the attached logs.
B9.cJs.s.
- Rock types are classified by their geological
names (AS1726-1993 Table A6), together with
NOTES RELA TlNG TO THIS REPORT. JUNE 2009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
J
Page 36
.2.
'T:;:E:;;S::;T:-;L-;O:;;C""A.,T;:;I;rO;ON;CS;--------------..t"'h7e~d:;:r;;;ill;:in;:g-. 'T"'h7e-d:;:eC::p
-=re"'f'"'u"'-sa"""'l-o--;f-ct7h-e-d""iff""e-r-en-c
"'th'---"07f
Test locations (e.g. boreholes, CPT's, test pits etc.) types can provide information as to the strength of the
were based on available access at the time of testing material encountered. Generally two different bit types
(access may need to be provided "by others"). Test are used. The 'V' bit is a V shaped steel bit and the
locations may have been shifted if access was not 'TC' bit is a tungsten carbide tipped screw type bit.
suitable. Wash Boring. The borehole is usually advanced by a
Unless noted otherwise, accuracy of test locations are rotary bit with water or fluid pumped down the hollow
to the accuracy of hand held GPS equipment. drill rods and returned up in the space between the
INVESTIGA TlON METHODS rods and the soil or casing, carrying the drill cullings.
The following is a brief summary of investigation Only major changes in stratification can be determined
methods currently adopted by the Company and some from the cuttings, together with some information from
comments on their use and application. "feel" and rate of penetration. More accurate
Test Pits • These are normally excavated with a information on soil strata is gained by regular testing
backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close and sampling using the Standard Penetration Test
examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend (SPT) and undisturbed thin walled tube samples (U50).
into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about Mud Stabilized Drilling • Either Wash Boring or
3m for a backhoe and up to 6m for an excavator. Continuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as a
Limitations of test pits are the problems associated circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The term
with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatement and the "mud" encompasses a range of products ranging from
consequent effects on close-by structures. Care must bentonite to polymers such as Revert or Biogel. The
be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pit mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable
locations to either properly recompact the backfill identification is only possible from regular intact
during construction or to design and construct the sampling (eg. from SPT and U50 samples) or from
structure so as not to be adversely affected by poorly rock coring, etc.
compacted backfill at the test pit location. Continuous Core Drilling - A continuous core sample
Hand Auger Drilling. A borehole of 50 to 100mm is obtained using a diamond or tungsten carbide
diameter is advanced by manually operated tipped core barrel. Provided full core recovery is
equipment. Refusal of the augers can occur on a achieved (which is not always possible in very weak
variety of materials such as hard ciay, gravel or rock rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
fragments and does not necessarily indicate rock level. very reliable method of investigation. In rocks, NMLC
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers. The borehole is coring (nominal 52 mm diameter) is usually used with
advanced using 75 to 300 mm diameter continuous water flush. The length of core recovered is compared
spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to to the length drilled and any length not recovered is
allow sampling or insitu testing. This is a relatively shown as CORE LOSS. The location of losses is
economical means of drilling in clays and in sands determined on site by the supervisor. If the location of
above the water table. Samples are returned to the the loss is uncertain, it is placed at the top end of the
surface by the flights or may be collected after run, when the core is placed in a storage tray and
withdrawal of the augers. Information from the drilling recorded on the log.
(as distinct from specific sampling) is of relatively lower Standard Penetration Tests. Standard Penetration
reliability due to remoulding, inclusion of cUllings from Tests (SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but
above or softening of samples by groundwater, or can also be used in cohesive soils, as a means of
uncertainties as to the onginal depth of the samples. indicating density or strength. The test procedure is
Augering below the groundwater table has a lower described in Australian Standard 1289, "Methods of
reliability than augering above the water table. Various Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes" - Test 6.3.1.
drill bits are allached to the base of the augers during
NOTES RELA rING TO THIS REPORT. JUNE 2009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 37
- 3-
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm resistance, f" in kPa). These forces are measured by
diameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under electrical transducers (strain gauges) within the cone
the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fail of 760 device. The ratio between friction resistance and cone
mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three resistance is also calculated as a percentage, ie.-
successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is . f' R (' (FR) _ Friction Resistancel, (kPa) x 100
F (Ie IOn a 10 - cone resislan ce, qc (kPa)
taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm, the The friction ratio, FR, is generally low in sands (less
upper 150 mm being neglected due to possible than 1% or 2%) and generally higher in clays (say 3%
disturbance from the drilling method. In dense sands, or more). The interpretation of sandy clays, clayey
very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm sands and material with a high silt content is more
penetration may not be practicable and the test is difficult, but intermediate values (between 1% and 3%)
discontinued at a reduced penetration. would be expected. Highly organic clays and peats
In the case where full penetration is obtained with generally have a friction ratio in excess of 5%.
successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say 4, 6 Static cone data is recorded in the field on disc for later
and 7 blows, the record shows, presentation using computer aided drafting.
4,6,7 The equipment can be operated from any conventional
In a case where the test is discontinued short of full drill rig. A total applied load in the range of 4 to 10
penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm tonnes is required for practical purposes, although
and 30 blows for the next 40 mm, the record shows: lighter loads may be used. The cone penetrometers
15,30/40mm are available with various capacities of cone resistance
The results of the test can be related empirically to the ranging up to 100 MPa for general purpose
engineering properties of the soil. investigations, while a range of 0 to 10 MPa can be
Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mm used where more sensitive investigations of soft clay
diameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In are required.
such circumstances, it is noted on the borehole logs. The cone resistance value provides a continuous
A modification to the SPT test is where the same measure of soil strength or density, and together with
driving system is used with a solid 60° tipped steel the friction ratio, provide very useful indications of the
cone of the same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. presence of narrow bands of geotechnically significant
The solid cone can be continuously driven for some layers such as thin, soft clay layers or lenses of sand
distance in soft clays or loose sands, or may be used which might otherwise be missed using conventional
where damage would otherwise occur to the SPT. The drilling methods.
results of this Solid SPT are shown as "N," on the The lithology of the encountered soils is interpreted
borehole logs, together with the number of blows per from static cone data and is generally presented on the
150 mm penetration. static cone log sheets.
Cone Penetration Tests - Test Method - Cone It is important to note that the lithology is interpreted
Penetration Tests (CPT) are carried out in accordance information and is based on research by Schmertmann
with AS 1289 Test 6.5.1-1977, using an electrical (1970), Sanglerat (1972), Robinson and Campinalli
friction-cone penetrometer. (1986), modified to suit local conditions as indicated by
The test essentially comprises the measurement of borehole information and laboratory testing.
resistance to penetration of a cone of 35.7 mm As soils generally change gradually it is sometimes
diameter pushed into the soil at a rate of 10-20 mm per difficult to accurately describe depths of strata
second by hydraulic force. The resistance to changes, although greater accuracy is obtained with
penetration is recorded in terms of pressure on the end the static cone compared with conventional drilling. In
area of the cone (cone resistance, q" in MPa) and addition, friction ratios decrease in accuracy with low
friction on the side of the 135 mm long sleeve cone resistance values, and in desiccated soils. As a
immediately above the top of the cone (friction result, some overlap and minor discrepancies may
NOTES RELATING TO THJS REPORT. JUNE 2009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 38
-4 -
exist between static cone and nearby borehole GROUNDWATER
information. Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes,
Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers - Portable there are several potential problems.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried •Although groundwater may be present in lower
out by driving a rod into the ground with a failing weight permeability soils, it may enter the hole slowly or
hammer and measuring the blows for successive perhaps not at ail during the time the hole is open.
100mm increments of penetration. •A localized perched water table may lead to an
The DCP comprises a Cone of 20 mm diameter with erroneous indication of the true water table.
30 degree taper attached to steel rods of smailer • Water table levels wiil vary from time to time with
section. seasons or recent weather changes and may not be
The cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer falling 510 the same at the time of construction .
mm (AS. 1289 Test 6.3.2). The test was developed • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask
initiaily for pavement sub9rade investigations, and any groundwater inflow. Water has to be bailed out of
empirical correlations of the test results with California the bore and mud must be washed out of the hole or
Bearing Ratio have been published by various Road "reverted" if water observations are to be made.
Authorities. The Company has developed their own More reliable measurements can be made by use of
correlations with Standard Penetration tests and standpipes which are read after stabilizing at periods
Density Index tests in sands. ranging from several days to perhaps weeks for low
LOGS permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular
The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are an stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or
engineering and/or geological interpretation of the where there may be interference from perched water
subsurface conditions, and their reliability wiil depend tables or surface water.
to some extent on the frequency of sampling and the FILL
method of drilling or excavation. Ideaily, continuous
The presence of fiil materials can often be determined
undisturbed sampling or core drilling wiil enable the only by the inclusion of foreign objects (eg. bricks,
most reliable assessment but is not always practicable steel, etc.) or by distinctly unusual coiour, texture or
or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any fabric. Identification of the extent of fiil materials will
case, the boreholes or test pits represent only a very
also depend on investigation methods and frequency.
smail sample of the total subsurface conditions. Where natural soils similar to those at the site are used
The attached explanatory notes define the terms and for fiil, it may be difficult with limited testing and
symbols used in preparation of the logs. sampiing to reliably determine the extent of the fiil.
Interpretation of the infonmation shown on the logs, The presence of fiil materials is usuaily regarded with
and its application to design and construction, should caution as the possible variation in density, strength
therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or and material type is much greater than with natural soil
test pits, the method of drilling or excavation, the deposits. Consequently, there is an increased risk of
frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of adverse engineering characteristics or behaviour. If
other than "straight line" variations between the the volume and quality of fiil is important to a project,
boreholes or test pits. Subsurface conditions between then frequent test pit excavations are preferable to
boreholes or test pits may vary significantly from boreholes.
conditions encountered at the borehole or test pit
locations.
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT. JUNE 2009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 39
- 5-
LABORATORY TESTING If differences occur, the Company will be pleased to
Laboratory testing is normally carried out in assist with investigation or advice to resolve any
accordance with Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of problems occurring.
Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes". Details of the SITE ANOMALIES
test procedure used are given on the individual report In the event that conditions encountered on site during
forms and the attached explanatory notes summarize construction appear to vary from those expected from
important aspects of the Laboratory Test Procedures the information contained in the report, the Company
adopted. requests that it immediately be notified. Most
ENGINEERING REPORTS problems are more readily resolved when conditions
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified are exposed than at some later stage, well atter the
personnel and are based on the information obtained event.
and on current engineering standards of interpretation Extreme events including but not limited to the results
and analysis. The infonmation provided in Soil Surveys of climate change, ego flood levels above previously
Engineering reports is opinion and interpretation and identified levels, beach scour or erosion beyond
not factual. The c1ienVcontractor increases their risk normal expectations (as identified by local authorities)
by not retaining the person who authored the extreme rainfall events, war, espionage, sabotage may
geotechnical report, to carry out site inspection and result in different conditions between time of
review (overseeing role) during construction, to confirm investigation and time of construction.
opinion and interpretation expressed in the report is REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FOR
accurate. Where the report has been prepared for a CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES
specific design proposal the information and Attention is drawn to the document "Guidelines for the
interpretation may not be relevant if the design Provision of Geotechnical Information in Construction
proposal is changed. If this happens, the Company will Contracts (1987)", published by the Institution of
be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of Engineers, Australia. Where information obtained from
the investigation work. this investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to is recommended that all information, including the
interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of written report and discussion, be made available. In
geotechnical aspects and recommendations or circumstances, where the discussion or comments
suggestions for design and construction. Since the section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it
test sites in any exploration represent a very small may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited
proportion of the total site and since the exploration document. The Company would be pleased to assist
only identifies actual ground conditions at the test sites, in this regard and/or to make additional report copies
even under the best circumstances actual conditions available for contract purposes at a nominal charge.
may vary from those inferred to exist. No responsibility REVIEW OF DESIGN
is taken for:- Where major civil or structural developments are
.Unexpected variations in ground and/or groundwater proposed or where only a limited investigation has
conditions. been completed or where the geotechnical conditions/
• Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by constraints are quite complex, it is prudent to have a
statutory authorities. joint design review which involves a senior
•The actions of other persons. geotechnical engineer. We would be happy to assist in
•Any work where the company is not given the this regard as an extension of our investigation
commission. Construction drawings should be
opportunity to supervise the construction using the
reviewed by Soil Surveys Engineering, with sufficient
Companies designs/recommendations.
time to allow changes if required, prior to inspections.
NOTES RELA TlNG TO THIS REPORT. JUNE 2009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 40
- 6- Otherwise Soil Surveys Engineering reserves the right conservatism which is commensurate with the to refuse to carry out inspections. consequences of the risk of error. SITE INSPECTION Estimates of volumes based on our findings require The Company will always be pleased to provide interpolation and extrapolation between test locations engineering inspection services for geotechnical and as such may be significantly different from actual aspects of work to which this report is related. volumes. i) Site visits during construction to confirm reported ground conditions ii) Site visits to assist the contractor or other site personnel in identifying various soil/rock types such as appropriate footing or pier founding depths, the stability of a filled or excavated slope; or iii) Full-time engineering presence on site. In the vast majority of cases it is advantageous to the principal for the geotechnical engineer who wrote the investigation report to be involved in the construction stage of the project. The geotechnical engineer cannot take responsibility for variations in encountered conditions, where he is not given the opportunity to review plans for the proposed development with sufficient time to allow review and make changes to the proposed development if required, and where he is not given the opportunity to inspect the site and oversee construction methods with regard to site conditions with sufficient time to observe all relevant site conditions and operations. RESPONSIBLE USE OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMA TlON Recommendations in our report are for design purposes only and provided on the basis that inspections are carried out to allow finalisalion of opinions and recommendations contained in our report. The geotechnical investigation consisting of field and laboratory testing has been carried out to indicate typical conditions by indicating conditions and parameters at the specific locations of boreholes/test pits. Subsurface conditions are indicated at these locations only and the inference of conditions between or away from these locations (interpolation and extrapolation) involves a certain degree of risk. Persons inferring such conditions or carrying out such inferences should do so with a degree of caution and NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT -JUNE 1009 SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 41
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013
REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O.
APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE RECORDS
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 42
Soil Surveys Engineering Ply. Limited
Specialist In Applied Geoteehnlcs
BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
~ ph.61133el1llOOO~~-"'''' Location Number: BH 1
Cd!Cod: ph.6115S00~ gcbcca4~com. •••
No:!t>.-n RNenI: ph .61 7 ~523 4517 ~"buvorys."""''' Project Number: 112-14608
Mrlay. ph+61141W2 20101 rn.od<l»@~c:unl'"
Project Name: Proposed Residence
SOIL SURVEYS Location: 44 Seaview Tee., Sunshine Beach
Easting: Northing: RL: Client: Karl Yunker
Logger: JA Operator: JA Machine: Scout Date: 12/12/2012 Page: 1 OF 3
Samples and
Depth Desaiptlon Remarks
FILL SAND (SP) Very loose. fine to coarse grained, light grey. trace of medium size
.:". gravel, dry.
' ..
".:'.
1.0
1.10
NATURAL SAND (SP) Loose. fine grained, very light grey. moist.
2.0
3.0
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained. very light grey. moist.
"J
4,7,1N-<lj
4.0
a
5.0 SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained. very light grey, moist
•
o
6.0
: ~.;.'.
',' .
:"'~'~'.:: ,,,1
g.n.15N~1
7.0
SAND (SP) Dense, fine grained. very light grey, moisl ,,:I
!4.11.15N-32J
8.0
9.0
~
~
;;
10.0
~
:;J Comments:
8 1) GJUundwater not observed.
uso I
i
~ -2.-- Water Fnl Nole<l -1- Wal6l' $l.ead)' l8ve1
SPT ]
O;sl\.l'bed [
S""".
Approved: ..J.!:>
Dale: <1-2-/' /3
Page 43
Soil SUNeys Engineering Pty, Limited
Specialist ;n Applied Geotechnics
BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
I,l""",pjo.al 13360eooo~~ ••••.••
acmau Location Number: BH 1
Gr*leo-: fi'l-el1 s.5OO 00$ ~~corn •••
No>rtI....,R-.:;ph.&11~s23.s1r~~CDm •• Project Number: 112-14608
Io'ad..,-.ph +e, 7 .!l422007~~""", •••
Project Name: Proposed Residence
SOIL SURVEYS Location: 44 Seaview Tee" Sunshine Beach
Easting: Northing: RL: Client: Karl Yunker
Logger: JA Operator: JA Machine: Scout Date: 12/12/2012 Page: 2 OF 3
Drillng Method
Depth ~ Description
Samples and
2~~~! e
"
Remar1<s
: 10.20 :.:::.-, :
: Indurated SANa (SP) Dense, fine to medium grained, dark brown. moist. -
- ",,1--:
:
- 16.21.221+0"1 -
:.1.1,0 Indurated SAND (SP) Very dense. fine to medium grained. dark brown. moist. --
: :
: ..::....
- :
-
: 11.70 ":::.:.
:..::. SAND (SP) Very dense, fine to coarse grained, yellow brown and red brown mottled, -
~2,0 '; ':.\ :. moist.
:
:
=-
:
:.1.3,0
:
-
=-
:
-
:.1.4,0 -
:
-
=- SAND (SP) Dense. fine grained, yellow brown. moist.
---=.
c
~
::
:.1.5,0
.---=
1 :: 13,20.20~1 _
.
~ =- 1---=
•~ : :
"
-1.6,0 -
~ -
~ :
~
- -::
:
~
-17,0 SAND (SP) Medium dense. fine grained. yellow brown, moist -=-
~
0
:
,
Ii - -=-
~ :
9« ....1.6,0 ,-=
s.s,loh~l :
~
>
- 1-=
~
,
•
:::.~::.?
: r
~ f-
o
:~:}:~
-
:
....:
~ ~ ~~{~ -
;:-
~
r:
L
. ;'.'
•••••
~f-, 1-20,0 ,.:.:,
~
8
Comments:
1) Groundwa~r nol observed.
~.~- I
VV"'Iq.-...""", ~
lIW. __
l:ffl'.~_
Sample!!
uso
i
FIll.F_
~ ~ Wal~ FIrSI No/ed ....z,.... Waler$teady level
••8 _
.'-
R~~~~~th
......
~ ~ •••••.• *':"..'"
SPT ]
Disturbed
Sample
[
Approved: .I!)
Date: 24-/',I/~
Page 44
Soil Surveys Engineering Ply. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist In Applied Geotechnics
"'fill!\: PI'tlll 330lI eooo ~.,.........." -.. ••• Location Number: BH 1
Gokteo-, pII.Cl115500 ~ ~~-",,-COI'l'"
pII.8115S2J45nf'CI~l"'''''''_''
Nor\tWnRi--=
Project Number: 112-14608
Mid<ay.ph+01
1411422go1mad<a'I@,.,~~rn ••
Project Name: Proposed Residence
SOiL SURVEYS Location: 44 Seaview Tee., Sunshine Beach
EasUng: Northing: RL: Clien!: Karl Yunker
Logger: JA Operator: JA Machine: Scout Date: 12/12/2012 Page: 3 OF 3
Drilling Method Samples and
Depth Description Remarks
u~tr~r
••• ;> cr Z ~
':.' SAND (SP) Medium dense. fine grained. yellow brown, moist. (continued)
::.>~::.
20.40
-:::~~>: Indurated SAND (SP) Very dense, fine to medium grained. dark brown. moist.
21.0 :::.;:.
",1
::)/::',
',' :.
10, 15.21_1
'. ','
.' :
22.0
::/}
..
: ::":.
',' ':.~.:,
'. ','
23.0 .: ':::.:.
'; :.~.:.
24.0
":.. ::....
'::::.:.
25.0
.
~
26.0
27.0
28.0
9.
BOREHOLE BH 1 TERMINATED AT 29.00 m
~
~
~ 30.0
mo. Samples
~ Comments: 1l3.-"'SoI
_.lM ••,•• __
8 1) Groun~ter not observed. DW.~_""
s"".~ ••.
_""
FII..~_
ur..a I
~~~~lh
1Approved: JJ)
~
~-....•
W.'f;_ SPT
,
"
I,IS.-'" •.•••
~ -Z- Water Rrsl Noted ~ Waler Steady le ••.e1 '"."' .. Disluttlad
Sample
[
Date: ~ , '/:f,
Page 45
Soil Surveys Engineering Ply. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnlcs
"'~ p/l-e1133l:lVeooo~oom.a"
Location Number: BH 2
~Co-'p.-e, 1550004MgoId~oobJ"")"O.<::to"I\•••
NorltJem~, pI1+01 7 SS2'3-4.511~""~Qcln'" Project Number: 112-14608
Macby.p!'>011~g.\221lO1~~oom ••
Project Name: Proposed Residence
SOIL SURVEYS Location: 44 Seaview Tee .• Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511331 Northing: 7080123 RL: Client: Karl Yunker
Logger: OF Operator: OF Machine: Edson Date: 10/01/2013 Page: 1 OF 2
Samples and
llepth Description Remar1ts
FIJ.I SAND (SP) Loose. fine to medium grained, grey and pale brown, trace of clay
fines. dry.
FILL SAND (SP) Loose. fine to medium grained, pale grey. dry.
1.0
FilL SAND (SP) loose. line to medium grained. pale grey and pale brown. moist.
2.0
NATURAL SAND (SP) loose to medium dense, fine grained. pale grey. moist.
3.0
4.0
:. ':.'. SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained. pale grey. moist
': ::. :.
5.0
6.0
7.0
.... SAND (SP) Medium dense. fine to medium grained. brown, moist.
7.30 ::.,}.:~.
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, dark brown. moist.
:::.i~./
8.0
:::}?
:,: ':::."
6.80::"::/
9.0 SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained. orange brown, moist.
~
•S
~ SAND (SP) Dense. fine grained, pale brown and yellow. moist.
.
~
_
8
~
Comments:
10.0
1) Groundwater not observed.
Samples
050.
ig +Waler Ami Noted ...1- Water Steady lev&~
seT]
cn.luiWd[
Samp/eo
Approved:
Date:
.../j;>
:Jal' "3
Page 46
Soil Surveys Engineering Ply. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Millon;
ph.81 73Je1leooo~eohuwyLtn'"-.l
Location Number: BH 2
Goi<JCoatA; ph <1111 S500 0400 \[email protected])"uJ>m.."
~H"""'pIl'81 7 552345n ""~~liC~""may Project Number: 112-14608
Modur(.ph .8f 1 ~Gol2 2001~"""'-"",axn ••••
Project Name: Proposed Residence
SOIL SURVEYS Location: 44 Seaview Tce., Sunshine Beach
Easting: 511331 Northing: 7080123 RL: Client: Karl Yunker
Logger: DF Operator: OF Machine: Edson Date: 10/01/2013 Page: 2 OF 2
Sa'1lples and
Depth DescriPtiol'l Remarks
:\~~/
SAND (SP) Dense. fine grained. pale brown and yellow, moist. (continued)
'PT
1.13, 'UN",J2
::....
:..
11.0 11.00 ,::":)/
SAND (SP) Dense. fine grained, brown. moist
1150::)/
BOREHOLE BH 2 TERMINATED AT 11.50 m
12.0
13,0
14.0
0
15,0
.•
.
•. 16,0
~
•
~
,
0 17,0
~
0
!
~
~ 18,0
i
>
~
;:
11 19,0
i8 Comments:
20.0
1) Groundwater not observed. U50 I
i
g +Walw Fnt Noted ...s.- Water Sl~y leval
SPT ]
OIslvrtled
Samp:..e
[
Approved: ../!.>
Dal.:~o/'II"!>
•
Page 47
Soil SUNeys Engineering Ply. Limited DYNAMIC CONE PENTROMETER TESTIN
Specialist in Applied Geo/echn/os Project Number: 112-14608
M6:>t< pr, •. e1 13369 «100 ~"""'... N
GoI:lCcasl.ph.e'l~04Mgokl~~~...... Project arne: Proposed Residence
~R--=pIl •.e11SS234577",,~~"," Location: 44 Seaview Tee., Sunshine Beach
Mod.sy ph .lIl 7 ~a42 21lO1~ ••••••.••
Client: Karl Yunker
SOIL SURVEYS
••••••
DCP 1
~ •..• '" E~:
DCP2
.....•.• ••• ....., DCP3
•.....•.
DCP Test
'"
Eoulng;
DCP4
~~"
DCPTcst
..
.
DCPTest DCP Test
(blowsf10Drrvn) (blows/100rrm) (blows/100mm)
(b1ows/l00mm)
,. ~ 0.0 " ••
, ~ 0.0 " •• "
0.0 • " " " '" 0.0 " ••
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
I I I I
3.0 "0. 3.0£ 3.0£
3.0 "0. 0. 0.
0 0> 0>
0
" " " "
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Notes Notes Notes Notes
1. Operator: OF 1, Operator: OF 1. Operator: OF 1. Operator: OF
2. Dale: 10/0112013 2. Date: 1010112013 2. Date: 10101/2013 2 Date: 1010112013
Page 48
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013
REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O.
APPENDIX C
SITE PLAN
* SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 49
--------
'\
f
,I
I
I
~
' ,
t
I
/
-r--
I
• I
,
-- /
--
DCl- -- ---.~--
f
I
-
--
BH~_
DC~
I DC~
j
t - "'-
DC~
BH~
I
--------. ---....
-----.
I
!
,
I
'"
~ ~
'I. ~
';;' ~
~ 2.5 0 7.5 12.5m I DHAWING TITLE CLIENT
~
SCALE 1:250
lItVUllO..et.
Y._WCJlll"~'_1.ftOl_\_14aOl).1_1 ~ __ ",\\'1.,.rm.ol
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
KARL YUNKER
LOCATION
#, Soil Surveys
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY,lIMITED
}\31 1I'~"2.14608-{}1 I OAT" f17
CJ
\,"Iti;l<W
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN 44 SEAVIEW TCE, SUNSHINE BEACH
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
Page 50
Project No. 112-14608
January, 2013
REF: 1-14608, 2013-01-15, BR VER O.
APPENDIX D
GOOD HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICE
#. SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 51
AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)
=
IHlllSIDE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE
Sensible development practices are required when building on hillsides, particularly if the hillside has more than a low
rlsk of instability (GeoGuide LR7), Only building techniques intended to maintain, or reduce, the overall level of landslide
risk should be considered. Examples of good hillside construction practice are illustrated below.
EXAMPLES OF GOOD HillSIDE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE
Vegetation retained
Flexible structure ~
Roof water piped off site or stored ----~ '"
. detentlon
On-Slte . tan k's, watertight and adequate Iy \ '"" '
founded. Potential leakage managed by sub-soil ,.~
drains -------
'- MANTLE OF SOIL AND
ROCK FRAGMENTS
(COLLUVIUM)
tI '- Pier footings into rock
.'! ~ \ I Subsoildrainagemay be
l required in slope
, ~ Cutting and filling minimised in development
Sewage effluent pumped out or connected to sewer.
Tanks adequately founded and watertight. Potential
:---........'---... leakage managed by sub-SOil drains
~ Engineered retaining walls with both surface and
subsurface drainage (constructed before dwelling)
BEDROCK
@AGS(20071
See llIsa AGS (2000) AlJfM'nQiJcJ
WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES GOOD?
Roadways and parking areas - are paved and incorporate kerbs which prevent water discharging straight into the
hillside (GeoGuide LR5).
Cuttings. are supported by retaining walls (GeoGuide LR6).
Retaining walls - are engineer designed to withstand the lateral earth pressures and surcharges expected, and indude
drains to prevent water pressures developing in the backfill. Where the ground slopes steeply down towards the high
side of a retaining wall, the disturbing force (see GeoGuide LR6) can be two or more times that in level ground.
Retaining walls must be designed taking these forces into account.
Sewage - whether treated or not is either taken away in pipes or contained in properly founded tanks so it cannot soak
into the ground.
Surface water - from roofs and other hard surfaces is piped away to a suitable discharge point rather than being allowed
to infiltrate into the ground. Preferably, the discharge point will be in a natural creek where ground water exits, rather
than enters, the ground. Shallow, lined, drains on the surface can fulfil the same purpose (GeoGuide LR5).
Surface loads - are minimised. No fill embankments have been built. The house is a lightweight structure. Foundation
loads have been taken down below the level at which a landslide is likeiy to occur and, preferably, to rock. This sort of
construction is probably not applicable to soil slopes (GeoGuide LR3). If you are uncertain whether your site has rock
near the surface, or is essentially a soil slope, you should engage a geotechnical practitioner to find out
Flexible structures - have been used because they can tolerate a certain amount of movement with minimal signs of
distress and maintain their functionality.
Vegetation clearance. on soil slopes has been kept to a reasonable minimum. Trees. and to a lesser extent smaller
vegetation, take large quantities of water out of the ground every day. This lowers the ground water table, which in tum
helps to maintain the stability of the slope. Large scale clearing can result in a rise in water table with a consequent
increase in the likelihood of a landslide (GeoGuide LR5). An exception may have to be made to this rule on steep rock
slopes where trees have little effect on the water table, but their roots pose a iandslide hazard by dislodging boulders.
Possible effects of ignoring good construction practices are illustrated on page 2. Unfortunately, these poor construction
practices are not as unusual as you might think and are often chosen because, on the face of it, they will save the
developer, or owner, money. You should not lose sight of the fact that the cost and anguish associated with anyone of
the disasters illustrated, is likely to more than wipe out any apparent savings at the outset.
ADOPT GOOD PRACTICE ON HillSIDE SITES
174 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 52
AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)
EXAMPLES OF POOR HillSIDE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE
Unstabi!ised rock topples and travels downslope ----;,
Vegetation removed - \
Sleep unsupported cut fails :\ \ \
Discharges of roofwater soak away rattler than .
conducted offsile or to secure storage for re-use ----\ ~
Structure unable to lolerale
settlement and cracks ..--...l /
.....
Poorly compacted IiII settles '.
unevenly and cracks pool -
Inadequate walling unable
to support fill
Dwelling not founded in
bedrock
Absence of subsoil drainage
within fill
Loose, saturated fill slides and
possibly flows downslope
'-- Ponded water enters slope and activates landslide
'£1 AGS (2007)
'- Possible lravel downslope which impacts other development downhill Seea/sQ•••GS(2000)~ •.J
WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES POOR?
Roadways and parking areas - are unsurfaced and lack proper table drains (gutters) causing surface water to pond and
soak into the ground.
Cut and fill ' has been used to balance earthworks quantities and level the site leaving unstable cut faces and added
large surface loads to the ground. Failure to compact the fill properly has led to settlement, which will probably continue
for several years after completion. The house and pool have been built on the fill and have settled with it and cracked.
Leakage from the cracked pool and the applied surface loads from the fill have combined to cause landslides.
Retaining walls - have been avoided, to minimise cost, and hand placed rock walls used instead. Without applying
engineering design principles, the walis have failed to provide the required support to the ground and have failed,
creating a very dangerous situation.
A heavy, rigid, house - has been built on shallow, conventional, footings. Not only has the brickwork cracked because
of the resulting ground movements, but it has also become involved in a man-made landslide.
Soak-away drainage - has been used for sewage and surface water run-off from roofs and pavements. This water
soaks into the ground and raises the water table (GeoGuide LR5). Subsoil drains that run along the contours should be
avoided for the same reason. If felt necessary, subsoil drains should run steeply downhill in a chevron, or herring bone,
I, pattern. This may conflict wijh the requirements for effluent and surface water disposal (GeoGuide LR9) and if so, you
will need to seek professional advice.
Rock debris - from landslides higher up on the slope seems likeiy to pass through the site. Such locations are often
referred to by geotechnical practitioners as "debris flow paths". Rock is normally even denser than ordinary fill, so even
quite modest boulders are likely to weigh many tonnes and do a lot of damage once they start to roll. Boulders have
been known to travel hundreds of metres downhill leaving behind a trail of destruction.
Vegetation - has been completely cleared, leading to a possible rise in the water table and increased landslide risk
(GeoGuide LR5).
DON'T CUT CORNERS ON HillSIDE SITES - OBTAIN ADVICE FROM A GEOTECHNICAL PRACTITIONER
More Informatlon relevant to your particular situation may be found in other Australian GeoGuides:
GeoGuide LR1 - Introduction GeoGuide LR6 - Retaining Walls
GeoGuide LR2 - landslides GeoGuide LR7 - Landslide Risk
GeoGuide LR3 - Landslides in Soil GeoGuide LR9 - Effluent & Surface Water Disposal
GeoGuide LR4 - Landslides in Rock GeoGuide LR1 0 - Coastal Landslides
GeoGuide lR5 - Water & Drainage GeoGuide LR11 - Record Keeping
The Australian GeoGuides (LR series) are a set of publications intended for property owners; local councils; planning authorities;
developers: insurers: lawyers and, in fact. anyone who lives with, or has an interest in, a natural or engineered slope, a cutting, or an
excavation. They are intended to help you understand why slopes and retaining structures can be a hazard and what can be done with
appropriate professional advice and local council approval (if required) to remove, reduce, or minimise the risk they represent. The
GeoGuides have been prepared by the Australian Geomechanics Society, a specialist technical society within Engineers Australia. the
national peak body for all engineering disciplines in Australia, whose members are professional geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists with a particular interest in ground engineering. The GeoGuides have been funded under the Australian governments'
National Disaster Mitigation Program.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 175
Page 53
I
I
1. GENERAL
1.1. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT NDOSA COUNCIL SPECIfiCATIONS AND
NOTES:
STANOARD DRAWINGS, WHERE THEISS DO NOT APPLY THEN THE INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAl. SITE ADDRESS,
ENGINEEFIS OF QUEENSlANO STANDARD DRAWINGS AND AUSTRAUAN STANDARDS lOR 44 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHI~E BEACH, OLD. 4140
OTHERS IF NOT IN QUEENSLAND).
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION,
1.2. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILfn' TO COMPLY WITH ALL RELEVANT LEGISLATION.
LOT 58 ON RP01010
1,3, IT IS THE RESPONSIBlUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF ANY
NOTE; ALL STRUCTURE (INCLUDING POOL) TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
TEMPORARY ~K ON SITE.
NEW 131 TYPE KERB PER NOOSACOUNCIL STANDARD BE fOUNDED BELOW THE LINE OF LANDSLIDE
\,4, NO WORK IS TO COMMENCE ON SITE UNTIL APPROVAL TO PROCEED HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE NEW ClASS 1 BUIlDING
DRAWING NSD-9001D. NOMiNAl SOOmm BEYOND KERB INFLUENCE PER THE GEOTECHNICAL
SUPERINTENDENT. INVESTIGATION REPORT PROJECT NO.
AD"PT'"
1.5. THE ComRACTOR SHAll. TAKE All REASONABlE AND PRACTICAl. MEASURES TO ENSURE 112_'460$. DATED JANUARV. 2013 BV SOIL 1. DO NOT SCALE FRO~I THIS DRAI"IING.
MINIMAL IMPACT ON Tl1E ENVIRONMENT. SURVEYS ENGINEERING.
1.6. ALl. MATERIALS ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOOSA COUNCIL POLICIES AND 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES U.N,O
SPECIFICATIONS
NEW STORIolWATER PIPE TO KERB ADAPTERS STORM WATER TRENCHES TO 3. ALL HEIGHTS ARE IN METRES ABOVE OROINANCE
2. CLEANING evE PIT WITH SLOW RELEASE
EARTHWORKS MAXIMUM fLOW TO KERB 25 US TOTAL AU ROOF BE 1m CLEAR FROM THE DATUM U.N.O.
TO lm31NFIL TRATlON PIT
>2. FILUNG SHALL BE COMPACTED H\I ACCORDANCe"""TH TABLE S.l OF AS1798 WATERMAXQ20.10US PROPERTY BOUNDARY
REfER TO TYPICAL DETAIL
REfER TO STANDARD DRAWINGS R5-001 4 Tl1IS DAAWlNG IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
2.3. ABSOLUTE MINIMU,", DENSITY RATIOS ARE THE FOLLOWING
LANDSCAPED ROCK ALL RELEVANT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
2.3A COMMERCIAl. FILL. 98% sm
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
2.3,13. SUBGRADE EXCEEDING 300mm aaow PAVEMENT - ~% S10
150 RP BOUNDARY ,so
2.3.C. SUIJ.GRAOE WITHIN 300mm OF PAVEMENT. 95% sm
-----'\ LEGEND:
,.. ./ -_ 'W __ NEW STORMWATER PIPE
AU. EARTHWORKS SHAlL BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS3798 AND SUPERVISION
~--"----;.~~
---(7/
TO LEVEL t SHAll. BE SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONlRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY A -- ,,-- EXISTING STORMWATER PIPE
-- -".,,, c::~::::2:0"-MN-"-'-"-"-':'
OUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WHO IS A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAl. ENGINEER OF
OUEENSLANO TO UNDERTAKE lEVEL 1 SUPERVISION OF EARTH'iVORKS ANO WHO SHAll
...
CERTIFY
2,4A
2A.B.
IN WRmNG
SATISFACTORY
THAT
TREATMENT,
AU
ThE FOLLOWIOO:
STABIllTY
GENERAl.
TREATMENT
OF Tl-tE WORKS
EARTtfNORKS
OF EXISTING
SHORT
OPERATIONS.
AND LONG TERM
FilL., TREATMENT
I.E. STRIPPING,
OF ACID SULPHATE
SUBGAADE
SOILS.
\ \ ..
~;> I FOR CHARGED SYSTEM
020
TO STREET
FLOW OF 10US
DATE: ".052017
ETC. HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN SATISFACTORILY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1\ ~//
._;/"'\', /) I
AS3798 AND THE GROUNDWORKS SPECIFICATION JOHN TUXWORTH RpEO:6162
2,4.C. TIIAT FILL MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED "'NO COMPACTED TO TtIE REQUIRED
'
J
I
MINIMUM DENSITY
~.oa.2Qlr fOIl CONSTfll.lerlOtl
AREAS OF CUT TO BE ALSO SUBJECT TO BE PROOF ROLLED AND COMPACTED TO THE SAME // .-' -'
IUlIUOl1 f'O/;l CO>;STfUIC'tlON
2,6.
STANDARDS
ALL EARTHWORKS
AS FILL AREAS.
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE \'\IlTH GEOTECHNICAlINV£STtGATION REPORT
,<.' _MM
~:-- Il \ / g~~~A~~iHO~C:SSC \
OUl5.201/
1~,=1I
f'O/;l cot..S'tRue'tJ:JN
FOl'ICOI<S'tRl.IC'tlOlO
--/- - .(--- ,._.. //
HEAVY OUTY HEEL PROOf [ '8.',.20.1I TEND£R ISS"'"
PROJECT NO 112.lol.608 DATED JANUARY 2013 BY SOll.. SURVEYS ENGINEERING
3. DRAINAGE
0"''' D
C
:lO.'tl.2Ol,
0l.10.201'
CCOllOl •••••'tION IGSUE
COOllOl!~1'lON ISSUE
3.1. ENSURE THE INLET OF INFILTRATION TRENCHES ARE PROTECTED WITH AN APPROVED LEAF 1I ZZ.05.2O" FOll"""I!OVM
AND SILT GUARD " 1',05.20" PIlEUVI'lAA't!S.sUE
/ '\---1//
J---1
REV oo.n DESCRII'TION
>2. THE INFIL TRATlON TRENCH IS TO BE WRAPPED IN BIDIM A24 GEOFA£lRIC
3.3. THE INFlL TAATtON
TO REMOVE
TRENCH
ANY SILTS OR SIMILAR
IS TO BE BACKFLUSHED
MATERIALS
ON A REGULAR BASIS lEVERY 3 MONTHS)
.. -_1.:",@,,,,, .. .... . . . .-
~'lN~-
.~.,/ '1
\"J." , 'b
,.---- 00"""""",-, __ 000__ ••••.•
_./ .. ,--
3.4- THE INFIL TAATtON PIT IS TO ONLY BE USED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER
1--~;-'T--- i
~~---"- "•..r--.J.- •..--------;r-,.--.- -- ~ -~ --- '"
-t--;,- ---
3.5. SETOUT FOR FIElD INLETS IS TO CENTRE LINE OF STRUCTURE; HEIGHT TO fiNISHED SURFACE.
3.8. STORIolWATER DRAINAGE WORKS SHALL USE uP\lC CLASS SNO TO AS1273 PRECAST RRJ.
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CLASS 2 TO AS4058. -=-=:....... _--1-=:- -.:. ."o~'~
3.7. ROOFWATER DIWNAGE TO CONNECT INTO PITS AS REDUIRED.
~OUNO;;Y--
/ ~~...'.,' II'"
3,8. SUB-SOIL DRPJNS ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE REAR OF ALL RETAINING WALLS WITH
._._-~
,so
SUFFICIENT FALL TO DRAIN TO INFILTAATION TRENCH '50
WATER TANK OVERFLOW TO
3.9. THE CONTAACTOR IS TO CONFIRM & VISUALLY LOCATE AU. SERVICE CONDUITS & CON"IRM ,,~-1..r:
'c "
BAGEL TOROIDUNDERGROlJND
WITH UGHT TRAfFICABLE
WATER TANK
ACCESS LID (OR
INFILTRATION TANK
CATHERINE BASTOCK &
WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
/ 0," '\ ". APPROVED EQUIVALENT) LOCATED U~ER
ROBERT MEAD
I GARAGE STRUCTURAL SLAB
INFILTRATION TANK OVERFLOW VIA
I '~~ \ MINIMUM5000LCAPAClTY. MAINTAIN EXlSTING LANDSCAPED AREA VIA SHEET FLOW
DIMENSIONS: 3.8Lx2.4WxU D
/ STORMWA TER PIPE TO TOWARDS UNINHABITED REAR OF SITE
' LOCATION AS PER ARCHITECTURAl. DAAWlNGS
DISCHARGE TO INfiLTRATION
TANK AT REAR
_ I
/ /
II
OVERLAND
~~Il.NNEL r SHEET FLOW PATH TO KERB AND
N WESTERN EDGE OF ROAD,
3.5m3 STORMWATfRINFILTAATlON
CONTAINING 10. ATlANTIS
OR SIMILAR APPROVED
TANK
FLO-TANK TRIPLE
\
o PopovBass
DIMENSIONS: 6050>;400.1 310mm
EXlSTING ~~:~ __ \ / "
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
NOMINAl. LOCATION OF
EXlSTING KERB SIDE INLET ~1
\ SCALE 1,100 architects
L\
PAVEMENT TO
STRUCTURAl. ENGINEERS
44 SEAVIEW TERRACE,
l
ERB IL 23.78
DETAILS
SUNSHINE BEACH
NOMINAL FINISHED
RooFVVATER
CONCRETE ENCASED LEVEL 22.00
DOWNplPE PER
1000 BACKFLUSH AND HYDRAULIC DETAILS
OVERFLOW POINT
TIMBER
rflETAlNING
SLEEPER
WALL TO 450. 450GUUY PIT AT
0~
I ARCHITECTS DETAIL 600 DEEP WITH built environment collective
< BE• Collective>
IMF'ERMEABLE ltD SCREW CAP WITH '0'
RING
engineered design
,, Itruc1ural I crvn I hydraulIc: I ESD
• ,, ''''''1 9 Prospect 51. Fortitude Valley. Old. 4000
tel.: .•61 (07) 3252 1001. www.becclleclive.net
I I ,, ,
U , , GRAVa SOAKAGE
Im.lm.lm
BED
L CHARGEOROOFWATER
UNETO KERB
CIVIL DOCUMENTATION
D
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE :
AROUND EACH SlOE ONLY. -,...._ LEAF & SILT STORMWATER
1200 NOM.
, " " 1000 MIN
LEAVING ONLY BASE fREE TO--'"
INFILTRATE
DIWNAGEPIT
WRAPPED IN-
I GUARO
MANAGEMENT PLAN
I"U
SLonED 1000 AGG PIPE GEOfABRIC
SLOnED 1000 AGG PIPE
3250 NOM
vveEP HOLES IN Sloe
OF PIT AW. R.K.
INFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION 1' CLEANING EYE PIT FOR CONSTRUCTION RX MAY 2015
0
q!!marnl S!IA~.IIlIUlUl [IIIICm '10!!1!l"'I~U!J~~
SCALE 1:20 SCALE 120
DETAIL ~OITUC1tlIlIllllLUI IIUI'ClISlILl FOrunUlmlJlC W IICUSAII1 am CHICO.
A.S.@A1
SCALE 1,10 .lASUWiHIl1bO AMI. COOIDI.nC.IITfrrlll IUIOUI RUIUS,
~
TIIIIUlUIll; UIUCJllRlrllll nl.ICHm~TUMl RIlISHIS
6532 C200 4
Used in these records
Changes Application - MCU15/0023.02Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 15.8 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.