Original source · versioned page text
RFI -Attachment 6 - Geotechnical Investigation Report CORE.pdf
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Hotel, Noosa Springs Prepared for: Walsh Consulting Engineers PO Box 5512 Maroochydore QKD 4558 [email protected] Report Number: J001390-001-R-Rev0 September 2021
Preview the original
The page text is free to read. Previews and downloads of original files need an account.
Log in to previewLog in to download the original (RFI -Attachment 6 - Geotechnical Investigation Report CORE.pdf)
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 40 sections
Section 2
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Executive Summary
As requested by Walsh Consulting Engineers, Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) has carried out a
geotechnical investigation for a proposed boutique hotel at Noosa Springs.
Proposed bulk earthworks are anticipated to comprise mainly cutting up to about 3 m below ground level
(BGL), with localised filling up to about 2 m to 3 m in height.
The proposed hotel footprint is on the west-facing slope of an approximately north-south trending ridge/dune
line. The ground surface slopes down to the west at about 8 degrees overall, with localised steeper slopes of
about 15 to 20 degrees.
The investigation fieldwork comprised eight boreholes drilled to depths ranging between 0.8 m and 5 m
below ground level (BGL), under engineering supervision. BH1 to BH6 were drilled using a 4WD-mounted
auger rig. HA1 and HA2 were hand-augered where vehicle access was not available. Dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) tests were carried out adjacent to/within the boreholes to assess soil density.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprise loose/medium dense to very dense
aeolian (dune) sand. Shallow sand fill (re-worked natural soil) was encountered in some boreholes. The fill is
deemed ‘uncontrolled’ as defined in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on earthworks for
commercial and residential developments (AS 3798-2007).
Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes during drilling. Due to the relatively permeable nature of
the sands, and the sloping nature of the site, prolonged high groundwater levels or periods of waterlogged
soil are not anticipated.
High-level footings may be founded in medium dense (or denser) alluvial sand (or future ‘Level 1’ controlled
fill) and can be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. Footings in uncontrolled fill or
loose sand are not recommended.
Further recommendations are mare in this report regarding earthworks, foundations, retaining walls, soil
dispersion, aggressivity of soils and drainage.
A qualitative slope stability risk assessment for this project has been carried out following the Australian
Geomechanics Society (AGS) Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (March 2007). Based on the
available information and the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that there is a Low Risk of slope
instability for the proposed development, subject to implementation of the recommendations in this report.
From a geotechnical viewpoint, our assessment is that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
ii
Section 3
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................... 3
4.1 Review of Available Geological Mapping ............................................................................................... 4
4.2 Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................ 4
5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 5
5.1 Published Geological Information ........................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Ground Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 6
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 6
6.1 Earthworks .............................................................................................................................................. 6
6.1.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................. 6
6.1.2 Trafficability & Working Platforms ....................................................................................................... 6
6.1.3 Excavations......................................................................................................................................... 6
6.1.4 Filling................................................................................................................................................... 6
6.1.5 Batter Slopes ...................................................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Foundation Design and Parameters ....................................................................................................... 7
6.2.1 Site Classification ............................................................................................................................... 7
6.2.1 High-level Footings ............................................................................................................................. 7
6.2.2 General Comments on Footings ......................................................................................................... 8
6.3 Retaining Wall Design and Parameters .................................................................................................. 8
6.4 Soil Dispersion & Erosion Protection ...................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Drainage ................................................................................................................................................. 9
6.6 Aggressivity of soils ................................................................................................................................ 9
7.0 ASSESSMENT OF LAND STABILITY ................................................................................................... 9
7.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................... 9
7.2 Stability Risk Assessment..................................................................................................................... 10
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 11
9.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1: Summary of geotechnical classification testing. .................................................................................. 5
Table 2: Summary of soil aggressivity testing. .................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Retaining structure design parameters. .............................................................................................. 8
Table 4: Soil aggressivity exposure classifications. .......................................................................................... 9
Table 5: Stability risk levels. ............................................................................................................................ 10
Table 6: Qualitative risk assessment for property (based on AGS 2007) ....................................................... 11
iii
Section 4
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Figures
Figure 1: Geotechnical Test Location Plan
Appendices
APPENDIX A Reports of Boreholes and Explanatory Notes
APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX C Limitations
iv
Section 5
Walsh Consulting Engineers 1.0 INTRODUCTION As requested by Walsh Consulting Engineers, Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) has carried out a geotechnical investigation for a proposed boutique hotel at Noosa Springs. The investigation was carried out in accordance with Core proposal Q003147-001-L-Rev0. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development comprises a low rise hotel building with car parks and tennis courts (refer Image 1 below). Proposed bulk earthworks are anticipated to comprise mainly cutting up to about 3 m below ground level (BGL), with localised filling up to about 2 m to 3 m in height (refer Images 2 and 3 below). Image 1: Extract from Walsh Consulting Engineers drawing C6070/20/P01, showing proposed development layout. Image 2: Extract from Walsh Consulting Engineers drawing C6070/20/P03, showing proposed earthworks section. J001390-001-R-Rev0 1
Section 6
Walsh Consulting Engineers Image 3: Extract from Walsh Consulting Engineers drawing C6070/20/P02, showing proposed bulk earthworks layout. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located along Resort Drive, Noosa Heads, north of the existing Noosa Springs Golf & Spa Resort. The proposed hotel footprint is on the west-facing slope of an approximately north-south trending ridge/dune line. The ground surface slopes down to the west at about 8 degrees overall, with localised steeper slopes of about 15 to 20 degrees. At the time of our investigation, the area was generally covered by natural vegetation with a series of tennis courts terraced into the slope with various batters and block/rock retaining structures. Disused shed/storage structures were present in the upper (eastern) portion of the slope, along with a partially cleared area. General site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown on Photographs 1 and 2 below. J001390-001-R-Rev0 2
Section 7
Walsh Consulting Engineers Photograph 1: Site conditions at the time of our investigation, looking approximately south/south-east from the northern part of the site. Photograph 2: Site conditions at the time of our investigation, looking approximately east/south-east across the southern part of the site. 4.0 SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The investigation included the following: ▪ A review of published geological mapping ▪ Subsurface investigation and sampling (borehole drilling) ▪ Geotechnical laboratory testing Further information is provided in Sections 4.1 to 4.3. J001390-001-R-Rev0 3
Section 8
Walsh Consulting Engineers
4.1 Review of Available Geological Mapping
To assist in understanding the site geotechnical conditions, a review of published geological mapping was
undertaken (refer Section 5.1). Landslide Hazard Maps are discussed in Section 7.1.
4.2 Fieldwork
Eight boreholes were drilled at the locations shown on the attached Figure 1. The fieldwork was carried out
on 25 August 2021.
Six boreholes (BH1 to BH6) were drilled using a 4WD-mounted auger rig, to depths ranging between 2 m
and 5 m BGL. Two boreholes (HA1 and HA2) were hand-augered to 1.9 m and 0.8 m BGL, respectively,
where vehicle access was not available.
Underground services at the proposed borehole locations were assessed prior to drilling, to position
boreholes away from underground services. This included a combination of ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
and electro-magnetic techniques.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests were carried out adjacent to/within the boreholes to assess soil
density.
The boreholes were drilled under the direction of a geotechnical engineer from Core, who logged subsurface
materials in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1726-2017 Geotechnical site investigations, directed
the field testing and sampling, and made groundwater observations during drilling. The boreholes were
backfilled on completion.
Borehole locations were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS unit and measured from site features
where possible. Ground surface elevations at borehole locations were inferred from available survey data.
Reports of Boreholes and explanatory notes are attached in Appendix A. Subsurface conditions are
discussed in Section 5.2.
4.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples were forwarded to a NATA-accredited laboratory for the following laboratory testing:
▪ Four-day soaked, single-point California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (3 No.)
▪ Particle size distribution (PSD) or Atterberg limits (2 No.)
▪ Emerson class number (1 No.)
▪ Aggressivity (1 No.).
Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with the procedures described in Australian Standard
AS1289 Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes.
Test results are summarised in Table 1 below. Laboratory test certificates are attached in Appendix B.
Laboratory test results generally confirm the field soil classifications. Test results are discussed further in
Section 6.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 4
Section 9
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Table 1: Summary of geotechnical classification testing.
Depth Fines
Borehole
To Soil description CBR (%) ECN Sand (%) (Clay/Silt)
no. From
(%)
(m) (m)
BH1 0.6 1.1 SAND (POSSIBLY FILL) - - 95 4
SAND (POSSIBLY
BH2 0.05 0.4 16 - - -
AEOLIAN SOIL)
BH4 1.5 2.3 SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL) - 5 - -
BH5 0.1 0.7 SAND (FILL) 11 - - -
BH6 0.4 1.1 SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL) 10 - - -
SAND (POSSIBLY
HA1 1.2 1.9 - - 93 3
AEOLIAN SOIL)
Classification testing generally confirms the field descriptions.
Table 2: Summary of soil aggressivity testing.
Depth
Borehole Sulfate Chloride Resistivity
Soil description pH
no. From To (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (ohm.m)
(m) (m)
BH6 0.4 1.1 SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL) 6.1 < 30 <5 2100
These results are discussed in Section 6.6.
5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
5.1 Published Geological Information
Available geological mapping1 indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary age “Pleistocene dune:
quartz sand” (Qpd2)
Image 4 below shows an extract from the geology map.
Approximate site location
Image 4: Extract from Gympie Special 1:100,000 geology map.
1
GYMPIE SPECIAL 1:100,000 Geology Map, Sheet 9445 and part 9545, First Edition 1999, Department of Mines and Energy
J001390-001-R-Rev0 5
Section 10
Walsh Consulting Engineers
5.2 Ground Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprise loose/medium dense to very dense
aeolian (dune) sand. Shallow sand fill (re-worked natural soil generally less than 1 m in depth) was
encountered in some boreholes. The fill is deemed ‘uncontrolled’ as defined in Australian Standard AS 3798-
2007 Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments (AS 3798-2007).
Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes during drilling. Due to the relatively permeable nature of
the sands, and the sloping nature of the site, prolonged high groundwater levels or periods of waterlogged
soil are not anticipated.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthworks
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation in building and pavement areas should include the following:
▪ Strip the surface of vegetation, organic matter, organic rich soils (topsoils), severely root affected soils,
and unsuitable material.
▪ ‘Proof roll’ the stripped surface by several passes of a minimum 10 tonne roller to identify loose or soft
areas. Proof rolling in areas of cut may be deferred until after bulk excavation is completed.
An experienced geotechnical engineer should carry out a visual assessment of the subgrade 'proof roll'.
Loose/soft areas or uncontrolled fill identified by proof rolling will require treatment by either of the following
methods:
▪ Over-excavation and replacement with suitable fill compacted in layers, or;
▪ Re-compaction of the loose or soft material provided that it does not contain substantial organic matter
or deleterious substances.
6.1.2 Trafficability & Working Platforms
Due to the potential for poor trafficability across the site, particularly following wet weather of if loose sands
at the surface are disturbed and dried out, it would be prudent to allow for the placement of a compacted
granular fill layer (e.g. 150 mm) particularly in haul road and laydown areas.
A working platform assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) if heavy
machinery or equipment (e.g. crane or piling rig) are proposed.
6.1.3 Excavations
Excavations into the sands should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment (e.g. large
tracked excavators).
6.1.4 Filling
The following recommendations should be considered for fill material placement and compaction:
▪ Site-won fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of +/-2% of OMC for Standard
Compaction
▪ Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. Details regarding
recommended test frequencies are provided in Table 8.1 of AS 3798-2007
▪ Fill should have a maximum particle size of 100 mm for an uncompacted layer thickness of 250 mm
and should be compacted by repeated rolling
▪ Fill should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 98% of the Maximum Standard Dry
Density for cohesive soils, or 75% Dry Density Index for cohesionless soils. Higher grades of
compaction will be required for pavement subgrades and base courses
J001390-001-R-Rev0 6
Section 11
Walsh Consulting Engineers
▪ Fill embankments should be ‘over built’ then trimmed back to the well compacted material.
▪ Fill in sloping areas should be ‘benched’ into the natural ground.
Further details for control and testing of fill are given in AS 3798-2007. It is recommended that earthworks
be undertaken in accordance with ‘Level 1’ standards.
6.1.5 Batter Slopes
For short-term construction periods, excavated unsurcharged faces up to 3 m in vertical height could be
battered at the following maximum slopes:
▪ Medium dense (or denser) sand: 1V:2H
Flatter batters or temporary support systems (e.g. ‘shields’ or ‘shoring boxes’ for trenches) will be required if
significant groundwater seepage is encountered or if exposed faces are not protected from erosion by
rainfall. Shoring will be required to enable safe personnel entry into trenches (with vertical sides) deeper than
1 m.
Permanent excavation batters should be less than 3 m high and formed no steeper than:
▪ Medium dense (or denser) sand: 1V:3H
Permanent batters that are not retained should be protected from erosion with some form of surface
protection (e.g. revegetation or geotextile matting) and drainage.
Positive support by engineer designed retained structures will be required where space restrictions prevent
trimming of batters to safe slopes and where slopes are surcharged or near movement sensitive structures.
The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable to
excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
6.2 Foundation Design and Parameters
6.2.1 Site Classification
Site classification derived in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and
footings (AS 2870-2011) can provide an indication of the likely magnitude of reactive (shrink and swell)
movements associated with normal seasonal moisture variations.
Due to the presence of uncontrolled fill, the site is classified ‘Class P’. Areas underlain by at least medium
dense sand can be re-classified ‘Class A’, with little or no movement due to soil moisture changes.
The predicted order of movement is based on the existing soil profile (i.e. no cutting or filling), and moisture
content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only.
A specific site classification must be undertaken for each building following completion of any earthworks
greater than 0.3 m (cut or fill) and prior to building design and construction.
6.2.1 High-level Footings
The proposed structures could be supported by a ‘high-level’ strip or pad footing system suitable for the
applicable site classification. High-level footings founded in medium dense (or denser) alluvial sand (or future
‘Level 1’ controlled fill) could be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. Settlement
beneath such appropriately design footings is anticipated to be less than 20 mm. Footings in uncontrolled fill
or loose/medium dense sand are not recommended.
To achieve the design recommended pressures, footing excavations must be dry and cleaned of any loose,
disturbed or saturated materials prior to pouring concrete.
All existing and proposed footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent
excavations, batter slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building or fill loads.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 7
Section 12
Walsh Consulting Engineers
To minimise the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane
extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/ retaining walls, then rising
up at 1V:1H. This requirement is illustrated in the following diagram.
6.2.2 General Comments on Footings
If any soil conditions encountered during footing construction are found to differ from those noted in the
geotechnical investigation, Core should be notified immediately, and further assessment carried out to
determine if changes to footing design are required.
Inspection and testing of footing excavations to confirm design bearing pressures by Core is recommended.
6.3 Retaining Wall Design and Parameters
Retaining structures should be designed in accordance with AS 4678-2002 Earth retaining structures.
Allowance should be made for construction loading, up-slope footing loadings, the effects of sloping ground,
hydrostatic loads, and backfill compaction stresses. Positive permanent drainage must be installed behind all
walls unless they are designed for development of full hydrostatic pressures.
Retaining walls should be designed using the parameters in Table 3 and founded as described in
Section 6.2.
Table 3: Retaining structure design parameters.
Unit Friction Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Retained Material Weight Angle Cantilever Wall Non-yielding Wall
Kp
(t/m3) (Degrees) (Ka) (Ko)
Loose Sand 1.7 28 0.36 0.53 2.77
Medium Dense Sand 1.9 34 0.27 0.43 3.61
Dense Sand 2.0 39 0.22 0.36 4.5
Compacted Fill * * * * *
*: Variable depending on the type of material used and the degree of compaction achieved.
6.4 Soil Dispersion & Erosion Protection
Any excavations or disturbance of materials should be carefully monitored and managed during the
construction phase to minimise potential for scour/erosion and sediment run off.
Emerson class number (ECN) laboratory testing measures the tendency of the soil’s clay fraction to go into
colloidal suspension in water. Dispersive soils are those which by nature of their mineralogy, and the
chemistry of the water in the soil, are susceptible to separation of the individual clay particles and
subsequent erosion of these particles through fine cracks or fissures in the soil under seepage flows.
ECN testing indicates that the samples tested are non-dispersive.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 8
Section 13
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Exposed soil (i.e. on batters or drains etc.) should be protected from erosion and scour by appropriate
measures such as re-vegetation and hydro-seeding, protective matting, or hard facings. Concentrating
surface runoff should be avoided unless adequate erosion/scour protection and flow dissipation is
constructed. Temporary sediment control should be adopted during construction where surface water will
flow offsite.
6.5 Drainage
Site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water, minimise water infiltration into the slope,
and to prevent ponding of water on subgrade areas during construction and also adjacent to foundations,
perimeter slabs, and driveways once construction is completed.
Roof water, including overflow from rainwater tanks, and water collected from hard surfaces (e.g. driveways)
must be directed by pipes or lined channels to a legal point of discharge.
Shallow subsurface cut-off drains should be installed upslope of building areas in order to intercept and
divert potential subsurface seepage. Diversion drains should be constructed above the crest of any cut or fill
embankments.
6.6 Aggressivity of soils
Chemical analysis can provide an indication of the potential for long term damage to foundations, buried
pipelines, in-ground structures, services and other infrastructure. Soil texture is also important in this regard,
as granular soils allow oxygen exchange (oxidation) to occur more readily and are also more permeable.
Australian Standard AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation provides the range of exposure
classification of the surface of steel piles and concrete piles based on the range of chemical conditions in the
soil and the possibility of changes in groundwater levels.
Table 4 displays the exposure classifications for steel and concrete piles in soil, based on the results of
laboratory testing on selected samples, in accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) and Table 6.5.2(C) of AS 2159-
2009.
Table 4: Soil aggressivity exposure classifications.
Sample Exposure Exposure
Sample Geological Material Type
Depth classification for classification for
Location Origin (USCS)
(m BGL) steel piles in soil concrete piles in soil
BH6 0.4 – 1.1 Aeolian Soil Sand (SP) Non-aggressive Non-aggressive
7.0 ASSESSMENT OF LAND STABILITY
7.1 Existing Condition
The Noosa Planning Scheme 2020 includes a landslide hazard overlay map. The overlay map indicates that
the site includes moderate and high landslide hazard areas. Image 5 below presents an extract of the
overlay map.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 9
Section 14
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Site location
Image 5: Extract from Noosa Shire Council landslide hazard overlay mapping.
7.2 Stability Risk Assessment
A qualitative slope stability risk assessment for this project has been carried out following the Australian
Geomechanics Society (AGS) Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (March 2007), refer Table 5
below. The risk assessment relates to property. Relative levels of risk and their implications are given in
Table 6 below and the qualitative terminology (i.e. likelihood and consequence definitions) for use in
assessing risk to property are attached in Appendix B.
Table 5: Stability risk levels.
Risk Level Example Implications(1)
VERY HIGH Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning
VH and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too
RISK
expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of
H HIGH RISK treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in
relation to the value of the property.
MODERATE May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but requires
M investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce risk to Low.
RISK
Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
L LOW RISK Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to
this level, ongoing maintenance required.
VERY LOW
VL Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
RISK
Note:
1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the
nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 10
Section 15
Walsh Consulting Engineers
Table 6: Qualitative risk assessment for property (based on AGS 2007)
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Comments
Risk
The likelihood of shallow failure is assessed
Shallow failure through
as Unlikely. The consequence is considered
loose fill and natural
Unlikely Medium Low Medium, if the proposed development is
aeolian soils above the
founded as per the recommendations in this
foundation depth
report. The resultant risk is Low.
The likelihood of a deep failure through the
Deep failure through the natural aeolian soil is assessed as Rare due
dense (or denser) to historically low prevalence of instability in
natural aeolian soils Rare Major Low this geological formation and no signs of
below the foundation slope instability on site. Although the
depth consequence of such a failure would be
Major, the resultant risk is Low.
Based on the available information and the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that there is a Low
Risk of slope instability for the proposed development, subject to implementation of the recommendations in
this report, assessed in accordance with the AGS guidelines (March 2007).
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical viewpoint, our assessment is that the site is suitable for the proposed development, and
that there is a Low Risk of slope instability subject to implementation of the recommendations in this report.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document, Limitations which is attached in Appendix C.
J001390-001-R-Rev0 11
Section 16
Walsh Consulting Engineers Core Consultants Pty Ltd Yours sincerely, CORE CONSULTANTS PTY LTD Walter Mastenbroek Geoff Hurley MEngPr MSc BSc (Hon) MIEAust NER CPEng RPEQ 16149 MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716 Associate/Senior Geotechnical Engineer Managing Director WM/GAH/wm
Section 17
C CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF CORE CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT.
BH1
LIN
KS
BH2
DR
RE
IVE
SO
RT
DR
IVE
BH3
HA2
BH4
BH6
HA1
BH5
0 15 30 45 m
1:750
LEGEND CLIENT PROJECT
Denotes approximate drill rig borehole location WALSH CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROPOSED BOUTIQUE HOTEL - RESORT DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS
DRAWN BY DATE DRAWING TITLE
Denotes approximate hand auger borehole location MD 20/08/2021
CHECKED BY DATE GEOTECHNICAL TEST LOCATION PLAN
GH 30/09/2021
Base plans drawn by Walsh Consulting Engineers. Drawing Titles - Preliminary Roadworks and Services Layout Plan & Preliminary Earthworks Layout Plan. Drawing No.- C6070/20/P04 & C6070/20/P02. Dated 13 SCALE SHEET SIZE PROJECT No DOC No DOC TYPE FIGURE No REVISION
July 2021. Aerial image sourced from Nearmap Pty Ltd, image dated 05 July 2021. Annotations by Core Consultants Pty Ltd.
www.coreconsultants.com.au
1:750 A3 J001390 001 R F001 0 SHEET 1 OF 1
Plot Date: 1 October 2021 Time:8:07:09 AM By: CAD Path: J:\2021 - J1228 -\J001390 - Walsh-Hotel-Noosa Springs\PHASE 1000\Figures Drawings - File Name:J001390-001-R-Rev0-F001.dwg
Section 18
APPENDIX A Reports of Boreholes and Explanatory Notes
Section 19
Section 20
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1
East 508730.0 m
North 7078158.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 28.50 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) trace silt trace gravel: fine to medium D
0.10
28.40 DS 0.10-0.60 m SP grained, brown; gravel fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded;
rootlets up to 3 mm in diameter.
Possibly FILL SAND trace silt trace gravel: fine to medium
L-M grained, dark grey; gravel fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded;
organics, rootlets to 4 mm diameter.
VD
0.5
0.60
27.90 DS 0.60-1.10 m SP SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey and
grey brown.
Not Encountered
ADT
1.0 D
D/
VD
M
1.5
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 10:59 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
VD
2.00
2.0
Hole Terminated at 2.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 21
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2
East 508769.0 m
North 7078115.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 31.80 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
BDS 0.05-0.40 m SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) trace silt: fine to medium grained, dark
31.70
SP brown; rootlets up to 2 mm in diameter.
0.40
SAND (POSSIBLY AEOLIAN) trace silt: fine to medium grained,
31.40 SP
DS 0.50-0.90 m grey and dark grey.
L/
Not Encountered
SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey with MD
brown.
ADT
L 1 D
1.25
30.55 Pale grey.
DS 1.50-2.00 m MD /
D
2.00
2
Hole Terminated at 2.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
3
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU TEST PIT 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 11:00 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
4
5
Sketch & Other Observations
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 22
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH3
East 508778.0 m
North 7078091.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 32.50 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) with silt: fine to medium grained, dark L/
0.10 MD
32.40 SP grey brown; organics.
L
FILL SAND trace silt: fine to medium grained, dark grey. D
0.30
32.20 DS 0.30-0.80 m Trace gravel: grey; gravel coarse grained, sub-rounded; wood
fragments up to 5 mm in diameter. D/
0.5 VD
M
0.80
31.70 DS 0.80-1.20 m SP SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey.
1.0
L
1.5 D
1.60
30.90 Pale grey with pale brown.
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 10:59 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
DS 1.80-2.30 m
2.0
Not Encountered
ADT
2.5 D
3.0
3.5
M
VD
4.0
4.5
5.00
5.0
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
5.5
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 23
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH4
East 508784.0 m
North 7078052.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 33.50 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 5.00 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) with silt: fine to medium grained, grey; VL Hammer Weight
33.45
SP organics, rootlets to 4 mm diameter.
Possibly FILL SAND: fine to medium grained, grey.
0.5
L L
0.90
32.60 SP SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey with
1.0 grey brown.
MD /
1.5
DS 1.50-2.30 m D
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 10:59 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
2.0
Not Encountered
D
L-M
ADT
2.5 D
3.0
D/
VD
3.5
DS 3.50-4.00 m
4.0
VD
M
4.5
5.00
5.0
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
5.5
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 24
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH5
East 508754.0 m
North 7078017.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 28.00 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
27.96 SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) trace silt: fine to medium grained, dark
BDS 0.10-0.70 m MD /
L SP grey and pale grey; rootlets up to 7 mm in diameter. D
FILL SAND: fine to medium grained, grey.
VD
0.80
27.20 DS 0.80-1.40 m SP SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey with
M 1 pale brown.
MD /
D
2
Not Encountered
* Augered to this depth before
recommencing test
ADT
D
L
3
D
DS 3.50-4.00 m
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU TEST PIT 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 11:00 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
4
VD
L-M
5.00
5
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
Sketch & Other Observations
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 25
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH6
East 508711.0 m
North 7078049.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 19.50 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
19.47 GP BITUMEN (WEARING SURFACE).
H * Augered to this depth before
DS 0.20-0.40 m FILL Sandy GRAVEL (BASE): fine to coarse grained,
0.40 commencing test
sub-angular, brown and grey; sand fine to coarse grained.
19.10 BDS 0.40-1.10 m SP
SAND (AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale grey.
VD * Augered to this depth before
recommencing test
1
D
2
Not Encountered
ADT
D D/
VD
M-H
3
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU TEST PIT 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 11:00 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
* Augered to this depth before
VD recommencing test
4
5.00
5
Hole Terminated at 5.00 m
Target depth
Backfilled on completion
Sketch & Other Observations
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 26
REPORT OF HAND AUGER BOREHOLE: HA1
East 508724.0 m
North 7078040.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 25.00 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) trace silt trace gravel: fine to medium
0.10
24.90 DS 0.10-1.10 m SP grained, dark grey, brown and pale grey; gravel fine to coarse
grained, sub-rounded; organics, rootlets up to 4 mm in diameter. L
FILL SAND trace silt: fine to medium grained, pale grey and grey;
occassional organics and rootlets up to 4 mm in diameter.
0.5
MD /
D
Not Encountered
HA
H D
1.0
1.10
23.90 SP SAND (POSSIBLY AEOLIAN SOIL): fine to medium grained, pale
DS 1.20-1.90 m grey and pale brown.
L/
MD
1.5
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 10:59 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
1.90
Hole Terminated at 1.90 m
2.0 Hole Collapsing
Backfilled on completion
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 27
REPORT OF HAND AUGER BOREHOLE: HA2
East 508750.0 m
North 7078060.0 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Client Walsh Consulting Engineers Surface RL 27.80 m AHD Logged: MD
Project Proposed Boutique Hotel Contractor Core Consultants Logged Date: 25/08/21
Location Resort Drive, Noosa Heads Drill Rig Eziprobe Checked: GH
Job No. J001390 Inclination -90° Hole Dia. 100 mm Checked Date: 30/09/21
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
GROUP SYMBOL
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0.0
SP FILL SAND (TOPSOIL) trace silt: fine to medium grained, dark L/
0.10 MD
27.70 SP grey, brown and pale brown; rootlets up to 3 mm in diameter.
FILL SAND trace silt: fine to medium grained, dark grey;
DS 0.20-0.60 m
Not Encountered
occassional rootlets up to 2 mm in diameter.
HA
M-H D L/
0.5 VL
0.80
Hole Terminated at 0.80 m
Hole Collapsing
1.0 Backfilled on completion
1.5
CORE 2.01.1 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J001390-WALSH-NOOSA SPRINGS-LOGS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 30/9/2021 10:59 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Core 2.01.1 2020-05-19 Prj: Core 2.00 2020-03-24
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Section 28
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V - Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
T TC - Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatubre Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance . Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used
M Medium resistance. Excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from equipment used
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the digging implement
or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools,
and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level shown at date Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in
OBSERVED of the borehole/test pit.
GROUND WATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in less permeable strata.
ENCOUNTERED Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed Sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Dynamic cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quantity Designation (%)
Section 29
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT
REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL,CI, or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or SW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in AS 1726 - 2017. The material proper-
ties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
PARTICLE SIZE PLASTIC PROPERTIES
Major
Sub Division Particle Size
Division
Boulders >200 mm
Cobbles 63 - 200 mm
Gravel Coarse 20 - 63 mm
Gravel Medium 6.7 - 20 mm
Gravel Fine 2.36 - 6.7 mm
Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36 mm
Sand Medium 0.21 - 0.6 mm
Sand Fine 0.075 - 0.21 mm
Silt 0.002 - 0.075 mm
Clay <0.002 mm
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR COARSE GRAINED SOIL AS 1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Non-cohesive and free running
M Moist Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, tends to stick together
W Wet Soil feels cool, darkened in colour, soil sticks together, free water forms when handling
MOISTURE CONDITION FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
W<PL Moist dry of liquid limit Hard and friable or powdery
W = PL Moist near plastic limit Soils can be molded at a moisture condition approximately equal to the plastic limit
W >PL Moist, wet of plastic limit Soils usually weakened and free water forms on hands when handling
W = LL Wet near plastic limit
W > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
CONSISTENCY TERMS FOR AS1726—2017 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE GRAINED SOILS AS1726—2017
COHESIVE SOILS
Symbol Term Density Index % SPT ‘N’ #
Symbol Term Undrained Shear
VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
Strength
L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with
the observed behaviour of the material.
H Hard Above 200 kPa
Section 30
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH & WEATHERING AND
ABBREVIATIONS FOR DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION AS1726—2017
Symbol Term Uniaxial Point Load Field Guide
Strength Is (50)
Compressive
(MPa)
Strength (MPa)
VL Very Low 0.6 to 2 0.03 to 0.1 Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick. Pieces up to 30 mm thick can
Strength be broken with finger pressure.
L Low Strength 2 to 6 0.1 to 0.3 Easily scored with knife. Indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm
blows of the pick point. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm may be broken by hand. Sharp
edges of core are friable and break during handling.
M Medium 6 to 20 0.3 to 1 Readily scored with a knife. A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm can be broken by hand
Strength with difficulty.
H High Strength 20 to 60 1 to 3 A piece of core 150 mm by 50 mm cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick
with a single firm blow. Rock rings under hammer.
VH Very High 60 to 200 3 to 10 Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow. Rock rings under hammer.
Strength
EH Extremely High Above 200 Above 10 Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material. Rock
Strength rings under hammer.
= Diametral Point Load Test = Axial Point Load Test
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL AS1726—2017
WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
RS Residual Soil (Note 1) Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
fabric of original rock are no longer visible but the soil has not been significantly transported.
XW Extremely Weathered Material is weathered to such an extent that is has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and
(Note 1) fabric of original rock are still visible.
HW Highly Weathered (Note 2) The whole rock mass is discoloured, usually by iron staining or beaching to the extent that the colour of the
original rock is not recognizable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary miner-
als have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to
deposition of weathering products in pores.
MH Moderately Weathered The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the
(Note 2) colour of the original rock is not recognizable, but shows little or no change in strength from fresh rock.
SW Slightly Weathered Pock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength
from fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no signs of decomposition of individual minerals or colour change.
Note 1 The term ‘Extremely Weathered rock’ is misleading as the material has soil properties. The word ‘rock’ should be replaced with the name
of the original rock of the word ‘material’, eg. Extremely Weathered granite or Extremely Weathered material.
Note 2 Where it is not possible to distinguish between ‘Highly Weathered’ and ‘Moderately Weathered’ rock the term ‘Distinctly Weathered’ may
be used.
DEFECT TYPE/DESCRIPTION DEFECT PROFILE DEFECT ROUGHNESS
Symbol Description DESCRIPTION
B Bedding Parting V Vein
PL Planar
Symbol Description
J Joint HB/DB Handling/Drilling St Stepped
Break Sl Slickenside
Un Undulating
EW Extremely Weathered C Contact Sm Smooth
DEFECT INFILL DESCRIPTION
Seam
Symbol Description Ro Rough
FZ Fracture Zone L Cleavage Vertical Boreholes - The dip
Cn Clean: No visible
coating (inclination from horizontal) for the
CZ/S Crushed Zone/Seam X Foliation defect is given.
Sn Stain: Coated 1 to
3 mm Inclined Boreholes - The inclination
IS Infilled Seam S Schistocity is measured as the acute angle to the
Vr Veneer: < 1 mm core axis.
SZ/S Sheared Zone/Seam Ct Coating: 1 to 3
mm
Section 31
APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Section 32
Section 33
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Core Consultants Pty Ltd Site Number 1254
Unit 1 / 2 Neumann Court Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
NATA is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual Recognition
Kunda Park Arrangement for the mutual recognition of the
equivalence of testing, medical testing, calibration,
QLD 4556 inspection, proficiency testing scheme providers and
reference materials producers reports and certificates.
Attention: Walter Mastenbroek
Report 822393-S
Project name PROPOSED BOUTIQUE HOTEL
Project ID J001390
Received Date Sep 06, 2021
Client Sample ID BDS 0.4-1.1
Sample Matrix Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B21-Se10919
Date Sampled Aug 25, 2021
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chloride 5 mg/kg <5
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) 10 uS/cm < 10
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) 0.1 pH Units 6.1
Resistivity* 0.5 ohm.m 2100
Sulphate (as SO4) 30 mg/kg < 30
% Moisture 1 % 2.3
Eurofins Environment Testing 6 Monterey Road, Dandenong South, Victoria, Australia 3175 Page 1 of 6
Date Reported: Sep 14, 2021 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 822393-S
Section 34
Sample History
Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction is reported.
If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.
Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time
Chloride Melbourne Sep 08, 2021 28 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4090 Chloride by Discrete Analyser
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) Melbourne Sep 08, 2021 7 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4030 Conductivity
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) Melbourne Sep 08, 2021 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7090 pH in soil by ISE
Sulphate (as SO4) Melbourne Sep 08, 2021 28 Days
- Method: LTM-INO-4110 Sulfate by Discrete Analyser
% Moisture Melbourne Sep 07, 2021 14 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Eurofins Environment Testing 6 Monterey Road, Dandenong South, Victoria, Australia 3175 Page 2 of 6
Date Reported: Sep 14, 2021 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 822393-S
Section 35
Australia New Zealand
Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth Newcastle Auckland Christchurch
6 Monterey Road Unit F3, Building F 1/21 Smallwood Place 46-48 Banksia Road 4/52 Industrial Drive 35 O'Rorke Road 43 Detroit Drive
Dandenong South VIC 3175 16 Mars Road Murarrie QLD 4172 Welshpool WA 6106 Mayfield East NSW 2304 Penrose, Auckland 1061 Rolleston, Christchurch 7675
Phone : +61 3 8564 5000 Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Phone : +61 7 3902 4600 Phone : +61 8 9251 9600 PO Box 60 Wickham 2293 Phone : +64 9 526 45 51 Phone : 0800 856 450
NATA # 1261 Site # 1254 Phone : +61 2 9900 8400 NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 NATA # 1261 Site # 23736 Phone : +61 2 4968 8448 IANZ # 1327 IANZ # 1290
ABN: 50 005 085 521 web: www.eurofins.com.au email: [email protected] NATA # 1261 Site # 18217 NATA # 1261 Site # 25079
V2
Company Name: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Sep 6, 2021 1:30 PM
Address: Unit 1 / 2 Neumann Court Report #: 822393 Due: Sep 13, 2021
Kunda Park Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4556 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: PROPOSED BOUTIQUE HOTEL
Project ID: J001390
Eurofins Analytical Services Manager : Alana Wadsworth
Aggressivity Soil Set
Moisture Set
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
Mayfield Laboratory - NATA Site # 25079
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BDS 0.4-1.1 Aug 25, 2021 Soil B21-Se10919 X X
Test Counts 1 1
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 3 of 6
ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600
Date Reported:Sep 14, 2021
Section 36
Internal Quality Control Review and Glossary
General
1. Laboratory QC results for Method Blanks, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, and Laboratory Control Samples follows guidelines delineated in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended May 2013 and are included in this QC report where applicable. Additional QC data may be available on request.
2. All soil/sediment/solid results are reported on a dry basis, unless otherwise stated.
3. All biota/food results are reported on a wet weight basis on the edible portion, unless otherwise stated.
4. Actual LORs are matrix dependant. Quoted LORs may be raised where sample extracts are diluted due to interferences.
5. Results are uncorrected for matrix spikes or surrogate recoveries except for PFAS compounds.
6. SVOC analysis on waters are performed on homogenised, unfiltered samples, unless noted otherwise.
7. Samples were analysed on an 'as received' basis.
8. Information identified on this report with blue colour, indicates data provided by customer, that may have an impact on the results.
9. This report replaces any interim results previously issued.
Holding Times
Please refer to 'Sample Preservation and Container Guide' for holding times (QS3001).
For samples received on the last day of holding time, notification of testing requirements should have been received at least 6 hours prior to sample receipt deadlines as stated on the SRA.
If the Laboratory did not receive the information in the required timeframe, and regardless of any other integrity issues, suitably qualified results may still be reported.
Holding times apply from the date of sampling, therefore compliance to these may be outside the laboratory's control.
For VOCs containing vinyl chloride, styrene and 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether the holding time is 7 days however for all other VOCs such as BTEX or C6-10 TRH then the holding time is 14 days.
**NOTE: pH duplicates are reported as a range NOT as RPD
Units
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram mg/L: milligrams per litre ug/L: micrograms per litre
ppm: Parts per million ppb: Parts per billion %: Percentage
org/100mL: Organisms per 100 millilitres NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units MPN/100mL: Most Probable Number of organisms per 100 millilitres
Terms
Dry Where a moisture has been determined on a solid sample the result is expressed on a dry basis.
LOR Limit of Reporting.
SPIKE Addition of the analyte to the sample and reported as percentage recovery.
RPD Relative Percent Difference between two Duplicate pieces of analysis.
LCS Laboratory Control Sample - reported as percent recovery.
CRM Certified Reference Material - reported as percent recovery.
Method Blank In the case of solid samples these are performed on laboratory certified clean sands and in the case of water samples these are performed on de-ionised water.
Surr - Surrogate The addition of a like compound to the analyte target and reported as percentage recovery.
Duplicate A second piece of analysis from the same sample and reported in the same units as the result to show comparison.
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
APHA American Public Health Association
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
COC Chain of Custody
SRA Sample Receipt Advice
QSM US Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual Version 5.3
CP Client Parent - QC was performed on samples pertaining to this report
NCP Non-Client Parent - QC performed on samples not pertaining to this report, QC is representative of the sequence or batch that client samples were analysed within.
TEQ Toxic Equivalency Quotient
QC - Acceptance Criteria
RPD Duplicates: Global RPD Duplicates Acceptance Criteria is 30% however the following acceptance guidelines are equally applicable:
Results <10 times the LOR : No Limit
Results between 10-20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-50%
Results >20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-30%
Surrogate Recoveries: Recoveries must lie between 20-130% Phenols & 50-150% PFASs
PFAS field samples that contain surrogate recoveries in excess of the QC limit designated in QSM 5.3 where no positive PFAS results have been reported have been reviewed and no data was
affected.
WA DWER (n=10): PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2 FTSA, 8:2 FTSA
QC Data General Comments
1. Where a result is reported as a less than (<), higher than the nominated LOR, this is due to either matrix interference, extract dilution required due to interferences or contaminant levels within
the sample, high moisture content or insufficient sample provided.
2. Duplicate data shown within this report that states the word "BATCH" is a Batch Duplicate from outside of your sample batch, but within the laboratory sample batch at a 1:10 ratio. The Parent
and Duplicate data shown is not data from your samples.
3. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting LCS data, Toxaphene & Chlordane are not added to the LCS.
4. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting Spike data, Toxaphene is not added to the Spike.
5. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - where reporting Spike & LCS data, a single spike of commercial Hydrocarbon products in the range of C12-C30 is added and it's Total Recovery is reported
in the C10-C14 cell of the Report.
6. pH and Free Chlorine analysed in the laboratory - Analysis on this test must begin within 30 minutes of sampling.Therefore laboratory analysis is unlikely to be completed within holding time.
Analysis will begin as soon as possible after sample receipt.
7. Recovery Data (Spikes & Surrogates) - where chromatographic interference does not allow the determination of Recovery the term "INT" appears against that analyte.
8. Polychlorinated Biphenyls are spiked only using Aroclor 1260 in Matrix Spikes and LCS.
9. For Matrix Spikes and LCS results a dash " -" in the report means that the specific analyte was not added to the QC sample.
10. Duplicate RPDs are calculated from raw analytical data thus it is possible to have two sets of data.
Eurofins Environment Testing 6 Monterey Road, Dandenong South, Victoria, Australia 3175 Page 4 of 6
Date Reported: Sep 14, 2021 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 822393-S
Section 37
Quality Control Results
Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Units Result 1 Limits Limits Code
Method Blank
Chloride mg/kg <5 5 Pass
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C as rec.) uS/cm < 10 10 Pass
Sulphate (as SO4) mg/kg < 30 30 Pass
QA Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Lab Sample ID Units Result 1
Source Limits Limits Code
Duplicate
Result 1 Result 2 RPD
Chloride M21-Se12617 NCP mg/kg 24 22 11 30% Pass
Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract
at 25°C as rec.) B21-Se10919 CP uS/cm < 10 < 10 <1 30% Pass
pH (1:5 Aqueous extract at 25°C as
rec.) B21-Se10919 CP pH Units 6.1 5.9 pass 30% Pass
Resistivity* B21-Se10919 CP ohm.m 2100 1800 16 30% Pass
Sulphate (as SO4) M21-Se12617 NCP mg/kg 2100 1900 9.0 30% Pass
% Moisture M21-Se10612 NCP % 7.9 7.8 1.0 30% Pass
Eurofins Environment Testing 6 Monterey Road, Dandenong South, Victoria, Australia 3175 Page 5 of 6
Date Reported: Sep 14, 2021 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 822393-S
Section 38
Comments
Sample Integrity
Custody Seals Intact (if used) N/A
Attempt to Chill was evident No
Sample correctly preserved Yes
Appropriate sample containers have been used Yes
Sample containers for volatile analysis received with minimal headspace Yes
Samples received within HoldingTime Yes
Some samples have been subcontracted No
Authorised by:
Alana Wadsworth Analytical Services Manager
Scott Beddoes Senior Analyst-Inorganic (VIC)
Glenn Jackson
General Manager
Final Report – this report replaces any previously issued Report
- Indicates Not Requested
* Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service
Measurement uncertainty of test data is available on request or please click here.
Eurofins shall not be liable for loss, cost, damages or expenses incurred by the client, or any other person or company, resulting from the use of any information or interpretation given in this
report. In no case shall Eurofins be liable for consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost profits, damages for failure to meet deadlines and lost production arising from this report. This
document shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to the items tested. Unless indicated otherwise, the tests were performed on the samples as received.
Eurofins Environment Testing 6 Monterey Road, Dandenong South, Victoria, Australia 3175 Page 6 of 6
Date Reported: Sep 14, 2021 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 822393-S
Section 39
APPENDIX C Limitations
Section 40
Section 41
LIMITATIONS This Document has been provided by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (“Core”) subject to the following limitations: This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Core’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose. The scope and the period of Core’s Services are as described in C o r e ’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Core in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Core was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Core’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Core to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Core for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. Core may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Core to provide Services for the benefit of Core. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Core’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Core accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document. Limitations Page 1 of 1 Date: 12/07/2018 FRM-065 Uncontrolled When Printed Issue: 1.02