Original source · versioned page text
Appendix B - Global Stability Assessment Report
Attached to the e-mail Operational Works Application - DA Form 1 - Town Planning Report - Global Stability Assessment Report - Earthworks Compaction Report - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - 36 Tunba Court Cooroy Mountain.
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (10.3 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
JOB NO ME21/032 NOVEMBER, 2021 GEOFF HUSSIN GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT 36 TUNBA COURT COOROY MOUNTAIN
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 57 pages
Page 2
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 1, 35 Limestone Street (PO Box 3063), Darra Q 4076 P (07) 3279 0900 F (07) 3279 0955
ABN: 51 009 878 899
www.morrisongeo.com.au
Job No: ME21/032
Ref No: 27222-rev 1
Author: Russell Howchin/Robin Trounce
26th November, 2021
Mr Geoff Hussin
36 Tunba Court
Cooroy Mountain
QLD 4563
ATTENTION: MR GEOFF HUSSIN
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir
RE: GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CUT AND FILL BATTER SLOPES
36 TUNBA CT, COOROY MOUNTAIN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a global stability assessment of the existing cut and fill batter slopes
at 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain (herein referred to as the ‘Site’). The work was requested and
commissioned by Mr Geoff Hussin (the ‘Client’).
This is Revision 1 of the report originally sent on and dated the 23rd November, 2021, and includes
additional global stability modelling plots associated with the existing cut batter, and a proposed bench
excavated into the existing cut batter.
From the provided information, cut and fill batters have been constructed in preparation for the
placement of a new shed.
The following details are provided regarding the existing cut and fill batter slopes at the Site:
Cut batter up to approximately 5.5m in height, cut at approximately 380 to 400 and
predominantly exposing extremely weathered rock
The ground surface behind and above the crest of the cut batter slopes downwards
towards the crest at an angle of approximately 200
Fill batter up to approximately 4.5m in height, graded at an angle of approximately 350
The ground surface in front of and below the toe of the fill batter slopes downwards and
away from the toe of the batter at an angle of approximately 260
The fill at the site has been placed under Level 1 supervision by a senior technician from Morrison
Geotechnic’s Maroochydore office, under Morrison Geotechnic (MG) Job Number ML21/188, dated 28th
October, 2021 (the ‘MG Level 1 Report’). It is recommended that the MG Level 1 Report is read in
conjunction with this report.
Based on the provided information, the cut and fill batters are typically steeper and higher than what
would normally be considered as geotechnically stable over the long term and a global stability
assessment is required.
Page 3
-2-
Job No: ME21/032
The geotechnical information in this report includes:
Description of subsurface materials in the depth range of the boreholes in accordance with
AS1726, including regional geology;
Laboratory test results;
Global stability modelling of the existing cut and fill batter slopes;
Recommendations to improve the existing stability of the cut and fill batter slopes, targeting a
Factor of Safety of at least 1.5;
Recommendations with regards to long term stability of the proposed shed.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The geotechnical investigation involved the drilling of three boreholes, designated BH1, BH2 and BH3,
across the constructed platform. The boreholes were drilled to a depth of 6m (boreholes BH1 and BH3),
and 3m (borehole BH2) using a utility mounted drill rig (Drillman GT10) fitted with 100mm diameter
augers and a TC bit.
The subsurface conditions, encountered in the depth range of the boreholes were logged and visually
classified in accordance with AS1726 by an Engineering Geologist from Morrison Geotechnic.
Pocket penetrometer tests were carried out on disturbed clay samples (curls of clay from drill augers)
and undisturbed ‘U50’ samples. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed adjacent to
each borehole location.
Disturbed samples were collected from the boreholes for laboratory testing. The following laboratory
testing was carried out on selected samples:
Particle Size Distribution and Atterberg Limits (together referred to as Quality of Materials)
Following the subsurface investigation, a walkover survey of the Site was conducted. This involved
mapping and measuring features of significance to slope stability such as soil type, slope gradients and
direction, observed erosion features, surface and subsurface drainage, and the presence of irregular
surface features such as slips, slumps, hummocks, back scarps, scree debris fans or any associated
features.
All of the identified features including the subsurface conditions and the surface site features such as
the ground slope angles were used in the global stability assessment.
2.1 Global Stability Assessment
The methodology used to carry out the assessment included a review of the information gathered during
the geotechnical investigation and site walk over performed by Morrison Geotechnic on the 4th of
November 2021, along with a review of the provided information, as follows:
Survey plans of the Site by Focus Survey Group which included a surveyed section of the cut/fill
platform, dated 14/10/2021;
Site photos taken by Focus Survey Group, dated 14/10/2021;
Level 1 Earthworks compliance Report by Morrison Geotechnic, Job No: ML21/188, dated 28th
October 2021;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans by Aussie Environmental.
The global stability assessment was carried out using the commercial slope stability software SLOPE/W
incorporating the Morgenstern Price analysis method.
The geotechnical parameters used in the assessment were based on the laboratory test results of the
collected samples, and our knowledge of the performance of similar materials.
The ground surface geometry used in the global stability assessment was taken from the provided
section, and onsite measurements carried out by the Morrison Geotechnic Engineering Geologist.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 4
-3-
Job No: ME21/032
The following minimum Factor of Safety (FOS) was targeted as part of the global stability assessment:
FOS 1.5 (long term stability)
The approximate locations of the boreholes are presented on the site plan in Appendix A. The logs of
the boreholes are provided in Appendix B. The laboratory test reports are presented in Appendix C.
The Level 1 certification report is attached as Appendix D. The survey plans and sections provided by
the Client and used in the global stability assessment are contained in Appendix E. The global stability
plots are attached as Appendix F. The Guidelines for Hillside Construction are shown in Appendix G.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
At the time of the assessment, the constructed platform had been constructed as cut-to-fill within the
side of a hill, located in a regional area. Topographically the area reaches RL210 AHD to the south and
slopes down to approximately RL110 AHD to the north west. The constructed platform appears to be
essentially level and is located approximately between RL140 AHD and RL130 AHD with a north west
facing aspect.
Figure 1 presents an aerial image of the location of the constructed platform relative to the local
topography and watercourses.
Site Location
Figure 1: Location of the constructed platform highlighted in red (Image from the Queensland
Globe website 2021).
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 5
-4-
Job No: ME21/032
3.1 Cut Batter
The cut batter exposed highly to extremely weathered granodiorite with evidence of corestone
weathering. Corestone weathering typically results in rounded boulders in an extremely weathered
(XW) rock profile. This suggests the cut batter will most likely have soil like properties throughout.
The geometry of the cut batter was measured to have a height of 5m to 6m, and an average slope angle
of approximately 36°. Areas of the batter were observed to be failing particularly at the contact point
where the weathered rock profile met with the overlaying residual layer.
The slope angle above the cut batter measured at approximately 20°, sloping down to the crest. The
vegetation above the cut batter was generally well grassed with the occasional tree. One tree was
located at the crest of the batter and it is understood the preference is for this tree to stay. It should be
noted that tree roots can cause root jacking of material and this may pose erosion problems, however
the removal of the tree would also create instabilities that would also need to be addressed. The batter
itself was free from vegetation. A cover of erosion protection polymer (refer green coating in site photos
below) had recently been placed over the batter.
The following site photos were taken at the time of the investigation on the 4th of November, 2021:
Site Photo 1: Cut batter conditions Site Photo 2: Cut batter conditions
Site Photo 3: Cut batter geometry looking west Site Photo 4: Erosion patterns in the batter
across the batter
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 6
-5-
Job No: ME21/032
3.2 Fill Batter
The fill batter, located along the north western edge of the platform was measured to have a height of
approximately 4.5m to 5m, and an average slope angle of approximately 36°. The fill batter had recently
been ‘seeded’ to encourage vegetation.
The toe of the fill batter extended into a natural gully line which appeared to have a slope angle of
approximately 26°. The gully was typically well vegetated with trees and shrubs.
The following site photos were taken at the time of the investigation on the 4th of November 2021:
Site Photo 5: Looking down over the cut batter Site Photo 6: Looking south west across the fill
towards the fill batter with the tree lined gully batter – with the gully at the toe
Site Photo 7: Looking north east across the fill Site Photo 8: Tree lined gully at the toe of the fill
batter batter
3.3 Site Drainage Channels
Drainage channels had been placed around the constructed platform. At the time of the investigation,
silt fence had been placed at either end of the batter and sediment collecting fibre rolls had also been
placed along the toe of the fill batter. It is understood these had been put in place as part of the erosion
and sediment control plan.
Site photos 9 to 14 present the drainage channels and erosion and sediment control barriers observed
at the time of the investigation.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 7
-6-
Job No: ME21/032
Site Photo 9: Drainage channels at the toe of the Site Photo 10: The beginnings of a swale near the
cut batter crest of the cut batter
Site Photo 11: Evidence of water channels and Site Photo 12: Evidence of ponding water in the
tunnels beginning in the cut batter drainage channels at the toe of the cut batter
Site Photo 13: Crest of the fill batter without Site Photo 14: Silt fence along the crest of the gully
drainage channels line – north west of the platform
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 8
-7-
Job No: ME21/032
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Regional Geology
Reference to the State of Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME),
Queensland Globe (2020) indicates that the surface and near-surface geology near the project
alignment comprises middle Triassic aged sedimentary beds with intrusive bodies of middle tertiary
aged igneous rock (refer Table 1).
Table 1 – Regional Geology Summary
Rock Unit Map Lithological Dominant
Rock Type Age
Name Symbol Summary Rock
Allandale
Arfvedsonite-bearing INTRUSIVE Mid-Tertiary
Arfvedsonite Ta GRANITOID
granite UNIT (~ 30Mya)
Granite
Strongly cleaved
and commonly STRATIFIED
kinked mudstone UNIT
ARENITE- Mid-Triassic
Kin Kin beds Rk with thin siltstone (INCLUDING
MUDROCK (~ 245Mya)
laminae; minor VOLCANIC AND
volcanilithic METAMORPHIC)
sandstone
4.2 Local Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface profile encountered within the boreholes typically comprised a layer of fill underlain by
a residual soil profile underlain by highly weathered (HW) rock. The following gives a brief summary of
the subsurface profiles encountered. Refer to Table 2 and Appendix B for further detail.
Fill material was encountered in all three boreholes to depths of between 1.2m and 4.0m and
was generally described as: Gravelly/Silty CLAY, stiff to hard and of high plasticity.
Residual material was encountered in all three boreholes to depths of between 2.3m to 5m and
was generally described as Sandy/Gravelly CLAY, hard and of medium plasticity.
Granodiorite/Granite Rock (HW) was encountered in boreholes BH1 and BH3 at depths of 2.3m
and 5.0m respectively. Rock was not encounterd in borehole BH2, most likely due to its
termination depth of 3m. The rock encountered was generally described as highly weathered
and of very low strength, recovered as Sandy/Gravelly CLAY, hard and of medium plasticity.
A summary of the profiles encountered in the boreholes is given in Table 2.
Table 2 – Summary of the Subsurface Profile in the Boreholes
Fill Material (m) Residual (m) Weathered Rock (m)
Borehole Gravelly/Silty Sandy/Gravelly
Silty CLAY HW Granodiorite
Number CLAY (CH) CLAY (CH)
Stiff Very Stiff to Hard Hard Very Low Strength
BH1 NE 0.0 - 1.2 1.2 - 2.3 2.3 - 6.0TD
TD
BH2 NE 0.0 - 1.9 1.9 - 3.0 NE
BH3 0.0 - 4.0 NE 4.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.0TD
Notes:
1. All depths below the existing ground surface level as at the time of field work on the 4/11/21.
2. TD = Termination Depth
3. NE = Not Encountered
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 9
-8-
Job No: ME21/032
4.3 Local Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater or seepage was not encountered in any of the boreholes drilled as part of this
investigation. The moisture content did increase however in borehole BH1 at a depth of 3m.
Seepages may occur within the fill and at the fill/natural soil, and natural soil/weathered rock interfaces
particularly following periods of rainfall.
The presence of the groundwater can vary with seasonal changes, ground slope angles, rainfall,
subsurface material, integrity of in-ground services, and the proximity to, type and density of vegetation.
5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The laboratory test results are attached as Appendix C to this report and are summarised in this section.
Disturbed samples were taken for Particle Size Distribution and Atterberg Limits testing (together known
as Quality of Materials). The results of the Quality of Materials tests are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 – Quality of Materials Test Results
Soil Fraction Liquid Plasticity Linear
Borehole Depth Material
Clay/Silt Sand Gravel Limit Index Shrinkage
Number (m) Classification
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.5 - Fill - Silty
BH1 80 20 -- 68 41 15.5
1.0 CLAY (CH)
Natural Sandy
5.5 - CLAY (CI)
BH1 68 32 -- 40 16 7.5
6.0 (Insitu HW
Granodiorite)
6.0 BATTER SUBSURFACE PROFILES
The batter subsurface profiles are described as follows for the cut and fill areas at the Site:
Cut batter – approximately 5.5m high and exposing extremely weathered granite rock with
engineering properties of a stiff clay of medium or high plasticity.
Fill batter – approximately 4.5m high comprising Controlled Fill sourced from the cuts within the
extremely weathered rock profile onsite. The fill materials are typically described as having
engineering properties of a stiff clay of high plasticity.
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
The estimated characteristic design strength parameters for the observed subsurface materials are
given in Table 4.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 10
-9-
Job No: ME21/032
Table 4 – Characteristic Strength Parameters for the Expected Subsurface Materials
Effective Strength Parameters1)
Batter Location Batter Subsurface Profile Density,
Cohesion, Friction
ɣ
c’ (kPa) Angle, ϕ’ (°)
(kN/m3)
5.5m high cut, Natural Stiff Clay of High
approximately 380 slope Plasticity (Extremely 19 5 30
angle Weathered Granite) 2)
Stiff Clay of High Plasticity
4.5m high fill batter,
Sourced from Cuts in the
approximately 350 slope 19 1 25
Extremely Weathered
angle
Granite
Notes:
1) The natural subsurface materials must be tested to confirm the parameters presented in this
Table are present onsite.
2) The natural stiff clay contains layers of sand based soils.
3) If other subsurface materials are encountered to those described in this report, this office
should be contacted and further advice sought.
8.0 GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The global slope stability analyses were performed using the characteristic strength parameters in Table
4 and the ground slope information in the section provided by the Client. The section and corresponding
plan provided by the Client are presented in Appendix E. Assessments have been carried out for a
groundwater level approximately 3m below the ground surface of the shed pad adjacent to the cut
batter. A ground surface surcharge of 10kPa has been applied over the ground surface of the shed pad
to simulate the loading of the shed. The global slope stability modelling was carried out using
commercial software SLOPE/W incorporating the Morgenstern Price analysis method.
A Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.5 has been targeted as the minimum requirement when assessing long
term stability of batters in accordance with generally accepted minimum industry standards.
The global stability analysis models of the cut and fill batters are presented in Appendix F, with the
results summarised in Table 5.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 11
- 10 -
Job No: ME21/032
Table 5 – Global Stability Analysis Results
Factor
Batter Subsurface of
Batter Location Figure Comments
Profile Safety
(FOS)
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS <1.5, not
Existing 5.5m high cut, High Plasticity acceptable for
1.32 1
approximately 380 slope angle (Extremely Weathered long term
Granite) stability
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS > 1.5,
5.5m high cut,
High Plasticity acceptable for
supported by 3m high retaining 1.65 1a
(Extremely Weathered long term
wall 1)
Granite) stability
Fill – Stiff Clay of High FOS > 1.5,
3m high, 2.5H:1V fill batter Plasticity Sourced from acceptable for
1.52 1b
behind retaining wall Cuts in the Extremely long term
Weathered Granite stability
Benched cut batter comprising
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS > 1.5,
4m high lower batter, and 3.5m
High Plasticity acceptable for
high upper batter both with 380 1.50 1c
(Extremely Weathered long term
slope angle, separated by a 2m
Granite) stability
wide bench
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS > 1.5,
4m high cut batter, High Plasticity acceptable for
1.51 1d
approximately 380 slope angle (Extremely Weathered long term
Granite) stability
Fill – Stiff Clay of High FOS <1.5, not
Existing 4.5m high fill batter, Plasticity Sourced from acceptable for
1.12 2
approximately 350 slope angle Cuts in the Extremely long term
Weathered Granite stability
Fill – Stiff Clay of High FOS > 1.5,
4.5m high fill batter, flattened to
Plasticity Sourced from acceptable for
2.5H:1V or 220 1.68 2a
Cuts in the Extremely long term
(Landslip located in fill)
Weathered Granite stability
4.5m high fill batter, flattened to
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS > 1.5,
2.5H:1V or 220
High Plasticity acceptable for
(Deep landslip located in natural 1.68 2b
(Extremely Weathered long term
soil/extremely weathered
Granite) stability
granite)
Natural – Stiff Clay of FOS > 1.5,
4.5m high fill batter, supported
High Plasticity acceptable for
by 3m high retaining wall with 1.55 2c
(Extremely Weathered long term
7m deep pile embedment 2)
Granite) stability
Notes:
1) A 3m high fill batter at an approximate angle of 220 (2.5H:1V) is located behind the crest of
the retaining wall.
2) A 1.5m high fill batter at an approximate angle of 150 is located behind the crest of the
retaining wall.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 12
- 11 -
Job No: ME21/032
The global stability analyses indicate that:
Cut Batter
The existing extremely weathered rock cut batter which is 5.5m high and cut an angle of
approximately 380 does not achieve a FOS of 1.5 and treatment is required
To achieve a FOS >1.5, the existing cut batter is required to be:
o Supported by a 3m high retaining wall (e.g ‘block’ type with steel reinforcement) with
controlled filling behind the retaining wall at no steeper than 2.5H:2V, and no higher
than 3m above the crest of the retaining wall; or
o Benched where the existing cut batter height exceeds 4m. The lower batter is to be no
higher than 4m and the upper batter is to be no higher than 3.5m. Both batters are to
be no steeper than 380 in slope angle, and are to be separated by a bench with a
minimum width of 2m.
Fill Batter
The existing fill batter comprising clay based soils of high plasticity, which is 4.5m high and
graded at an angle of approximately 350 does not achieve a FOS of 1.5 and treatment is
required
To achieve a FOS >1.5, the existing fill batter is required to be flattened to 2.5H:1V, or
supported by 3m high retaining wall with 7m deep pile embedment in the natural stiff clay of
high plasticity (‘extremely weathered granite’). Where a retaining wall is constructed, additional
filling will be required behind the retaining wall to create a slope no steeper than 150 and no
higher than 1.5m above the crest of the retaining wall.
The analysis information in this section is based on:
The ground models used in the assessments accurately reflecting the conditions at the batter
locations.
The recommendations presented in Section 9.0 being carried out onsite.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
To reduce the potential for future degradation, erosion and general instability, the attached Guidelines
for Hillside Construction (Appendix G) and the following recommendations must be carried out and
maintained:
Adequate erosion and sediment control must be installed prior to any further earthworks.
Further advice must be sought from a qualified and competent RPEQ engineer or Certified
Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control. At a minimum, surface drains must be installed
upslope of earthworks areas, and discharge in a manner which doesn’t increase the erosion,
sediment or slope instability risk either at the Site or adjacent to the Site.
Water must not enter the cut and fill batters or retaining wall areas, and all surface water must
be diverted behind the crest of the batters and retaining walls to a suitable discharge point, to
be approved by Council. Water run-off onto or over the batters is not allowed. It is noted that
the global stability modelling has been carried out assuming that no water infiltrates the batter
materials, and that the long term groundwater level will be well below the base of the batters
and retaining walls at all times and over the long term. In addition to suitable drainage behind
the batter and retaining wall crests, suitably designed drains must be installed at the toes of the
batters and retaining walls. Surface drains are to have a concrete liner or similar to as to reduce
erosion and seepage into and below the ground surface in these areas. All drains are to be
designed by a qualified and competent engineer.
Subsurface drainage must be provided behind any proposed retaining walls to prevent the
build-up of groundwater pressures, and must discharge by piped conduits well downslope of
the retaining wall areas.
Surface and subsurface drains must discharge in a manner which doesn’t increase the erosion,
sediment or slope instability risk either at the Site or adjacent to the Site.
All drainage systems are to be approved by Council.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 13
- 12 -
Job No: ME21/032
Any temporary cut batters in the natural clay (CH) (extremely weathered granite) must be no
steeper than 1H:1V, and no steeper than 1.5H:1V in the existing controlled fill. Care must be
taken to ensure that large cobbles and boulders within the extremely weathered rock profile
do not impact on the safety of persons on or off the Site, or roll down the slope. The
temporary batter angle adopted should be determined by an experienced qualified
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist following assessment and inspection of the
batters.
Unsupported permanent cuts are not anticipated. Information can be provided regarding
maximum permanent batter cut angles and heights where notified and required.
All cut and fill batters must be designed for the imposed loads from any adjacent or proposed
structures.
Depressions formed by the removal of vegetation, underground elements and any other
features, etc. should have all disturbed and weakened soil removed. All backfilling works
should be carried out in accordance with AS3798 – 2007 under ‘Level 1 Supervision’.
All additional fill must be placed in thin layers under ‘Level 1 Supervision’ in accordance with
AS3798– 2007 to form ‘Controlled Fill’. Each fill layer must be compacted to 95% Standard
Maximum Dry Density at Optimum Moisture Content +2% at Optimum Moisture Content +2%.
In areas of sloping ground steeper than 15% or 80, the fill must be ‘keyed’ or benched in to
the existing Controlled Fill, the natural stiff or stronger clay profile or extremely weathered
rock to limit the potential for fill instability and sliding down the hill slope. Fill batters and
slopes must not exceed the heights and slope angles stated in Table 5 of this report.
All temporary and permanent batters must be assessed by a competent, suitably qualified
engineer during earthworks operations.
Unless the soils at the Site have previously been tested as non-dispersive, consideration
should be given to either applying a gypsum material in to the upper 300mm soil profile, or
importing a non-dispersive clay capping material. Further testing would be required to
determine gyspum application rates. Suitable vegetation would then be required to be
established over the gypsum treated surface or over the non-dispersive soil capping layer.
A 10kPa surcharge has been allowed for in this assessment, acting behind the batter and
retaining wall crests to simulate the loading of the proposed shed. A reassessment will be
required where higher surcharge pressures are expected, and/or where surcharges are
expected in different areas to that shown on the global stability models presented in Appendix
F.
Batters must be no higher and no steeper than that described in Table 5. All cut and fill
batters must be checked onsite by a competent and suitably qualified geotechnical engineer
or enginreering geologist during construction.
All retaining wall footings must found to the minimum depth and in the foundation materials
described in Table 5. Refer to the global stability models attached as Appendix F for further
information.
o Additional retaining wall foundation embedment depth may be required to suit
structural engineering design and this should be checked by the designer.
Retaining wall and footing design must be suitably designed by a competent and qualified
structural engineer, and further geotechnical advice must be sought regarding the design
parameters prior to construction.
Retaining walls must be suitably designed to ensure that long term internal stability is
achieved and maintained. Internal stability issues such as overturning, sliding and base
capacity failure must be suitably addressed by the retaining wall designer. The retaining walls
must be designed with adequate and suitably designed drainage to limit the build-up of
groundwater pressures behind the walls. It is noted that the global stability assessments have
been run assuming no groundwater behind or in close proximity beneath the retaining walls or
batters for long term conditions. The retaining walls must also be designed for the imposed
loads from any adjacent or proposed structures. Excavations are not allowed adjacent to the
bases of the retaining walls so as to reduce the potential for undermining of the retaining wall
foundations.
The retaining wall must be structurally connected to the foundation and/or pile. The global
stability modelling assumes that the slip circle passes beneath the base of the pile within the
fill batter area. Structural connection design is the responsibility of the retaining wall
designer/structural engineer.
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 14
- 13 -
Job No: ME21/032
Suitable vegetation, plants must be maintained over the batter surfaces. Hydro-mulch or similar
may be considered in steep areas. A qualified and competent landscape consultant or
agronomist should be contacted for further information as required.
All permanent fill batters and any permanent cut batters (not anticipated) must be covered
with suitable vegetation as soon as possible after construction to reduce the potential for
surface scouring, erosion and any possible dispersion.
In areas where the geometry differs from that shown in the models (if encountered), further
assessment may be required. This office should be contacted if in any doubt.
Additional cut or fill earthworks, beyond those shown in the provided section and described in
this report, should not be carried out adjacent to the batter or retaining wall locations assessed
as additional earthworks will affect the global stability of the batters and retaining walls.
The batters and retaining walls must not be undermined. Excavations shall not be carried out
adjacent to the batter or retaining wall toes.
Irrigation of all slopes, other than to establish vegetation, must be restricted as excessive
watering on and behind the slopes can cause saturation, which can result in ground
instability.
If onsite effluent disposal systems are to be used further advice must be sought from a
consultant suitably qualified and competent in this area. Onsite effluent disposal may cause
dispersion and erosion of the soils and more weathered rock at the Site.
Any underground services connections should be flexible.
Underground services must be regularly assessed for leaks and repaired where necessary.
The proposed shed should be founded in a consistent subsurface profile (e.g residual hard
clays or weathered granite/granodiorite rock). Otherwise, suitable articulation should be
designed and constructed between portions of the shed founded in different subsurface profiles
(e.g combination of controlled fill and natural soils or weathered granite/granodiorite rock).
10.0 LIMITS OF GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
This Report has been prepared by Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd (Morrison Geotechnic), and may
include contributions from Morrison Geotechnic’s officers and employees, sub-contractors, sub-
consultants or agents (Contributors).
This Report is for the sole benefit and use of Mr Geoff Hussin (Client) and approved parties for the sole
purpose of providing geotechnical advice and recommendations in respect of the existing cut and fill
batters at 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain (Project). The Report is only intended to address those
issues expressly described in the scope of work in this Report.
This Report should not be used or relied upon for any other purpose without Morrison Geotechnic’s
prior written consent. Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors do not accept any responsibility or
liability in any way whatsoever for the use or reliance of this Report by anyone other than the Client or
by anyone for any purpose other than that for which it has been prepared.
Except with Morrison Geotechnic’s prior written consent, this Report may not be:
(a) released to any other party, whether in whole or in part (other than to the Client’s officers,
employees and advisers);
(b) used or relied upon by any other party; or
(c) filed with any Governmental agency or other person or quoted or referred to in any public
document.
Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors, do not accept any liability or responsibility whatsoever for,
or in respect of, any use or reliance upon this Report by any third party. Morrison Geotechnic is not
obliged to enter into discussions with any third party in respect of this Report.
The information (including technical information and information obtained through discussions) on
which this report is based has been provided by the Client and third parties. Morrison Geotechnic and
the Contributors:
(a) have relied upon and presumed the accuracy of this information;
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 15
- 14 -
Job No: ME21/032
(b) have not verified the accuracy or reliability of this information (other than as expressly stated in
this Report);
(c) have not made any independent investigations or enquiries in respect of those matters of which
it has no actual knowledge at the time of giving this Report to the Client; and
(d) make no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or reliability of this
information.
Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors do not accept responsibility or liability for any incorrect
assumptions related to this Report. For the avoidance of doubt, this Report:
(a) is based on information contained in the section and corresponding plan provided by the Client;
(b) cannot predict the ground conditions encountered at any untested location because the ground
conditions surrounding a test sampling location (or between any two test sampling locations)
may be different from the test samples we have obtained;
(c) is not an environmental, contamination or hazardous materials assessment; may be
invalid, incomplete or inaccurate (including errors in the scope of work, investigation
methodology, observations, opinions and advice) where the information provided to Morrison
Geotechnic was invalid, incomplete or inaccurate;
(d) is limited to observations of those parts of the site that were accessible at the time of the field
investigation and is not based on observations about areas of the site which were inaccessible
to the investigation equipment (including slopes, heavily vegetated areas or service corridors);
and
(e) is not a comprehensive representation of the actual site conditions and may only show a
reasonable interpretation of conditions encountered at discrete test locations along with general
site observations.
No warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made in respect of the geotechnical data,
information, advice, opinions and recommendations present in this Report. In recognition of the limited
use to be made by the Client of this Report, the Client agrees that, to the maximum extent permitted by
law, Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors shall not be liable for any losses, claims, costs,
expenses, damages (whether in statute, in contract or tort for negligence or otherwise) suffered or
incurred by the Client or any third party as a result of or in connection with the information, findings,
opinions, estimates, recommendations and conclusions provided in the course of this Report.
If further information becomes available, or additional assumptions need to be made, Morrison
Geotechnic reserves its right to amend this Report.
Yours faithfully, Reviewed by
R HOWCHIN M BALLARD (RPEQ 10223)
For and on behalf of
MORRISON GEOTECHNIC PTY LIMITED
Attached: Appendix A – Site Plan
Appendix B – Borehole Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Reports
Appendix D – Level 1 Certification Report
Appendix E – Provided Section and Plan
Appendix F – Global Stability Plots
Appendix G – Guidelines for Hillside Construction
Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report
Ref: 27222-rev 1 MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Mr Geoff Hussin
Page 16
APPENDIX A SITE PLAN [OCR of page images] APPENDIX A SITE PLAN
Page 17
To Tunba Court
(Image from Nearmap.com 2021) ©
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE
LOCATIONS
TITLE DRAWING NO.
SITE PLAN AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS ME21/032/SP01
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 1, 35 Limestone Street JOB LOCATION SCALE
(PO Box 3063), Darra Q 4076 36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN NOT TO SCALE
P (07) 3279 0900 F (07) 3279 0955
ABN 51 009 878 899 CLIENT DATE DRAWN SIZE
www.morrisongeo.com.au MR GEOFF HUSSIN 19/11/21 RT A4
Page 18
APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS [OCR of page images] el eee) BOREHOLE LOGS
Page 19
ENGINEERING LOG BOREHOLE NO. : BH1
JOB NO. : ME21/032
SHEET: 1 OF 1
EASTING : 496479.86 DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Australian Soil Investigations CLIENT : Geoff Hussin
NORTHING : 7077114.25 DRILLING RIG : Drillman GT10 PROJECT : Global Stability Assessment
ELEVATION : m (AHD) LOGGED BY : RT LOCATION : 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
TOTAL DEPTH : 6m CHECKED BY : RH DATE : 4/11/2021
DRILLING MATERIAL TEST SAMPLE
Fill Geological Unit
Cementation /
Sample / Test
Consistency /
Classification
Graphic Log
Weathering
Condition
Depth (m)
Moisture
Strength
Symbol
SA/TC Method
Casing
RL (m)
Water
Field Records /
DCP
Material Description Comments
CH FILL: Silty CLAY (CH) Very stiff, high plasticity, grey w~PL VSt 3
mottled red brown, with fine to medium grained sand,
3
trace fine sized gravel, moist. Disturbed
3 PP ~ 350kPa
Sample
3
2
CH FILL: Silty CLAY (CH) Hard, high plasticity, red mottled w~PL H 1
grey, with fine to medium grained sand, moist.
3
Disturbed PP ~ 430kPa
4
Sample
4
1 4
4
4
CH Sandy CLAY (CI) Hard, medium plasticity, yellow brown w<PL H Disturbed
Residual
5 U50 Sample taken at 1.20 - 1.46m
trace red, fine to coarse grained sand, friable, moist Sample
7 (PP > 600kPa)
(Tending to XW Rock).
11
4
2
4
16
2 10
8
11
11
Grano HW Granodiorite, VLS, recovered as: VLS HW
Rock
20
Sandy CLAY (CI) Hard, medium plasticity, yellow brown
trace red, fine to coarse grained sand, moist. Disturbed
Sample
3
Moisture content increasing at 3m
4
5
Disturbed
Sample
6 Borehole terminated at 6m
End of BH1 at 6m See Explanatory Notes for details of abbreviations & basis of descriptions
MORRISON STANDARD BOREHOLE LOG DRAFT LOGS.GPJ DATA TEMPLATE_NC.GDT 22.11.21
Page 20
ENGINEERING LOG BOREHOLE NO. : BH2
JOB NO. : ME21/032
SHEET: 1 OF 1
EASTING : 496486.87 DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Australian Soil Investigations CLIENT : Geoff Hussin
NORTHING : 7077125.88 DRILLING RIG : Drillman GT10 PROJECT : Global Stability Assessment
ELEVATION : m (AHD) LOGGED BY : RT LOCATION : 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
TOTAL DEPTH : 3m CHECKED BY : RH DATE : 4/11/2021
DRILLING MATERIAL TEST SAMPLE
Fill Geological Unit
Cementation /
Sample / Test
Consistency /
Classification
Graphic Log
Weathering
Condition
Depth (m)
Moisture
Strength
Symbol
SA/TC Method
Casing
RL (m)
Water
Field Records /
DCP
Material Description Comments
CH FILL: Gravelly CLAY (CH) Hard, high plasticity, orange w~PL H 3
mottled red brown, with fine sized gravel, moist.
3
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
1 4
4 U50 Sample taken at 1.0m -
1.22m (PP > 600kPa)
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
CH Sandy CLAY (CI) Hard, high plasticity, pale orange w~PL H
Residual
2 3
brown, with fine to coarse grained sand, moist (Tending
3
to XW-HW Rock).
7
4
4
4
4
4
7
20
3 Borehole terminated at 3.0m
End of BH2 at 3m
4
5
6
See Explanatory Notes for details of abbreviations & basis of descriptions
MORRISON STANDARD BOREHOLE LOG DRAFT LOGS.GPJ DATA TEMPLATE_NC.GDT 22.11.21
Page 21
ENGINEERING LOG BOREHOLE NO. : BH3
JOB NO. : ME21/032
SHEET: 1 OF 1
EASTING : 496479.34 DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Australian Soil Investigations CLIENT : Geoff Hussin
NORTHING : 7077131.56 DRILLING RIG : Drillman GT10 PROJECT : Global Stability Assessment
ELEVATION : m (AHD) LOGGED BY : RT LOCATION : 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
TOTAL DEPTH : 6m CHECKED BY : RH DATE : 4/11/2021
DRILLING MATERIAL TEST SAMPLE
Fill Geological Unit
Cementation /
Sample / Test
Consistency /
Classification
Graphic Log
Weathering
Condition
Depth (m)
Moisture
Strength
Symbol
SA/TC Method
Casing
RL (m)
Water
Field Records /
DCP
Material Description Comments
CH FILL: Silty CLAY (CH) Stiff, high plasticity, red mottled w~PL St
orange brown, with fine to coarse grained sand, trace fine
to coarse sized gravel, moist.
PP ~ 170kPa
1
Disturbed
Sample
2
3
4
CH Gravelly CLAY (CH) Hard, high plasticity, brown, fine to w<PL H Drill rig stand up at 4.0m
Residual
coarse sized gravel, moist (Tending to XW Rock).
5
Grano HW Granodiorite, VLS, recovered as: VLS HW
Rock
Gravelly CLAY (CH) Hard, high plasticity, brown, fine to
coarse sized gravel, dry (Fresh rock in a weathered rock
matrix).
Disturbed
Sample
6 Borehole terminated at 6.0m
End of BH3 at 6m See Explanatory Notes for details of abbreviations & basis of descriptions
MORRISON STANDARD BOREHOLE LOG DRAFT LOGS.GPJ DATA TEMPLATE_NC.GDT 22.11.21
Page 22
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 1, 35 Limestone Street (PO Box 3063), Darra Q 4076 P (07) 3279 0900
ABN 51 009 878 899
www.morrisongeo.com.au
SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
The description and classification of soils is carried out in accordance with Particle size distribution
AS1726 -2017 “Geotechnical Site Investigations” and is based on the Unified
Well graded – a good representation of all particle sizes.
Soil Classification System. A Behavioural approach has been adopted in this
standard when identifying, naming and classifying soil. Poorly graded – an excess or deficiency of one or more intermediate particle
sizes.
CLASSIFICATION GROUP Gap graded – an absence of one or more intermediate particle sizes.
Major Divisions Size (mm) Uniform – essentially of one particle size.
Boulders >200 Particle Shape
Cobbles 63 – 200 Equidimensional particles may be described as rounded, sub-rounded, sub-
(<35% clay/silt)
coarse 19 – 63 angular, or angular.
Grained
Coarse
Gravel medium 6.7 – 19 Two dimensional particles with third dimension small by comparison may be
fine 2.36 – 6.7 described as flaky or platy.
coarse 0.6 – 2.36 One dimensional particles with the other two dimensions small by comparison
Sand medium 0.21 – 0.6 may be described as elongated.
fine 0.075 – 0.21
Cementation
Silt 0.002 – 0.075 Soils or defects within soils may be cemented together by various substances.
Fine Grained
Clay <0.002 The following terms are used to describe cemented soils.
Clay/silt)
(>35%
- Weakly cemented – the soil may be easily disaggregated by hand in air
N/A – Peat and other or water
Peat
highly organic soils - Moderately cemented – effort is required to disaggregate the soil by
hand in air and water
MINOR/SECONDARY COMPONENT SOIL ORIGIN
Most natural soils are a mixture of basic soil types. The primary soil is
described and modified by secondary constituents as follows: Residual Soil Soil developed on extremely weathered rock
Aeolian Deposited by wind.
Coarse Grained Soils
% Alluvium Deposited by streams and rivers.
% Accessory Deposited on slopes (transported downslope by
Modifier Modifier Colluvium
Fines Coarse gravity).
Fraction
Lacustrine Deposited by lakes.
≤5 Add ‘trace clay/silt’ ≤ 15 Add ‘trace sand/gravel’
>5, ≤12 Add ‘with clay/silt’ >15, ≤30 Add ‘with sand/gravel Deposited in ocean basins, beaches and estuarine
Marine
Prefix soil name with Prefix soil name with (tidal river)
>12 >30
silty /clayey Sandy/gravelly Mantle of surface and/or near surface soil often but
Topsoil not always defined by high levels of organic material,
Fine Grained Soils both dead and living.
% Any material that has been placed by anthropogenic
Modifier Fill
Sand/gravel (human derived) processes
≤ 15 Use ‘trace’
>15, ≤30 Add ‘with sand/gravel
Prefix soil name with
TYPICAL REPRESENTATION AND TERMS
>30 Clean Well graded gravels and
Sandy/gravelly GW
Gravels gravel/sand mixtures
(Little or no Poorly graded gravels and
COHESIVE SOIL DESCRIPTION Fines) GP
GRAVEL gravel/sand mixtures
Plasticity Silty Gravels, gravel/sand/silt
GM
Range of Liquid Range of Liquid Gravel with mixtures
Descriptive term
Limit for SILT Limit for CLAY Fines Clayey Gravels,
GC
Low Plasticity ≤50% ≤35% gravel/sand/clay mixtures
Medium Plasticity Not applicable >35 and <50% Clean Well graded sands, gravelly
SW
High Plasticity >50% <50% Sands sands
(Little or no Poorly graded sands,
Fines) SP
Consistency gravelly/sand mixtures
SANDS
Indicative undrained Shear Strength (cu) SM Silty sands
Term Sands with
kPa Fines
Very Soft (VS) ≤12 SC Clayey Sands
Soft (S) >12 and ≤25 High plasticity inorganic silts,
MH
Firm (F) >25 and ≤50 silt mixtures
Stiff (St) >50 and ≤100 Liquid Limit High plasticity inorganic clays,
CH
Very Stiff (VSt) >100 and ≤200 >50% clay mixtures
Hard (H) >200 High plasticity organic clays
OH
and silts
SILTS
NON-COHESIVE SOIL DESCRIPTION Intermediate/medium plasticity
and CI
Liquid Limit inorganic clay
CLAYS
Relative Density >35% <50% Intermediate plasticity organic
OI
Term Density Index % silt/clay
Low plasticity inorganic clays,
Very loose (VL) ≤15 CL
Liquid Limit clay mixtures
Loose (L) >15 and <35%
≤35%
Medium Dense (MD) >35 and <65% OL Low plasticity organic clay/silts
Dense (D) >65 and <85%
Very Dense (VD) >85 HIGHLY Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Pt
ORGANIC with high organics
Page 23
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 1, 35 Limestone Street (PO Box 3063), Darra Q 4076 P (07) 3279 0900
ABN 51 009 878 899
www.morrisongeo.com.au
ROCK DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
CLASSIFICATION METHODS DEFECTS
Defects are fractures in the rock mass and include joints, faults, sheared
The rock classifications are broadly consistent with Australian Standard
planes, cleavages and bedding partings.
AS 1726, Geotechnical Site Investigation Code. Generally, rock is described by
the following: Types
J – Joint Cz – Crushed zone
Composition of rock material Rock name F – Fault Sz – Sheared zone
Grain size V – Vein Bz – Broken zone
Texture and fabric Fo – Foliation
Colour B – Bedding
Condition of Rock Material Strength
Weathering Defect descriptors
Rock Mass Properties Structure of rock
Roughness Planarity
Defects
Slickenside, visible evidence of Planar, no variation in
Slk Pl
striation orientation
STRENGTH Smooth, surface appears and
Point Load S Un Undulating, wavy surface
feel smooth
Term Symbol Index Is50 Field Guide Slightly rough, asperities on the
Stepped, well defined
(MPa) SR defect surface and St
steps present
Material crumbles under a firm blow with distinguishable and can be felt
sharp edge of pick; can be peeled with knife; Rough, some ridges and angle
Very >0.03 Irregular, many changes
VL too hard to cut a triaxial sample by hand. steps are evident, asperities Ir
Low ≤0.1 R in orientation
Pieces up to 3cm thick can be broken by are clearly visible and surface
figure pressure feels abrasive Aperture
Very Rough, near right angle o Open
Easily scored with a knife; indentations
VR steps and ridges occur on the
1mm-3mm show in the specimen with firm c Closed
defect surface
blow of the pick point; has dull sound under
Low L >0.1 ≤0.3 hammer. A piced of core 150mm long 50mm
diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp Type of Infilling Amount of Infilling
edges of core may be friable and break Cl Clay Cn Clean, no visible coating or infilling
during handling Surface stain, no visible coating or
Ca Calcite Su
Readily scored with a knife; a piece of core infilling but surfaces are discoloured
150mm long by 50mm diameter can be Veneer, a visible coating or infilling up to
Medium M >0.3 ≤1.0 Fe Iron Oxide Vn
broken by hand with difficulty rings under 1mm thick
hammer. Coating, visible coating or infilling up to
Qz Quartz Co
1mm thick
A piece of core 150mm long by 50mm Filled, coating or infilling greater than
diameter cannot be broken by hand but can CA Calcrete Fi
High H 1≤3 1mm thick with amount in millimetres
be broken by a pick with a single firm blow; Li Limonite
rock rings under hammer.
Si Silt Thick soil infilling to be described as seams
Very Hand specimen breaks with pick after more Uk Unknown
VH >3 ≤10
High than one blow; rock rings under hammer
Specimen requires many blows with TYPICAL ROCK TYPES
Extremely
EH >10 geological pick to break through intact Refer to AS1726 Table 15,16 and 17 for guide to naming of rocks.
High
material; rock rings under hammer
Conglomerate
WEATHERING Breccia
Designation Symbol Definition
Sandstone
Material is weathered to such Greywacke
Extremely Weathered XW an extent that is has soil Mudstone
properties. Siltstone
Highly
Rock strength usually changed Claystone
HW by weathering. The rock may
Sedimentary
Weathered Limestone
be highly discoloured, usually Shale
Distinctly
DW ironstaining. Porosity may be Dolomite
Weathered
Moderately increased by leaching or be
Weathered
MW
decreased due to deposition of
Shale
weathering products in pores Tuff
Rock is slightly discoloured but Chert
Slightly weathered SW shows little or no change of Coal
strength from fresh rock Gniess
Rock shows no sign of Marble
Fresh Rock FR
decomposition or staining Schist
Quartzite
TEXTURE AND FABRIC Metamorphic
Serpentinite
The texture and fabric of a rock specifically refers to the arrangement of the Phyllite
constituent grains or crystals in a rock.
Slate
Bedding Term Thickness
(mm) Hornfels
Granite
Extremely thickly bedded >6000
Diorite
Very thickly bedded 2000-6000 Gabbro
Thickly bedded 600-2000 Igneous Dolerite
Medium bedded 200-600 Rhyolite
Andesite
Thinly bedded 60-200
Basalt
Very thinly bedded 20-60
Laminated 6-20
Very Thinly Laminated <6
Page 24
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 1, 35 Limestone Street (PO Box 3063), Darra Q 4076 P (07) 3279 0900
ABN 51 009 878 899
www.morrisongeo.com.au
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Drilling methods
SA Solid Flight Auger
k Hydraulic Conductivity
HS Hollow Stem Auger
Mv Coefficient of Volume Compressibility
WB Wash Boring
Cɑ Coefficient of Secondary Compression
NMLC Triple tube rotary core drilling
Cc Compression Index
HA Hand Auger
Cv Coefficient of consolidation
PHA Hydraulic powered hand auger
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio
CPT Cone Penetrometer Testing
e Void Ratio
n Porosity
Drilling Bits and Attachments E Elastic Modulus
TC Tungsten Carbide bit
V V bit CBR California Bearing Ratio
RR Rock Roller (tricone) UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
BB Blade Bit Is(50) Point Load Strength Index
Excavation Attachments MDR Moisture Density Relationship
GP General Purpose toothed bucket DD Dry Density
Ba Batter Bucket WD Wet Density
TT Tiger Teeth MDD Maximum Dry Density
RB Hydraulic rock breaker OMC Optimum Moisture Content
ST Single Tine SDDR Standard (compactive effort) dry density ratio
DOS Degree of Saturation
Sampling and Testing APD Apparent Particle Density
SPT Standard Penetrometer Testing
Ys Characteristic Surface Movement
N SPT Blow Count
Iss Shrink/Swell Index
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing
Hs Depth of design soil suction change
SV Shear Vane Test
Ht Maximum drying depth close to a tree
U50 Undisturbed 50mm tube sample
D Disturbed Sample σ Total stress
W Water Sample σ' Effective stress
PP Pocket Penetrometer u Pore Water Pressure
Rec Length of sample recovered
R Refusal Foundation Design
RQD Rock Quality Designation qu Ultimate soil bearing capacity (shallow
PL Point Load Test foundations)
A Point Load Test (axial) qa Allowable soil bearing capacity (shallow
D Point Load Test (diametral) foundations)
L Point Load Test (irregular Lump) fs Ultimate shaft friction (piled foundations)
BH Borehole fb Ultimate base bearing pressure (piled
TP Test Pit foundations)
Rdg Ultimate geotechnical strength (Compression)
Water/Moisture Rug Ultimate geotechnical strength (Uplift)
D Dry ɸg Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor
M Moist f'c Design characteristic strength of concrete
W Wet
First noted depth of water ground water inflow Standards and Specifications
Steady Water Level AS Australian Standards
MRD Department of Transport and Main Roads
Soil Properties MRS Main Roads Specification
Cu Undrained Shear Strength MRTS Main Roads Technical Specification
C’ Effective Shear Stress ISO International Organization for
Φu Angle of friction – Undrained Standardization
Φ’ Angle of friction – Drained
Ɣ Unit Weight
Miscellaneous
Gs Specific Gravity
CTB Cement treated base
MC Moisture Content
RSS Reinforced soil structure
LL Liquid Limit
CFA Continuous flight auger
PL Plastic Limit
CH Chainage
PI Plasticity Index
WPI Weighted Plasticity Index
LS Linear Shrinkage
PSD Particle Size Distribution
Dn n% of particles smaller than specified diameter
Page 25
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST REPORTS [OCR of page images] APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST REPORTS
Page 26
Material Test Report
Report Number: ME21/032-1A
Issue Number: 1
Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd
Date Issued: 19/11/2021
ABN: 51 009 878 899
Client: GEOFF HUSSIN
Brisbane Laboratory
36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN QLD 4563 Unit 1, 35 Limestone Darra QLD 4076
Project Number: ME21/032 Phone: (07) 3279 0900
Project Name: GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT Email: [email protected]
Project Location: 36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Work Request: 14709
Sample Number: D21-14709A
Date Sampled: 04/11/2021
Dates Tested: 08/11/2021 - 18/11/2021 Approved Signatory: Rhys Mitchell
Sampling Method: AS 1289.1.2.1 6.5.3 - Power auger drilling Senior Technician
Sample Location: BH1 (0.50m - 1.00m) NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 1169
Material Source: Fill: Silty CLAY
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
Sieve Passed % Passing Retained % Retained
Limits Limits
0.075
0.425
Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
0.3
0.6
(mm)
4.75 mm 100 0 100
2.36 mm 100 0
90
1.18 mm 100 0
0.6 mm 98 1 80
0.425 mm 96 2
Percent Passing
70
0.3 mm 93 4
0.15 mm 85 7 60
0.075 mm 80 5
50
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.1 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max
40
Sample History Oven Dried
Preparation Method Dry Sieve 30
Liquid Limit (%) 68
20
Plastic Limit (%) 27
Plasticity Index (%) 41 10
Weighted Plasticity Index (%) 3941
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Particle Size (mm)
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.1
Linear Shrinkage (%) 15.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling Cracking & Curling
This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory.
Report Number: ME21/032-1A Results relate only to the items tested/sampled. Page 1 of 1
Page 27
Material Test Report
Report Number: ME21/032-1B
Issue Number: 2 - This version supersedes all previous issues
Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd
Reissue Reason: Material Amended
ABN: 51 009 878 899
Date Issued: 23/11/2021
Brisbane Laboratory
Client: GEOFF HUSSIN Unit 1, 35 Limestone Darra QLD 4076
36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN QLD 4563 Phone: (07) 3279 0900
Project Number: ME21/032 Email: [email protected]
Project Name: GLOBAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Location: 36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN
Work Request: 14709
Sample Number: D21-14709B
Date Sampled: 04/11/2021 Approved Signatory: Rhys Mitchell
Dates Tested: 08/11/2021 - 18/11/2021 Senior Technician
Sampling Method: AS 1289.1.2.1 6.5.3 - Power auger drilling NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 1169
Sample Location: BH1 (5.50m - 6.00m)
Material Source: Natural: Sandy CLAY
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles
Sieve Passed % Passing Retained % Retained
Limits Limits
0.075
0.425
Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
0.3
0.6
(mm)
4.75 mm 100 0 100
2.36 mm 100 0
90
1.18 mm 99 1
0.6 mm 97 3 80
0.425 mm 93 4
Percent Passing
70
0.3 mm 87 6
0.15 mm 77 11 60
0.075 mm 68 9
50
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.1 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max
40
Sample History Oven Dried
Preparation Method Dry Sieve 30
Liquid Limit (%) 40
20
Plastic Limit (%) 24
Plasticity Index (%) 16 10
Weighted Plasticity Index (%) 1485
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 100 200
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Particle Size (mm)
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.1
Linear Shrinkage (%) 7.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling Cracking & Curling
This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory.
Report Number: ME21/032-1B Results relate only to the items tested/sampled. Page 1 of 1
Page 28
APPENDIX D LEVEL 1 EARTHWORKS COMPLIANCE REPORT [OCR of page images] ee eee”) LEVEL 1 EARTHWORKS COMPLIANCE REPORT
Page 29
JOB NO: ML21/188 OCTOBER 2021 GEOFF HUSSIN LEVEL ONE EARTHWORKS COMPLIANCE REPORT EARTHWORKS FILLING OPERATIONS PROPOSED SHED 36 TUNBA COURT COOROY MOUNTAIN
Page 30
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Maroochydore
Unit 4, 81 Wises Road, Maroochydore Q 4558 Ph: 0499 601506
ABN 51 009 878 899
www.morrisongeo.com.au
Maroochydore Office
Job: ML21/188
Ref: 3332
Author: R.Osborne
28th October 2021
Geoff Hussin
36 Tunba Court
Cooroy Mountain QLD 4563
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir,
RE: LEVEL ONE EARTHWORKS COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR
EARTHWORKS FILLING OPERATIONS
PROPOSED SHED, 36 TUNBA COURT, COOROY MOUNTAIN.
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 General.................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Previous Earthworks ............................................................................................ 2
1.3 The Project............................................................................................................ 2
2.0 THE BRIEF............................................................................................................... 2
3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Stripped Surface Assessment............................................................................. 2
3.2 Filling Operations ................................................................................................. 3
4.0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................... 5
5.0 EXCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 5
6.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Test Certificates
Page 31
-2-
Job No: ML21/188
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This report summarises the results of Level 1 Inspections, field testing and associated compaction
compliance testing of earthworks filling operations carried out to form the foundation for the Proposed
shed, 36 Tunba court, Mount Cooroy (The Site).
Our involvement with the bulk earthworks filling operations at The Site was between 3rd August 2021
and 19th August 2021
The work was commissioned by Mr Geoff Hussin (The Client).
Earthworks were carried out by falcon earthmoving.
1.2 Previous Earthworks
As far as we have been made aware or what could be determined onsite, no previous earthworks have
been carried out at The Site prior to our involvement.
1.3 The Project
The site is bounded by rural properties to the north east south and west.
2.0 THE BRIEF
Our Brief from the Client was limited to:
• Level 1 Inspection and Testing of the placement and compaction of bulk earthworks fill materials
in accordance with AS3798-2007 – “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments”.
• Compaction Control Testing in accordance with AS1289 – Testing of Soils for Engineering
Purposes and at frequencies defined in AS3798-2007 Table 8.1.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Earthworks supervision, assessment and testing was carried out on the stripped and exposed ground
surfaces and during the placement and compaction of fill materials forming residential building
platforms.
Field and laboratory testing included a walk over assessment of the existing ground conditions, proof
roll testing of the stripped surfaces, observations of filling and compaction activities and compaction
testing.
All work was carried out in accordance with AS 3798 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and
Residential Developments) and AS1289 (Testing of Soils for Engineering Purposes).
3.1 Stripped Surface Assessment
The Site was observed to be cleared of all debris, trees and topsoil. Any visible organic matter, loose
soils, silty soils, and any over wet areas were compacted or removed to depths exposing a suitable
foundation.
Typical materials forming the foundation for new fill are broadly summarised below:
• Silty Sandy Clay (CI), medium plasticity, brown, stiff, moist
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 32
-3-
Job No: ML21/188
Photo 1 – Stripped Surface
3.2 Filling Operations
Fill materials were sourced onsite and typically comprised:
• Sandy Clay (CI), medium plasticity, orange, moist
• Silty Sandy Clay (CI), medium plasticity, orange - red, moist
Placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill materials were carried out using the following
plant:
• Compactor • Posi Track
• Excavator
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 33
-4-
Job No: ML21/188
Photos 2 and 3 – View of Filling Operations
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 34
-5-
Job No: ML21/188
All fill was observed to be placed in thin layers appropriate for the above plant carrying out several
passes (up and back). The fill was moisture conditioned during placement and thoroughly mixed to
achieve moisture contents suitable for compaction. Materials containing excessive amounts of silts or
deleterious materials such as sticks, or construction debris were sorted to remove contaminants prior
to placement or rejected for use.
Sloping areas requiring filling were benched and continually keyed into the slope prior to and during
placement. Some oversize particles may remain in the fill profile however are not considered to have
any consequence on the performance of the fill as a mass. This method of placement and compaction
was observed to be consistent for the entire thickness of fill.
Compaction Testing was carried out on the bulk earthworks fill materials in accordance with Table 5.1
and 8.1 of AS3798-2007 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments),
General Notes on Bulk Earthworks Plans and tested to AS1289 test methods (Testing of Soils for
Engineering Purposes). Testing achieved the required specification of 95% of the Hilf Density.
Fill placed and compacted at measured density ratios less than 95% were tyned, moisture conditioned
and re-compacted until the required specification was achieved. Retesting (if required) was carried out
using Random Stratified locations within the reworked areas.
Test reports are attached as Appendix A.
Test locations and levels were not obtained by survey and are therefore should only be considered as
approximate.
4.0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Our representative observed all the relevant earthworks operations including the stripped surfaces,
filling operations and carried out compaction tests in accordance with the required standard. It is
confirmed that Level 1 Supervision in accordance with AS3798-2007 has been carried out on the bulk
earthworks for this project.
The fill and the top 150mm of the existing ground at The Site can be classed as Controlled as defined
in AS2870 (Residential Slabs and Footings).
Controlled Fill (Level 1) provides an overview that the earthworks specification has been met. There
are sites where long-term settlements of controlled fill can occur. Large total and differential settlements
can be expected where fill has been placed over soft and compressible soils and where the thickness
of controlled fill varies significantly.
5.0 EXCLUSIONS
This statement does not include any topsoil, which may be placed for use as lot dressing or any other
subsequent earthworks or trench backfill after 19th August 2021.
Our on-site attendance specifically excludes assessments of fill material quality and engineering
properties that are outside the requirements of AS3798-2007, including material quality such as soaked
CBR, site classifications and batter stability. The reactivity of this site to moisture content changes has
not been assessed by this commission. This aspect of the geotechnical characterisation of the site
should be checked by the design consultants.
Footings and ground slabs for any structures constructed over natural soils or compacted fill should be
designed to accommodate the characteristic ground surface movements and settlement potential.
Assessments of these design parameters are beyond the scope of this Report.
This report is not to be relied upon for settlement analysis and soft soils engineering advice. This is
beyond the scope of this report and outside our engagement.
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 35
-6-
Job No: ML21/188
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This Report has been prepared by Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd (Morrison Geotechnic), and may
include contributions from Morrison Geotechnic’s officers and employees, sub-contractors, sub-
consultants or agents (Contributors).
This Report is for the sole benefit and use of Geoff Hussin (Client) for the sole purpose of providing
geotechnical advice and recommendations in respect of the foundation for the Proposed shed, 36
Tunba Court, Mount Cooroy (The Site). The Report is only intended to address those issues expressly
described in the scope of work in the Proposal Letter and this Report.
This Report should not be used or relied upon for any other purpose without Morrison Geotechnic’s
prior written consent. Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors do not accept any responsibility or
liability in any way whatsoever for the use or reliance of this Report by anyone other than the Client or
by anyone for any purpose other than that for which it has been prepared.
Except with Morrison Geotechnic’s prior written consent, this report may not be:
(a) released to any other party, whether in whole or in part (other than to the Client’s officers,
employees and advisers);
(b) used or relied upon by any other party; or
(c) filed with any Governmental agency or other person or quoted or referred to in any public
document.
Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors, do not accept any liability or responsibility whatsoever for,
or in respect of, any use or reliance upon this Report by any third party. Morrison Geotechnic is not
obliged to enter into discussions with any third party in respect of this Report.
The information (including technical information and information obtained through discussions) on
which this report is based has been provided by the Client and third parties. Morrison Geotechnic and
the Contributors:
(a) have relied upon and presumed the accuracy of this information;
(b) have not verified the accuracy or reliability of this information (other than as expressly stated
in this Report);
(c) have not made any independent investigations or enquiries in respect of those matters of which
it has no actual knowledge at the time of giving this Report to the Client; and
(d) make no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or reliability of this
information.
Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors do not accept responsibility or liability for any incorrect
assumptions related to this Report. For the avoidance of doubt, this Report:
(a) cannot predict the ground conditions encountered at any untested location because the ground
conditions surrounding a test sampling location (or between any two test sampling locations)
may be different from the test samples we have obtained;
(b) is not an environmental, contamination or hazardous materials assessment; may be
invalid, incomplete or inaccurate (including errors in the scope of work, investigation
methodology, observations, opinions and advice) where the information provided to Morrison
Geotechnic was invalid, incomplete or inaccurate;
(c) is limited to observations of those parts of the site that were accessible at the time of the field
investigation and is not based on observations about areas of the site which were inaccessible
to the investigation equipment (including slopes, heavily vegetated areas or service corridors);
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 36
-7-
Job No: ML21/188
(d) is not a comprehensive representation of the actual site conditions and may only show a
reasonable interpretation of conditions encountered at discrete test locations along with general
site observations
No warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made in respect of the geotechnical data,
information, advice, opinions and recommendations present in this Report. In recognition of the limited
use to be made by the Client of this Report, the Client agrees that, to the maximum extent permitted by
law, Morrison Geotechnic and the Contributors shall not be liable for any losses, claims, costs,
expenses, damages (whether in statute, in contract or tort for negligence or otherwise) suffered or
incurred by the Client or any third party as a result of or in connection with the information, findings,
opinions, estimates, recommendations and conclusions provided in the course of this Report. If further
information becomes available, or additional assumptions need to be made, Morrison Geotechnic
reserves its right to amend this Report.
Should you require any further information regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Yours faithfully,
Reported by: Reviewed by:
RYAN OSBORNE GINA FLETT
For and on Behalf of For and on Behalf of
MORRISON GEOTECHNIC PTY LIMITED MORRISON GEOTECHNIC PTY LIMITED
Encl.
Appendix A - Test Certificates
3332 – Geoff Hussin MORRISON GEOTECHNIC
Tunba Court - Cooroy Mtn
Page 37
APPENDIX A Test Certificates [OCR of page images] APPENDIX A Test Certificates
Page 38
01234516ÿ8392ÿ3 42
3 42ÿ34 0
993ÿ34 6%22+*%,ÿ#$%3$WC,+Wÿ?35ÿ83A
123ÿ993 L[]^ÿ;ÿ Mÿ H ÿ MM
!653"2 #$%&&ÿ()**+, 602%%WC5A%2$ÿ80/%203%25
-ÿÿ.),/0ÿ1%)234ÿ1%%2%5ÿ6%),3+0,ÿ789ÿ:;- _,+3ÿ:ÿ ÿ ÿ̀ +*$*ÿa%0Aÿ602%%WC5A%2$ÿ789ÿ:;;
! "21<2 #$%&&ÿ()**+, ?C%,$^ÿO HPÿ;:: ÿM;
=4>3<2ÿ34 68 bQ0+R^ÿ2%*/%2,$cQS$%NW%QN0)
=4>3<2ÿ13 ?2%@%*$AÿBC$Aÿ?0AÿDÿ.),/0ÿ1%)23 LWW2$A+3$Aÿ&%2ÿW%Q@R+0,W$ÿT+3CÿdB\ db1ÿH ;ÿDÿ.$*3+,S
=4>3<2ÿ <125" -ÿ.),/0ÿ1%)234ÿ1%%2%5ÿ6%),30+,
E 4Fÿ3G392 : H
123ÿI1 63 :
1239ÿ83923 : ÿDÿ L@@2%V$AÿB+S,03%25^a50,ÿ\*/%2,$
I1 65"Jÿ032K LBÿ MNNNÿ-N:ÿO/PÿDÿB0Q@R+,Sÿ&2%QÿR05$2*ÿ+,ÿ$023CT%2U*ÿ%2 B$,+%2ÿ.$WC,+W+0,
@0V$Q$,3ÿDÿW%Q@0W3$A ]L.LÿLWW2$A+3$Aÿ80/%203%25ÿ])Q/$2^ÿ-M
I 3<5X5<125" M;YÿB.9
I523ÿI363<25" B$R$W3$Aÿ/5ÿ#.L
<125" Z+RR
01234516 B0,A5ÿ1R05Nÿ[2%T,
01234516ÿI 4<3 \,*+3$
1%Q@0W3+%,ÿ1%,32%RÿLBÿ Mÿ;NNÿeÿ;N:Nÿeÿ;N NÿeÿNN
B0Q@R$ÿ])Q/$2 6 D: H L
.$*3ÿ])Q/$2
903$ÿ.$*3$A :
.+Q$ÿ.$*3$A ff
.$*3ÿa$g)$*3ÿh 8%W03+%, BC$Aÿ?0A
bR$V03+%,ÿOQP D N;QÿZ 8
805$2ÿ ÿa$A)W$Aÿ8$V$R Z+RR
.C+WU,$**ÿ%&ÿ805$2ÿOQQP
B%+Rÿ9$*W2+@3+%, B0,A5ÿ1R05Nÿ[2%T,
.$*3ÿ9$@3CÿOQQP ;
Z20W3+%,ÿ.$*3$AÿOQQP MN
\V$2*+i$ÿOT$3ÿ/0*+*PÿY ff
\V$2*+i$ÿOA25ÿ/0*+*PÿY ff
1)2+,Sÿ(%)2* N
6$3C%Aÿ)*$Aÿ3%ÿ9$3$2 Q+,$ÿ?R0*3+W+35 ff
Z+$RAÿ̀ $3ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q NH
Z+$RAÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$, 3ÿY N:
Z+$RAÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q N;
60j+Q)Qÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q N;
LAk)*3$Aÿ60j+Q)Qÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q ff
\@3+Q)Qÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$,3ÿO\61PÿY :N;
LA k)*3$ÿYAÿ\@3+Q)Qÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$,3
O\61P ff
6%+*3)2$ÿl02+03+%,ÿY N
6%+*3)2$ÿa03+%ÿY ;N;
9$,*+35ÿa03+%ÿY mnon
1%Q@0W3+%,ÿ6$3C%A I21"14
0 59243ÿp145125"ÿ 23
ÿÿÿ?%*+3+V$ÿV0R)$*ÿqÿ3$*3ÿ+*ÿA25ÿ%&ÿ\61
ÿÿÿ]$S03+V$ÿV0R)$*ÿqÿ3$*3ÿ+*ÿT$3ÿ%&ÿ\61
a$@%23ÿ])Q/$2^ÿ68 D rstuÿwxyz{|}~ÿusÿ}x~ÿ|ÿ|xwzy|wÿ|y|~ÿt}ÿzÿt~sxz~ÿxÿxÿ~s|ÿx~x
|uz~uÿ|~|ÿx}ÿ~xÿ~s|ÿt~|{uÿ~|u~|wu{|w ?0S$ÿÿ%&
[OCR of page images]
Material Test Report MA WorRRISON
GEOTECHNIC
Report Number: ML21/188-1 .
Issue Number: 1 Brisbane | Gold Coast | Sunshine Coast
Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd
Date Issued: 30/08/2021 ABN: 51 009 878 899
Client: Geoff Hussin Maroochydore Laboratory
36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountian QLD 4563 Unit 4 / 81 Wises Road Maroochydore QLD 4558
Contact: Geoff Hussin Phone: (07) 5443 9522
Project Number: ML21/188 Email: [email protected]
Project Name: Proposed Shed Pad - Tunba Court Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Location: 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
Work Request: 4273 NATA Aelia.
Date Sampled: 04/08/2021 .
Dates Tested: 04/08/2021 - 20/08/2021 Approved Signatory: Ryan Osborne
Sampling Method: AS 1289.1.2.1 6.4 (b) - Sampling from layers in earthworks or AccREDITATION Senior Technician
pavement - compacted NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 1169
Specification: 95% STD
Site Selection: Selected by GTA
Location: Fill
Material: Sandy Clay. Brown
Material Source: Onsite
1289 5.1.1 & 5.4.1 & 5.
Sample Number M21-4273A
Test Number 1
Date Tested 04/08/2021
Time Tested ™
Test Request #/Location Shed Pad
Elevation (m) -0.5m F/L
Layer / Reduced Level Fill
Thickness of Layer (mm) 200
Soil Description Sandy Clay. Brown
Test Depth (mm) 150
Fraction Tested (mm) 19.0
Oversize (wet basis) % ™
Oversize (dry basis) % *
Curing Hours 2.0
Method used to Determine Plasticity *
Field Wet Density t/m® 1.70
Field Moisture Content % 12.4
Field Dry Density t/m® 1.51
Maximum Dry Density tim? 1.58
Adjusted Maximum Dry Density tim? “
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) % 14.5
Adjusted Optimum Moisture Content ™
(OMC) %
Moisture Variation % 2.0
Moisture Ratio % 85.5
Density Ratio % 95.5
Compaction Method Standard
Moisture Variation Note:
Positive values = test is dry of OMC
Negative values = test is wet of OMC.
Report Number: ML21/188-1 Tis document shal nt be reproduced oxcptin i witht approval of to laboratory Page 1 of 1
Page 39
01234516ÿ8392ÿ3 42
3 42ÿ34 0
993ÿ34 6%22+*%,ÿ#$%3$WC,+Wÿ?35ÿ83A
123ÿ993 L[]^ÿ;ÿ Mÿ H ÿ MM
!653"2 #$%&&ÿ()**+, 602%%WC5A%2$ÿ80/%203%25
-ÿÿ.),/0ÿ1%)234ÿ1%%2%5ÿ6%),3+0,ÿ789ÿ:;- _,+3ÿ:ÿ ÿ ÿ̀ +*$*ÿa%0Aÿ602%%WC5A%2$ÿ789ÿ:;;
! "21<2 #$%&&ÿ()**+, ?C%,$^ÿO HPÿ;:: ÿM;
=4>3<2ÿ34 68 bQ0+R^ÿ2%*/%2,$cQS$%NW%QN0)
=4>3<2ÿ13 ?2%@%*$AÿBC$Aÿ?0AÿDÿ.),/0ÿ1%)23 LWW2$A+3$Aÿ&%2ÿW%Q@R+0,W$ÿT+3CÿdB\ db1ÿH ;ÿDÿ.$*3+,S
=4>3<2ÿ <125" -ÿ.),/0ÿ1%)234ÿ1%%2%5ÿ6%),30+,
E 4Fÿ3G392 : H:
123ÿI1 63 ;
1239ÿ83923 ; ÿDÿ L@@2%V$AÿB+S,03%25^a50,ÿ\*/%2,$
I1 65"Jÿ032K LBÿ MNNNÿ-N:ÿO/PÿDÿB0Q@R+,Sÿ&2%QÿR05$2*ÿ+,ÿ$023CT%2U*ÿ%2 B$,+%2ÿ.$WC,+W+0,
@0V$Q$,3ÿDÿW%Q@0W3$A ]L.LÿLWW2$A+3$Aÿ80/%203%25ÿ])Q/$2^ÿ-M
I 3<5X5<125" M;YÿB.9
I523ÿI363<25" B$R$W3$Aÿ/5ÿ#.L
<125" Z+RR
01234516 B0,A5ÿ1R05Nÿ[2%T,
01234516ÿI 4<3 \,*+3$
1%Q@0W3+%,ÿ1%,32%RÿLBÿ Mÿ;NNÿeÿ;N:Nÿeÿ;N NÿeÿNN
B0Q@R$ÿ])Q/$2 6 D: H:L
.$*3ÿ])Q/$2
903$ÿ.$*3$A ;
.+Q$ÿ.$*3$A ;^
.$*3ÿa$f)$*3ÿg 8%W03+%, BC$Aÿ?0A
bR$V03+%,ÿOQP D N;QÿZ 8
805$2ÿ ÿa$A)W$Aÿ8$V$R Z+RR
.C+WU,$**ÿ%&ÿ805$2ÿOQQP
B%+Rÿ9$*W2+@3+%, B0,A5ÿ1R05Nÿ[2%T,
.$*3ÿ9$@3CÿOQQP ;
Z20W3+%,ÿ.$*3$AÿOQQP MN
\V$2*+h$ÿOT$3ÿ/0*+*PÿY ii
\V$2*+h$ÿOA25ÿ/0*+*PÿY ii
1)2+,Sÿ(%)2* N
6$3C%Aÿ)*$Aÿ3%ÿ9$3$2 Q+,$ÿ?R0*3+W+35 ii
Z+$RAÿ̀ $3ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q N -
Z+$RAÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$, 3ÿY N;
Z+$RAÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q N--
60j+Q)Qÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q N-M
LAk)*3$Aÿ60j+Q)Qÿ925ÿ9$,*+35ÿ3 Q ii
\@3+Q)Qÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$,3ÿO\61PÿY :N;
LA k)*3$ÿYAÿ\@3+Q)Qÿ6%+*3)2$ÿ1%,3$,3
O\61P ii
6%+*3)2$ÿl02+03+%,ÿY N
6%+*3)2$ÿa03+%ÿY HN;
9$,*+35ÿa03+%ÿY mno
1%Q@0W3+%,ÿ6$3C%A I21"14
0 59243ÿp145125"ÿ 23
ÿÿÿ?%*+3+V$ÿV0R)$*ÿqÿ3$*3ÿ+*ÿA25ÿ%&ÿ\61
ÿÿÿ]$S03+V$ÿV0R)$*ÿqÿ3$*3ÿ+*ÿT$3ÿ%&ÿ\61
a$@%23ÿ])Q/$2^ÿ68 D rstuÿwxyz{|}~ÿusÿ}x~ÿ|ÿ|xwzy|wÿ|y|~ÿt}ÿzÿt~sxz~ÿxÿxÿ~s|ÿx~x
|uz~uÿ|~|ÿx}ÿ~xÿ~s|ÿt~|{uÿ~|u~|wu{|w ?0S$ÿÿ%&
[OCR of page images]
Material Test Report MA WorRRISON
GEOTECHNIC
Report Number: ML21/188-2 .
Issue Number: 1 Brisbane | Gold Coast | Sunshine Coast
Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd
Date Issued: 30/08/2021 ABN: 51 009 878 899
Client: Geoff Hussin Maroochydore Laboratory
36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountian QLD 4563 Unit 4 / 81 Wises Road Maroochydore QLD 4558
Contact: Geoff Hussin Phone: (07) 5443 9522
Project Number: ML21/188 Email: [email protected]
Project Name: Proposed Shed Pad - Tunba Court Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Project Location: 36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
Work Request: 4274 NATA Aelia.
Date Sampled: 05/08/2021 .
Dates Tested: 05/08/2021 - 20/08/2021 Approved Signatory: Ryan Osborne
Sampling Method: AS 1289.1.2.1 6.4 (b) - Sampling from layers in earthworks or AccREDITATION Senior Technician
pavement - compacted NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 1169
Specification: 95% STD
Site Selection: Selected by GTA
Location: Fill
Material: Sandy Clay. Brown
Material Source: Onsite
1289 5.1.1 & 5.4.1 & 5.
Sample Number M21-4274A
Test Number 2
Date Tested 05/08/2021
Time Tested 15:00
Test Request #/Location Shed Pad
Elevation (m) -0.25m F/L
Layer / Reduced Level Fill
Thickness of Layer (mm) 200
Soil Description Sandy Clay. Brown
Test Depth (mm) 150
Fraction Tested (mm) 19.0
Oversize (wet basis) % ™
Oversize (dry basis) % *
Curing Hours 2.0
Method used to Determine Plasticity *
Field Wet Density t/m® 1.86
Field Moisture Content % 12.5
Field Dry Density t/m® 1.66
Maximum Dry Density tim? 1.69
Adjusted Maximum Dry Density tim? “
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) % 14.5
Adjusted Optimum Moisture Content ™
(OMC) %
Moisture Variation % 2.0
Moisture Ratio % 87.5
Density Ratio % 98.0
Compaction Method Standard
Moisture Variation Note:
Positive values = test is dry of OMC
Negative values = test is wet of OMC.
Report Number: ML21/188-2 Tis document shal nt be reproduced oxcptin i witht approval of to laboratory Page 1 of 1
Page 40
01234516ÿ8392ÿ3 42
3 42ÿ34 0
993ÿ34 7&33,+&-ÿ$%&4%XD-,Xÿ@46ÿ94B
123ÿ993 ! ! N\^_ÿ<ÿ KÿI ÿKK
"653#2 $%&''ÿ)*++,- 713&&XD6B&3%ÿ910&314&36
.ÿÿ/*-01ÿ2&*345ÿ2&&3&6ÿ7&*-4,1-ÿ89:ÿ;<. `-,4ÿ;ÿ ÿÿa,+%+ÿb&1Bÿ713&&XD6B&3%ÿ89:ÿ;<<
" #21=2 $%&''ÿ)*++,- @D&-%_ÿP IQÿ<;; ÿK<!!
>4?3=2ÿ34 79! cR1,S_ÿ3&+0&3-%dRT%&OX&RO1*
>4?3=2ÿ13 @3&A&+%BÿCD%Bÿ@1BÿEÿ/*-01ÿ2&*34 NXX3%B,4%Bÿ'&3ÿX&RAS,1-X%ÿU,4DÿeC] ec2ÿI !<ÿEÿ/%+4,-T
>4?3=2ÿ =125# .ÿ/*-01ÿ2&*345ÿ2&&3&6ÿ7&*-41,-
F 4Gÿ3H392 ;!I<
123ÿJ1 63 K ! !
1239ÿ83923 K ! !ÿEÿ! ! ! NAA3&W%BÿC,T-14&36_b61-ÿ]+0&3-%
J1 65#Lÿ032M NCÿ! KOO!Oÿ.O;ÿP0QÿEÿC1RAS,-Tÿ'3&RÿS16%3+ÿ,-ÿ%134DU&3V+ÿ&3 C%-,&3ÿ/%XD-,X,1-
A1W%R%-4ÿEÿX&RA1X4%B ^N/NÿNXX3%B,4%Bÿ910&314&36ÿ^*R0%3_ÿ.K
J 3=5Y5=125# K<ZÿC/:
J523ÿJ363=25# C%S%X4%Bÿ06ÿ$/N
=125# [,SS
01234516 C1-B6ÿ2S16Oÿ\3&U-
01234516ÿJ 4=3 ]-+,4%
2&RA1X4,&-ÿ2&-43&SÿNCÿ! Kÿ<OOÿfÿ<O;Oÿfÿ<OOÿfÿ!OO
C1RAS%ÿ^*R0%3 7!E;!I<N 7!E;!I<\
/%+4ÿ^*R0%3 ;
:14%ÿ/%+4%B K ! ! K ! !
/,R%ÿ/%+4%B <_ <_ <
/%+4ÿb%g*%+4ÿh 9&X14,&- CD%Bÿ@1B CD%Bÿ@1B
cS%W14,&-ÿPRQ [ 9 [ 9
916%3ÿ ÿb%B*X%Bÿ9%W%S [,SS [,SS
/D,XV-%++ÿ&'ÿ916%3ÿPRRQ ! !
C&,Sÿ:%+X3,A4,&- C1-B6ÿ2S16Oÿ\3&U- C1-B6ÿ2S16Oÿ\3&U-
/%+4ÿ:%A4DÿPRRQ < <
[31X4,&-ÿ/%+4%BÿPRRQ KO KO
]W%3+,i%ÿPU%4ÿ01+,+QÿZ jj jj
]W%3+,i%ÿPB36ÿ01+,+QÿZ jj jj
2*3,-Tÿ)&*3+ !O !O
7%4D&Bÿ*+%Bÿ4&ÿ:%4%3 R,-%ÿ@S1+4,X,46 jj jj
[,%SBÿa%4ÿ:%-+,46ÿ4 R OKK OK
[,%SBÿ7&,+4*3%ÿ2&-4%- 4ÿZ ;O ;O
[,%SBÿ:36ÿ:%-+,46ÿ4 R OI; OI;
71k,R*Rÿ:36ÿ:%-+,46ÿ4 R OI< OI.
NBl*+4%Bÿ71k,R*Rÿ:36ÿ:%-+,46ÿ4 R jj jj
]A4,R*Rÿ7&,+4*3%ÿ2&-4%-4ÿP]72QÿZ .O< .O<
NB l*+4%ÿZBÿ]A4,R*Rÿ7&,+4*3%ÿ2&-4%-4
P]72Q jj jj
7&,+4*3%ÿm13,14,&-ÿZ !O !O
7&,+4*3%ÿb14,&ÿZ IO .O<
:%-+,46ÿb14,&ÿZ nnop nop
2&RA1X4,&-ÿ7%4D&B J21# 14 J21# 14
0 59243ÿq145125#ÿ 23
ÿÿÿ@&+,4,W%ÿW1S*%+ÿrÿ4%+4ÿ,+ÿB36ÿ&'ÿ]72
ÿÿÿ^%T14,W%ÿW1S*%+ÿrÿ4%+4ÿ,+ÿU%4ÿ&'ÿ]72
b%A&34ÿ^*R0%3_ÿ79! E stuvÿxyz{|}~ÿvtÿ~yÿ}ÿ}yx{z}xÿ}z}ÿu~ÿ{ÿuty{ÿyÿyÿt}ÿyy
}v{vÿ}}ÿy~ÿyÿt}ÿu}|vÿ}v}xv|}x @1T%ÿÿ&'
[OCR of page images]
Material Test Report
Report Number:
Issue Number:
Date Issued:
Client:
Contact:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Work Request:
Date Sampled:
Dates Tested:
Sampling Method:
Specification:
Site Selection:
Location:
Material:
Material Source:
MA WorRRISON
GEOTECHNIC
ML21/188-3 .
Brisbane | Gold Coast | Sunshine Coast
1 Morrison Geotechnic Pty Ltd
30/08/2021 ABN: 51 009 878 899
Geoff Hussin Maroochydore Laboratory
36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountian QLD 4563 Unit 4 / 81 Wises Road Maroochydore QLD 4558
Geoff Hussin Phone: (07) 5443 9522
ML21/188 Email: [email protected]
Proposed Shed Pad - Tunba Court Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
36 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain
190 Nata lone
19/08/2021 .
19/08/2021 - 20/08/2021
WORLD RECOGNISED
AS 1289.1.2.1 6.4 (b) - Sampling from layers in earthworks or ACCREDITATION
pavement - compacted
95% STD
Selected by GTA
Fill
Sandy Clay. Brown
Onsite
Approved Signatory: Ryan Osborne
Senior Technician
NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 1169
1289 5.1.1 & 5.4.1 & 5.
Sample Number M21-4275A M21-4275B
Test Number 3 4
Date Tested 19/08/2021 19/08/2021
Time Tested 15:00 15:05
Test Request #/Location Shed Pad Shed Pad
Elevation (m) FIL FIL
Layer / Reduced Level Fill Fill
Thickness of Layer (mm) 200 200
Soil Description Sandy Clay. Brown Sandy Clay. Brown
Test Depth (mm) 150 150
Fraction Tested (mm) 19.0 19.0
Oversize (wet basis) % ™ *
Oversize (dry basis) % * *
Curing Hours 2.0 2.0
Method used to Determine Plasticity * *
Field Wet Density t/m® 1.99 1.98
Field Moisture Content % 14.3 14.1
Field Dry Density tim? 1.74 1.74
Maximum Dry Density tim? 1.75 1.76
Adjusted Maximum Dry Density tim? “ *
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) % 16.5 16.5
Adjusted Optimum Moisture Content ”* ”
(OMC) %
Moisture Variation % 2.0 2.0
Moisture Ratio % 87.0 86.5
Density Ratio % 99.5 98.5
Compaction Method Standard Standard
Moisture Variation Note:
Positive values = test is dry of OMC
Negative values = test is wet of OMC.
Report Number: ML21/188-3
This document shall not
Re
3 be reproduced except in full without approval ofthe laboratory.
‘sults relate only to the ftom testod/sampled.
Page 1 of 1
Page 41
APPENDIX E SURVEY PLANS AND SECTIONS [OCR of page images] ee eee SURVEY PLANS AND SECTIONS
Page 42
- Sheet 1 of
133.16
134.
Lot 17 SP133492
00
359°34'40"
133.69
334.996
36 Tunba Ct
132.00
1:400
Section
133.69
134.06
13
6.0
0
14/10/21
134.11
130
.00
00
134.00
Arbitrary
0.
14
CH
134.33
134.91
134.41
134.40
134.47
134.37
RH
129.07
rh
138.00
Geoff
134.36
Arbitrary
128
134.41 se
c
.00
128.33 tio 134.58
128.53
n
13
4.
134.36
Cert.Prof. (CP) Member of SSSI #12546
47
O/s 2.31 134.52
14
0
134.53
0
e
0.0
129.69 134.50
0.
Lin
134.84
0
CH
ill
Richard Henderson
t/F
E: [email protected]
134.79
130.00
Cu
134.40
14
134.54 134.55
Mobile: 0417 703 607
2.0
ABN 89 022 151 267
134.41
131.30
0
Total Area - 94341 m2
135.04
Lot 17 SP133492
134.50
142.63
143.53
36 Tunba Ct
134.55
132.00
132.57 14
4.
00
134.37 134.51
142.86
13
144.53
4.0
0
142.96 145.13 14
6
146.13
13
.0
O/s 3.99 0
6.0
136.67
0
145.52
8.
13 144.18
00
Rev By Ver By App By
O/s 24.62 139.60
14
0.
00 142.64
143.65 147.03
14
2.
00
142.56
14
4.
00
14
O/s 39.3
6.
146.25
00
6
.33344
113366.3 ""
277'4'400
2600°°2
26
Revision Details
Date
Rev No.
[OCR of page images]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ti 12
9
n
wo
A > A
co}
vie 334.996
om 359°34'40" J
oo'zer
B ; “" B
0 / \S
° | yy BN
r N/ SN
R 4
: Q%,; iH
r 8 86, Bg 7
: a
d. * \ Ry &
By s
\ N | S
IC J & Ic
fo 48
g \
+ & \\
| g + |
a S
~~
vue,
@
D - 8 °
= y ®
£ os 3
ae BS
3 \
LI yo + |
/ a gavel
“
E 4 E
F F
36 Tunba Ct
c Lot 17 SP133492 IG
Total Area - 94341 m2
CLIENT: DESCRIPTION:
a ¢ Richard Henderson Geoff Lot 17 SP133492
i Cert.Prof. (CP) Member of SSSI #12546
H v \ } Mobile: 0417 703 607 SURVEYED: rh JOB # DATE: 36 Tunba Ct H
E: [email protected]. i
Fi, Aer Ee [email protected] au DRAWN RH CHECKED: 14/10/21 Section
SURVEY ROP HORIZONTAL DATUM: LEVEL DATUM SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER.
Rev No. Date Revision Details Rev By| Ver By| App By Arbitrary Arbitrary 1:400 - Sheet 4 of
2 3 4 I 5 I 6 i I 8 I 9 10 I ii I
Page 43
CH 00
CH 20
CH 40
14 .0
2
0.
RL h 00
C
RL 140
origin
al sur
face
13 2.3
4
3.2
4.
RL h 3
Cut Area constructed surface
C
Fill Area
2.3
13 .96
6
4.
RL h 8
C
13 0.5
02
0.
RL h 4
C
RL 130
Richard Henderson Geoff Lot 17 SP133492
Cert.Prof. (CP) Member of SSSI #12546
Mobile: 0417 703 607 rh 36 Tunba Ct
E: [email protected]
RH 14/10/21 Section
ABN 89 022 151 267
Rev No. Date Revision Details Rev By Ver By App By
Arbitrary Arbitrary 1:200 - Sheet 1 of
Page 44
APPENDIX F GLOBAL STABILITY PLOTS [OCR of page images] APPENDIX F GLOBAL STABILITY PLOTS
Page 45
Elevation (m)
147
145
143
141
139
137
135
133
131
129
127
Color Name Unit —_Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim?) (kPa)
[] Controlled Fill 19 1
Oo Natural Stiff Clay 19 5
(CH) (XW Granite)
20° batter
Groundwater
Figure 1 - Existing Cut Batter
Effective
Friction
Angle (°) eo 32
25
30
15 20 25 30
Distance (m)
45
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 1.gsz
19/11/2021
Page 46
Elevation (m)
147
145
143
141
139
bs
137
135
133
131
129
127
Groundwater
Name
Controlled Fill
Natural Stiff Clay
(CH) (XW Granite)
Retaining Wall
Unit Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim*) (kPa)
19 1
19 5
21
Figure 1a - Retaining Wall Supporting Cut Batter
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
—
jon
25 ay
30
3m high retaining wall
10kPa
BERR
XO KOK OL
LEER
LEB
ee
Distance (m)
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 1a.gsz
19/11/2021
Page 47
Elevation (m)
147
145
143
141
139
137
135
133
131
129
127
Figure 1b - Retaining Wall Supporting Cut Batter (Batter Behind Retaining Wall)
Color Name Unit —_ Effective Effective
Weight Cohesion Friction
(kNim?) (kPa) Angle (°)
[] Controlled Fill 19 1 25 eo
Oo Natural Stiff Clay 19 5 30
(CH) (XW Granite)
[1] Retaining wall 21
Groundwater
10kPa
PSCC Hp CII
x
LSC
Distance (m)
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 1b.gsz
22/11/2021
Page 48
Elevation (m)
Color
147
145
143
141
139
Name Unit Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim*) (kPa)
Controlled Fill 19 1
Natural Stiff Clay 19 5
(CH) (XW Granite)
20° batter
Figure 1c - Benched Cut Batter
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
25
1.50
30
45
Groundwater
137 = 4m high, 38° batter 10kPa
PKR Raha ORS SEIN
135 ESS MOSM RMR PPO
ar
=
133 Teme
m8,
PS
131 Tse. mek
ae
--—
129 Teese. ~_
meLL
sae
107 =
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 1c.gsz
26/11/2021
Page 49
Elevation (m)
Color Name Unit —_Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim?) (kPa)
[] Controlled Fill 19 1
147 — [Natural stiffciay 19 5
(CH) (XW Granite)
145
143
141
139
137
135
133
131
129
127
20° batter
Groundwater
Figure 1d - 4m high, 38° batter
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
25
30 e
—
—
OSL R RBG,
OO OOKON
15 20 25 30
Distance (m)
45
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 1d.gsz
26/11/2021
Page 50
Elevation (m)
134
133
132
130
129
128
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
Eo
be Oe
OS ORSS
Color Name
[_] Controlled Fill
[7] __ Natural stiff Clay
(CH) (XW Granite)
KD
Unit Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim*) (kPa)
19 1
19 5
Effective
Friston Figure 2 - Existing Fill Batter
ingle
25
30
0
10
Approx 35, 4.5m high
20
Distance (m)
2H:1V Slope
40
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 2.gsz
19/11/2021
Page 51
Elevation (m)
1359
134
133
Color Name
[_] Controlled Fill
[7] __ Natural stiff Clay
(CH) (XW Granite)
10kPa
Unit Effective
Weight Cohesion
(kNim*) (kPa)
19 1
19 5
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
25
30
132
131 Be
129 F—
128 F—
126 F—
125 F—
124
122 F—
121 fF
120
Groundwater
10
Figure 2a - Fill Batter Flattened to 2.5H:1V
20
Distance
m)
2H:1V Slope
40
SLOPE/W Analysis
Fig 2a.gsz
19/11/2021
Page 52
Elevation (m) 134 133 132 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 Color Name Unit Effective Effective Fig 2b - Fill Batter Flattened to 2.5H:1V (Deep Landslip in Natural Clay/XW Granite) Weight Cohesion Friction (kNim?) (kPa) Angle (°) [_] Controlled Fill 19 1 25 [Natural stiffclay 19 5 30 (CH) (XW Granite) 1.68 ao ~ . | 2H:1V Slope l l l = | 0 10 20 30 40 Distance (m) SLOPE/W Analysis Fig 2b.gsz 19/11/2021
Page 53
Elevation (m) 135) 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 Color Name Weight Cohesion Friction. Figure 2c - 4.5m High Fill Batter Supported by Retaining Wall (kN/m*) (kPa) Angle (°) LE] Controlled Fill 19 1 25 B eyavemy 8 * CO Retaining Wall 21 1.55 e 10kPa 3m high retaining wall ft. _ Groundwater 1 week mek } Seek | ae mee | 0 10 20 30 40 Distance (m) SLOPE/W Analysis Fig 2c.gsz 19/11/2021
Page 54
APPENDIX G
GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE
CONSTRUCTION
[OCR of page images]
Lee ee
GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE
CONSTRUCTION
Page 55
SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE ADVICE GEOTECHNICAL Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early | Prepare detailed plan and start site works before ASSESSMENT stage of planning and before site works. geotechnical advice. PLANNING SITE PLANNING Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk | Plan development without regard for the Risk. arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber or steel frames, timber or panel cladding. Floor plans which require extensive cutting and filling. HOUSE DESIGN Consider use of split levels. Movement intolerant structures. Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate. SITE CLEARING Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indiscriminately clear the site. ACCESS & Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage. Excavate and fill for site access before DRIVEWAYS Council specifications for grades may need to be modified. geotechnical advice. Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers. EARTHWORKS Retain natural contours wherever possible. Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks. Minimise depth. Large scale cuts and benching. Curs Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope. Unsupported cuts. Provide drainage measures and erosion control. Ignore drainage requirements Minimise height. Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails, Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling. may flow a considerable distance including Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards. onto property below. FILLs Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall. Block natural drainage lines. Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage. Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil. Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil, boulders, building rubble etc in fill. ROCK OUTCROPS Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk. Disturb or undercut detached blocks or & BOULDERS Support rock faces where necessary. boulders. Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces. Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as RETAINING Found on rock where practicable. sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced WALLS Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope | blockwork. above. Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes. Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation. Found within rock where practicable. Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders FOO Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope. or undercut cliffs. TINGS . A Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary. Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water. Engineer designed. Support on piers to rock where practicable. SWIMMING POOLS | Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable. Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there may be little or no lateral support on downhill side. DRAINAGE Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes. Discharge at top of fills and cuts. Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses. Allow water to pond on bench areas. SURFACE Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps. Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible. Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction. Provide filter around subsurface drain. Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches. SUBSURFACE Provide drain behind retaining walls. Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance. Prevent inflow of surface water. Sepric & Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer ‘systems; absorption trenches may | Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes. SULLAGE be possible in some areas if risk is-acceptable. Use absorption trenches without. consideration Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded. of landslide risk. EROSION Control erosion as this may lead to instability. Failure to observe earthworks and drainage CONTROL & Revegetate cleared area. recommendations when landscaping. LANDSCAPING DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant SITE VISITS Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/ INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER OWNER’S Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply RESPONSIBILITY | pipes. Where structural distress is evident see advice. If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.
Page 56
EXAMPLES OF GOOD HILLSIDE PRACTICE
Vegetation retained
Surface water interception drainage
Watertight, adequately sited and founded \
rool water storage lanks (with due regard for \
impact of potential feakage)) ————_______
Flexible structure
Roof water piped off site or stored
On-site detention tanks, watertight and
adequately founded. Potential leakage
managed by sub-soil drains ~~.
Vegetation retained ~~ MANTLE OF SOIL AND ROCK
a FRAGMENTS (COLLUVIUM)
i OFF STREET ~ Pier footings into rock
~ PARAS “—- Subsoil drainage may be
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-soll drains
\——~ Engineered retaining walls with both surface and
subsurface drainage (constructed before dwelling)
EXAMPLES OF POOR HILLSIDE PRACTICE
Unstabilised rock topples
and travels downslope
Vegetation removed
Discharges of roatwater soak Steop unsupported
away rather than conducted off cut falls
site or to secure storage for re-use
Structure unatle to tolerate
setiement and cracks
Poorly compacted fill setties
unevenly and cracks pool
Inadequate walling unable
to support fill
Loose, saturated fil shdes
and possibly flows downsiope
Inadequately supported cut fails — Roofwater introduced into'slope
Saturated ,
slope fails \
Vegetation so. _ . Dwelling not founded in bedrock
removed i gfe : 4
Mad flow i wy
ie
Absence of subsoil drainage within fit
*\——— Ponded water enters slope and activates landslide
~Possible travel dowaslope which impacts other development downhill
This figure is an extract from PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LAND SLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT as presented in
Australian Geomechanics Journal and News, Volume 42, No 1, March 2007, which discusses the matter more fully.
Page 57
TU ETL HI RU PLU AE TTL CTT
-— fieotechnical Engineering Report —
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for ¢ elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure,
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of + © composition of the design team, or
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- © project ownership.
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each As a general rule, a/ways inform your geotechnical engineer of project
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No — changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without + Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. Andno one _that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed.
except the one originally contemplated.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. —_ ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
Do not read selected elements only. time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
A Geotechnical Engineering poo ag Is Based on tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable, A minor amount of additional testing or
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems.
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of Opinions
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
© not prepared for you, site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—
© not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
© not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
© completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Wot Final
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
Ms Z|
Page 58
fr subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering feports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a Clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be ina position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that Se. have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geaenviron- menial study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. \f you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; mone of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THe Best PeopLe ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. a ASFE THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 — Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: [email protected] www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. HIGERO6085.0MRP