Original source · versioned page text
Compiled Reference Documents - OPW25/0053 (As Published)
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
OPW25/0053 30 MAY 2025
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Retaining Wall
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach
Prepared for Mort Family Trust
Project 222438.01
9 August 2024
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 42 pages
Page 2
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
douglaspartners.com.au
2 Mallet Street, Kunda Park, QLD 4556
(07) 5351 0400
Document History
Details
Project No. 222438.01
Document Title Report on geotechnical investigation
Site Address 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach
Report Prepared For Mort Family Trust
Filename 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
Status and Review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Revision 0 Caroline Jarrett Brett Egen 9 August 2024
Distribution of Copies
Status Issued to
Revision 0 [email protected]
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all
attached drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions
and inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 9 August 2024
Reviewer 9 August 2024
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page No
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Previous Investigation ............................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Field Work ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Field Work Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................................... 2
4. Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
5. Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
6. References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
7. Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix A: About This Report
Appendix B: Drawing 1 - Test Location Plan
Drawing 2 – Slope/W Analysis Outputs
Appendix C: Sampling, Testing and Excavation Methodology
Soil Descriptions
Borehole Logs
Appendix D: Laboratory Results
Appendix E: Previous Investigation Results
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 4
Page 1 of 6
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Retaining Wall
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners
Pty Ltd (Douglas) for a proposed retaining wall at 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach.
The investigation was undertaken at the request of the Mort Family Trust in general accordance
with Douglas’ proposal 222438.01.P.001.Rev0 dated 19 May 2024.
It is understood that a retaining wall up to 2.0 m height is proposed to be built along the northern
lot boundary.
The aim of the investigation was to assess the following:
• subsurface conditions including groundwater;
• earthworks and site preparation, including suitability of site soils for reuse and compaction
standards;
• suitable foundation types and allowable bearing pressures;
• lateral earth pressure and geotechnical parameters for retaining walls;
• stability assessment of retaining wall using Slope/W.
The investigation comprised the drilling of four bores, followed by laboratory testing of selected
samples. Details of the field work and laboratory testing are presented in this report, together
with comments on the items listed above.
This report must be read in conjunction with the attached notes entitled “About This Report”
along with any other attached explanatory notes and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual page or sections.
2. Previous Investigation
Douglas previously carried out a geotechnical investigation on this site. As part of the previous
investigation, one bore (designated as Bore 1) was drilled to 6.0 m depth and two additional
dynamic cone penetrometer tests (designated as DCPs 2 and 3) were also carried out.
In summary, the subsurface conditions previously encountered comprised clayey sand and sandy
clay fill to between 1.5 m depth overlying loose to medium dense sand to 3.8 m depth. Underlying
the sand, stiff to very stiff residual sandy clay/clayey sand was encountered to 6.0 m.
Groundwater seepage was previously observed at 2.1 m depth in Bore 1.
Where appropriate, the results from the previous investigations has been used to supplement
the results of this investigation and have been included in this report for completeness.
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 5
Page 2 of 6
3. Field Work
3.1 Field Work Methods
The field work for this investigation was carried out on 24 June 2024, and comprised the drilling
of four bores (designated as Bores 4 to 8). The bore locations were set out with reference to site
features, with locations recorded afterwards using a hand-held GPS device. It is important to note
that Douglas is not a registered surveyor, hence the coordinates are considered to be
approximate. The approximate bore locations are indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B.
The bores were sampled using a portable Christie Soil Sampler driving a 50 mm steel sample tube
to refusal at between 1.5 m and 2.3 m depth. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) and pocket
penetrometer (pp) testing was carried out to assess the relative density and strength consistency
of the subsurface conditions. On completion, the bores were observed for groundwater seepage
and then backfilled with spoil which was tamped into the holes.
The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel who logged the bores,
collected samples for visual and tactile assessment and subsequent laboratory testing. Strata
identification was undertaken through observation of recovered samples. Field descriptions and
samples were checked by a geotechnical engineer, with the borehole logs corrected where
appropriate to reflect the available laboratory test results.
3.2 Field Work Results
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are described in detail on the borehole logs
in Appendix C, together with notes which define the classification methods and descriptive terms
used. The depths were measured below existing surface levels at the time of investigation.
In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores typically comprised localised fill
and clayey sand topsoil overlying residual silty sandy clay, which are further described below:
• Fill: Relatively ‘stiff’ silty sandy clay fill and sandy gravel was encountered to 0.6 m depth in
Bore 7.
• Clayey Sand: Surficial clayey sand topsoil was encountered to between 0.2 m and 0.25 m
depth in Bores 4 to 6.
• Silty Sandy Clay: Underlying the fill in Bore 7 and the clayey sand topsoil in Bores 4 to 6, silty
sandy clay was encountered in the bores. The strength consistency of the silty sandy clay was
typically stiff, firm to stiff locally between 1.0 m and 1.6 m in Bore 5.
No groundwater seepage was observed in any of the bores at the time of drilling or prior to
backfilling. It should be noted however, that groundwater depths and ground moisture
conditions are affected by climatic conditions, soil permeability, drainage conditions and human
influence; and will therefore vary with time.
4. Laboratory Testing
Selected samples recovered from the bores were tested in the laboratory for engineering
properties of plasticity and particle size distribution for classification purposes. The results of this
testing are summarised in Table 1 with material test reports in Appendix D.
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 6
Page 3 of 6
Table 1: Results of Plasticity and Particle Size Distribution Testing
Bore Depth Material Plasticity Particle Size Distribution
No. (m) (%)
LL PL PI LS Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
(%) (%) (%) (%)
4 0.9-1.2 Silty Sandy CLAY 35 18 17 8.5 0 49 51
5 1.6-1.9 Silty Sandy CLAY 43 27 16 8.5 2 50 48
Where LL = Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, PI = Plasticity Index, LS = Linear Shrinkage
5. Comments
The design of the proposed retaining wall could be undertaken using a triangular pressure
distribution and the earth pressure parameters given in Table 2. Flexible walls are those which
are free to rotate or tilt (such as gravity and cantilevered walls) and should be designed using an
active (Ka) earth pressure coefficient. Rigid walls are those which are laterally restrained against
rotation or tilt (ie. single anchored/propped walls) and should be designed using the at-rest (Ko)
earth pressure coefficient.
Table 2: Earth Pressure Coefficients (non-sloping crest backfill)
Material Unit Friction Active At Rest Passive
Weight Angle Ka Ko Kp
(kN/m3) (degrees)
New controlled fill*, stiff (or stronger) 19 26 0.40 0.55 2.5
natural clays
Loose to medium dense sand 18 30 0.33 0.50 3.0
Notes: * Depends on fill material type and level of compaction. Assumes well compacted clayey material.
Allowance should be made for hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the retaining wall. It is
recommended that all retaining walls be drained for full height in order to minimise hydrostatic
pressure build-up behind the wall. Additional guidelines on wall drainage are provided in
Appendix G of AS 4678 (2002).
Allowance for surcharge loads and sloping crest should also be made as appropriate. The effect
of surcharge should be included by multiplying the vertical pressure developed by the surcharge
by the appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient as given in Table 2.
Preference should be given to adopting thin soil layers and using small hand-controlled
compaction equipment during backfill against retaining walls. This is in order to limit the stress
applied to the walls during construction.
Clayey backfill should not be placed at more than 2% dry of optimum moisture content, as this
can lead to increased future swelling with changes to moisture content and pressures well in
excess of those indicated in Table 2 or inundation from water creating additional load on the back
of the wall.
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 7
Page 4 of 6
Resisting forces to sliding and rotation are provided by the shear resistance at the footing/soil
interface and the passive soil resistance in front of the footing. Passive resistance (Kp) at the toe
of the wall should be ignored in the zone where future disturbance (eg. services trenches) could
occur.
It is recommended that factors of safety of 2 against overturning and sliding stability and 1.5 for
global stability, be adopted in the design of all retaining walls.
For limit state design methods, the ultimate parameters provided above in Table 2 will need to
be factored in accordance with AS 4678 (2002). Guidance on the selection of material strength
partial factors is provided in Section 5.2 of AS 4678 and is dependent upon the nature and state
of the insitu soils.
High level wall strip footings founding into stiff or stronger silty sandy clay could be designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. All footing excavations should be inspected and tested
by an experienced geotechnical engineer from Douglas to confirm bearing pressures prior to
casting of concrete.
Alternatively, bored piers founding into stiff or stronger silty sandy clay would also be considered
suitable.
The ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) of bored piers can be calculated using the ultimate,
unfactored shaft adhesion and end bearing values given in Table 3. The Rd,ug values given will need
to be multiplied by a suitable geotechnical strength reduction factor (Ø g) to obtain the design
geotechnical strength (Rd,g) of piles. In accordance with AS 2159 (2009) the Øg value must be
determined by the designer, but based on the anticipated site, design and installation risk factors,
a Øg value of 0.45 is considered likely for a low redundancy pile system.
If working stress methods are used in the pile design, the Rd,ug values given in Table 3 will need to
be divided by a factor of safety of 2.5 to calculate the maximum single pile working load.
Table 3: Ultimate (Unfactored) Bored Pier Design Parameters
Material Ultimate Unfactored Ultimate Unfactored
Shaft Adhesion* (kPa) End Bearing* (kPa)
Stiff (or stronger) natural clays 30 300
Notes: * Geotechnical strength reduction factor or factor of safety required
It is recommended that pile excavations be inspected by an experienced geotechnical engineer
from Douglas during drilling to ensure the design parameters adopted are suitable for the
ground conditions and to ensure that there is no soft or loose material remaining at the base of
the excavations.
Numerical global stability analysis for the proposed retaining wall was also carried out using the
commercially available software Slope/W.
The assumed material properties used in the analysis were derived from the interpretation of the
field and laboratory test results, general soil parameters given in Table D4 of AS 4678 and
Douglas’ experience with similar conditions. An assumed pore water pressure coefficient (Ru) of
0.1 (20% saturation) was also adopted in the analysis.
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 8
Page 5 of 6 It is understood that the proposed retaining wall may comprise a cantilevered masonry block wall supported on a strip footing. Alternatively, a concrete sleeper wall spanning between steel ‘soldier’ posts supported by concrete bored piles could also be considered. The results of the stability analysis indicates that the minimum required factor of safety (FoS) of 1.5 for the proposed retaining walls can be achieved using an appropriately designed retaining wall provided shear pile support is provided. Our analysis has assumed that the proposed retaining wall would be supported on bored piers founding at 2.5 m depth at 1.6 m spacings with each pile providing an unfactored shear force of 150 kN. The outputs of the slope stability analyses are presented in Drawing 2 in Appendix B. 6. References AS 4678. (2002). Earth-retaining structures. Standards Australia. 7. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (Douglas) has prepared this report for the proposed retaining wall at 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the Mort Family Trust for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of Douglas, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to Douglas for any loss or damage. In preparing this report Douglas has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after Douglas' field testing has been completed. Douglas' advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by Douglas in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. The assessment of atypical safety hazards arising from this advice is restricted to the geotechnical components set out in this report and based on known project conditions and stated design advice and assumptions. While some recommendations for safe controls may be provided, detailed ‘safety in design’ assessment is outside the current scope of this report and requires additional project data and assessment. Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 9
Page 6 of 6 This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. Douglas cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by Douglas. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 10
Appendix A
About This Report
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 11
About this Report
November 2023
Introduction the time of construction as are indicated
These notes have been provided to amplify in the report; and
DP's report in regard to classification methods,
field procedures and the comments section. • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid
Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. will mask any groundwater inflow. Water
DP's reports are based on information gained has to be blown out of the hole and
from limited subsurface excavations and drilling mud must first be washed out of
sampling, supplemented by knowledge of the hole if water measurements are to be
local geology and experience. For this reason, made.
they must be regarded as interpretive rather
than factual documents, limited to some More reliable measurements can be made by
extent by the scope of information on which installing standpipes which are read at
they rely. intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks
for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed
Copyright in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low
This report is the property of Douglas Partners permeability soils or where there may be
Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the interference from a perched water table.
purpose for which it was commissioned and in
accordance with the Conditions of Reports
Engagement for the commission supplied at The report has been prepared by qualified
the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this personnel, is based on the information
report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. obtained from field and laboratory testing, and
has been undertaken to current engineering
Borehole and Test Pit Logs standards of interpretation and analysis.
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this Where the report has been prepared for a
report are an engineering and/or geological specific design proposal, the information and
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, interpretation may not be relevant if the
and their reliability will depend to some extent design proposal is changed. If this happens,
on frequency of sampling and the method of DP will be pleased to review the report and the
drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous sufficiency of the investigation work.
undisturbed sampling or core drilling will
provide the most reliable assessment, but this Every care is taken with the report as it relates
is not always practicable or possible to justify to interpretation of subsurface conditions,
on economic grounds. In any case the discussion of geotechnical and environmental
boreholes and test pits represent only a very aspects, and recommendations or
small sample of the total subsurface profile. suggestions for design and construction.
However, DP cannot always anticipate or
Interpretation of the information and its assume responsibility for:
application to design and construction should
therefore take into account the spacing of • Unexpected variations in ground
boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, conditions. The potential for this will
and the possibility of other than 'straight line' depend partly on borehole or pit spacing
variations between the test locations. and sampling frequency;
Groundwater • Changes in policy or interpretations of
Where groundwater levels are measured in
boreholes there are several potential policy by statutory authorities; or
problems, namely: • The actions of contractors responding to
• In low permeability soils groundwater commercial pressures.
may enter the hole very slowly or perhaps If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
not at all during the time the hole is left investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
open;
• A localised, perched water table may lead
to an erroneous indication of the true
water table; continued next page
• Water table levels will vary from time to
time with seasons or recent weather
changes. They may not be the same at
1 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 12
About this Report
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on
site during construction appear to vary from
those which were expected from the
information contained in the report, DP
requests that it be immediately notified. Most
problems are much more readily resolved
when conditions are exposed rather than at
some later stage, well after the event.
Information for Contractual Purposes
Where information obtained from this report
is provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including
the written report and discussion, be made
available. In circumstances where the
discussion or comments section is not relevant
to the contractual situation, it may be
appropriate to prepare a specially edited
document. DP would be pleased to assist in
this regard and/or to make additional report
copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.
Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for
geotechnical and environmental aspects of
work to which this report is related. This could
range from a site visit to confirm that
conditions exposed are as expected, to full
time engineering presence on site. intentionally blank
intentionally blank
2 of 2 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 13
Appendix B
Test Location Plan
Slope/W Analysis Outputs
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 14
Site
7
Location Plan
6
3
5
2
4
1
Surfside Court
LEGEND:-
Bore Location and Number
Previous Bore Location
Previous DCP Locations
REV DESCRIPTION/COMMENT DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT: NOTE: PROJECT NAME: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT No:
0 29/07/2024 JST
Mort Family Trust 222438.01
· Base image from MetroMap (Dated 13.06.2024) Proposed Retaining Wall
· Site locality image from OpenStreetMap. Not to scale. DRAWING No:
SCALE: PROJECT ADDRESS: TEST LOCATION PLAN 1
REVISION:
: ZONE 56 N OFFICE: SUNSHINE COAST
2 Mallet Street, Kunda Park, QLD 4556
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach 0
COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM: MGA2020
Page 15
Color Name Unit Effective Effective Ru
Color Name Unit Effective Effective Ru W eight Cohesion Friction
W eight Cohesion Friction (kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°)
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) Backfill 19 3 26 0.1
Backfill 19 3 26 0.1
Retaining Wall 23 0
Retaining Wall 23 0
Silty Sandy Clay 19 5 26 0.1
Silty Sandy Clay 19 5 26 0.1
28 1.132 28 1.524
27 27
26 26
Elevation
Elevation
25 25
24 24
23 23
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Distance Distance
CLIENT: Mort Family Trust Slope/W Analysis Output PROJECT No: 222438.01
DRAWING
OFFICE: Sunshine Coast Proposed Retaining Wall No:
2
DATE: August 2024 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach REVISION: 0
Page 16
Appendix C
Sampling, Testing and Excavation Methodology
Soil Descriptions
Boreholes Logs
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 17
Sampling, Testing and Excavation Terminology
Symbols
Methodology Abbreviations
March 2024
Sampling and Testing
Field and laboratory testing (continued)
A record of samples retained, and field testing
performed is usually shown on a Douglas Test Type Code
Partners’ log with samples appearing to the left Point load test, (MPa), `PLT(_)`
of a depth scale, and selected field and laboratory axial `(A)`, diametric `(D)`,
testing (including results, where relevant)
irregular `(I)`
appearing to the right of the scale, as illustrated
Dynamic cone penetrometer, `DCP/150`
below:
followed by blow count
penetration increment in mm
(cone tip, generally in
accordance with AS1289.6.3.2)
Perth sand penetrometer, `PSP/150`
followed by blow count
penetration increment in mm
(flat tip, generally in accordance
with AS1289.6.3.3)
Groundwater Observations
`` seepage/inflow
`` standing or observed water level
`NFGWO` no free groundwater observed
`OBS` observations obscured by drilling
Sampling fluids
The type or intended purpose for which a sample Drilling or Excavation Methods/Tools
was taken is indicated by the following The drilling/excavation methods used to perform
abbreviation codes. the investigation may be shown either in a
Sample Type Code dedicated column down the left-hand edge of
Auger sample `A` the log, or stated in the log footer. In some
Acid Sulfate sample `ASS` circumstances abbreviation codes may be used.
Bulk sample `B` Method Abbreviation
Core sample `C` Code
Disturbed sample `D` Direct Push `DP`
Environmental sample `ES` Solid flight auger. Suffixes: AD1`
Gas sample `G` /T` = tungsten carbide tip,
Piston sample `P` /V` = v-shaped tip
Sample from SPT test `SPT` Air Track `AT`
Undisturbed tube sample `U1` Diatube `DT1`
Water sample `W` Hand auger `HA1`
Material Sample MT Hand tools (unspecified) `HAND`
Core sample for unconfined `UCS` Existing exposure `X`
compressive strength testing Hollow flight auger `HSA1`
1
– numeric suffixes indicate tube diameter/width in mm HQ coring `HQ3`
HMLC series coring `HMLC`
The above codes only indicate that a sample was
NMLC series coring `NMLC`
retained, and not that testing was scheduled or
performed. NQ coring `NQ3`
PQ coring `PQ3`
Field and Laboratory Testing Predrilled `PD`
A record that field and laboratory testing was Push tube `PT1`
performed is indicated by the following Ripping tyne/ripper `R`
abbreviation codes.
Rock roller `RR1`
Test Type Code Rock breaker/hydraulic `EH`
Pocket penetrometer (kPa) `PP` hammer
Photo ionisation detector (ppm) `PID` Sonic drilling `SON1`
Standard Penetration Test SPT` Mud/blade bucket `MB1`
`x/y`=x blows for y mm Toothed bucket `TB1`
penetration Vibrocore `VC1`
`HB`= hammer bouncing Vacuum excavation `VE`
`HW`= fell under weight of Wash bore (unspecified bit `WB1`
hammer type)
Shear vane (kPa) `V` 1
– numeric suffixes indicate tool diameter/width in mm
Unconfined compressive `UCS`
strength, (MPa)
1 of 1 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 18
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
March 2024
Introduction
All materials which are not considered to be “in-situ rock” are described in general accordance with the soil
description model of AS 1726-2017 Part 6.1.3, and can be broken down into the following description
structure:
classification
name detailed description
(SC) Clayey SAND, trace silt; grey, fine to medium grained
The “classification” comprises a two character “group symbol” providing a general summary of dominant
soil characteristics. The “name” summarises the particle sizes within the soil which most influence its
behaviour. The detailed description presents more information about composition, condition, structure,
and origin of the soil.
Classification, naming and description of soils require the relative proportion of particles of different sizes
within the whole soil mixture to be considered.
Particle size designation and Behaviour Model
Solid particles within a soil are Particle Size Particle Behaviour Model
differentiated on the basis of size. Designation Size Behaviour Approximate
(mm) Dry Mass
The engineering behaviour properties of a
Boulder >200 Excluded from particle
soil can subsequently be modelled to be
Cobble 63 - 200 behaviour model as
either “fine grained” (also known as
“oversize”
“cohesive” behaviour) or “coarse grained”
(“non cohesive” behaviour), depending on Gravel1 2.36 - 63
Coarse >65%
the relative proportion of fine or coarse Sand1 0.075 - 2.36
fractions in the soil mixture. Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Fine >35%
Clay <0.002
1
– refer grain size subdivision descriptions below
The behaviour model boundaries defined above are not precise, and the material behaviour should be
assumed from the name given to the material (which considers the particle fraction which dominates the
behaviour, refer “component proportions” below), rather than strict observance of the proportions of
particle sizes. For example, if a material is named a “Sandy CLAY”, this is indicative that the material exhibits
fine grained behaviour, even if the dry mass of coarse grained material may exceed 65%.
Component proportions
The relative proportion of the dry mass of each particle size fraction is assessed to be a “primary”,
“secondary”, or “minor” component of the soil mixture, depending on its influence over the soil behaviour.
Component Definition1 Relative Proportion
Proportion In Fine Grained Soil In Coarse Grained
Designation Soil
Primary The component (particle size The clay/silt The sand/gravel
designation, refer above) which component with the component with the
dominates the engineering greater proportion greater proportion
behaviour of the soil
Secondary Any component which is not the Any component with Any granular
primary, but is significant to the greater than 30% component with
engineering properties of the soil proportion greater than 30%; or
Any fine component
with greater than
12%
Minor2 Present in the soil, but not All other components All other
significant to its engineering components
properties
1
As defined in AS1726-2017 6.1.4.4
2
In the detailed material description, minor components are split into two further sub-categories. Refer “identification of minor
components” below.
Composite Materials
In certain situations, a lithology description may describe more than one material, for example, collectively
describing a layer of interbedded sand and clay. In such a scenario, the two materials would be described
independently, with the names preceded or followed by a statement describing the arrangement by which
the materials co-exist. For example, “INTERBEDDED Silty CLAY AND SAND”.
1 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 19
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Classification
The soil classification comprises a two character group symbol. The first character identifies the primary
component. The second character identifies either the grading or presence of fines in a coarse grained soil,
or the plasticity in a fine grained soil. Refer AS1726-2017 6.1.6 for further clarification.
Soil Name
For most soils, the name is derived with the primary Component Prominence in Soil Name
component included as the noun (in upper case), 1
preceded by any secondary components stated in Primary Noun (eg “CLAY”)
an adjective form. In this way, the soil name also Secondary Adjective modifier (eg “Sandy”)
describes the general composition and indicates Minor No influence
the dominant behaviour of the material. 1
– for determination of component proportions, refer
component proportions on previous page
For materials which cannot be disaggregated, or which are not comprised of rock or mineral fragments,
the names “ORGANIC MATTER” or “ARTIFICIAL MATERIAL” may be used, in accordance with AS1726-2017
Table 14.
Commercial or colloquial names are not used for the soil name where a component derived name is
possible (for example “Gravelly SAND” rather than “CRACKER DUST”).
Materials of “fill” or “topsoil” origin are generally assigned a name derived from the primary/secondary
component (where appropriate). In log descriptions this is preceded by uppercase “FILL” or “TOPSOIL”.
Origin uncertainty is indicated in the description by the characters `(?)`, with the degree of uncertainty
described (using the terms “probably” or “possibly” in the origin column, or at the end of the description).
Identification of minor components
Minor components are identified in the soil description immediately following the soil name. The minor
component fraction is usually preceded with a term indicating the relative proportion of the component.
Minor Component Relative Proportion
Proportion Term In Fine Grained Soil In Coarse Grained Soil
With All fractions: 15-30% Clay/silt: 5-12%
sand/gravel: 15-30%
Trace All fractions: 0-15% Clay/silt: 0-5%
sand/gravel: 0-15%
The terms “with” and “trace” generally apply only to gravel or fine particle fractions. Where
cobbles/boulders are encountered in minor proportions (generally less than about 12%) the term
“occasional” may be used. This term describes the sporadic distribution of the material within the confines
of the investigation excavation only, and there may be considerable variation in proportion over a wider
area which is difficult to factually characterise due to the relative size of the particles and the investigation
methods.
Soil Composition
Plasticity Grain Size
Descriptive Laboratory liquid limit range Type Particle size (mm)
Term Silt Clay Gravel Coarse 19 - 63
Non-plastic Not applicable Not applicable Medium 6.7 - 19
materials Fine 2.36 – 6.7
Low ≤50 ≤35 Sand Coarse 0.6 - 2.36
plasticity Medium 0.21 - 0.6
Medium Not applicable >35 and ≤50 Fine 0.075 - 0.21
plasticity
High >50 >50 Grading
plasticity Grading Term Particle size (mm)
Note, Plasticity descriptions generally describe the Well A good representation of all
plasticity behaviour of the whole of the fine grained particle sizes
soil, not individual fine grained fractions. Poorly An excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the
specified range
Uniformly Essentially of one size
Gap A deficiency of a particular
size or size range within the
total range
Note, AS1726-2017 provides terminology for additional attributes not listed here.
2 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 20
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Soil Condition
Moisture
The moisture condition of soils is assessed relative to the plastic limit for fine grained soils, while for coarse
grained soils it is assessed based on the appearance and feel of the material. The moisture condition of a
material is considered to be independent of stratigraphy (although commonly these are related), and this
data is presented in its own column on logs.
Applicability Term Tactile Assessment Abbreviation
code
Fine Dry of plastic limit Hard and friable or powdery `w<PL`
Near plastic limit Can be moulded `w=PL`
Wet of plastic limit Water residue remains on hands when `w>PL`
handling
Near liquid limit “oozes” when agitated `w=LL`
Wet of liquid limit “oozes” `w>LL`
Coarse Dry Non-cohesive and free running `D`
Moist Feels cool, darkened in colour, particles may `M`
stick together
Wet Feels cool, darkened in colour, particles may `W`
stick together, free water forms when handling
The abbreviation code `NDF`, meaning “not-assessable due to drilling fluid use” may also be used.
Note, observations relating to free ground water or drilling fluids are provided independent of soil moisture
condition.
Consistency/Density/Compaction/Cementation/Extremely Weathered Material
These concepts give an indication of how the material may respond to applied forces (when considered in
conjunction with other attributes of the soil). This behaviour can vary independent of the composition of
the material, and on logs these are described in an independent column and are generally mutually
exclusive (i.e it is inappropriate to describe both consistency and compaction at the same time). The
method by which the behaviour is described depends on the behaviour model and other characteristics of
the soil as follows:
• In fine grained soils, the “consistency” describes the ease with which the soil can be remoulded, and is
generally correlated against the materials undrained shear strength;
• In granular materials, the relative density describes how tightly packed the particles are, and is
generally correlated against the density index;
• In anthropogenically modified materials, the compaction of the material is described qualitatively;
• In cemented soils (both natural and anthropogenic), the cemented “strength” is described
qualitatively, relative to the difficulty with which the material is disaggregated; and
• In soils of extremely weathered material origin, the engineering behaviour may be governed by relic
rock features, and expected behaviour needs to be assessed based the overall material description.
Quantitative engineering performance of these materials may be determined by laboratory testing or
estimated by correlated field tests (for example penetration or shear vane testing). In some cases,
performance may be assessed by tactile or other subjective methods, in which case investigation logs will
show the estimated value enclosed in round brackets, for example `(VS)`.
Consistency (fine grained soils)
Consistency Tactile Assessment Undrained Abbreviation
Term Shear Code
Strength (kPa)
Very soft Extrudes between fingers when squeezed <12 `VS`
Soft Mouldable with light finger pressure >12 - ≤25 `S`
Firm Mouldable with strong finger pressure >25 - ≤50 `F`
Stiff Cannot be moulded by fingers >50 - ≤100 `St`
Very stiff Indented by thumbnail >100 - ≤200 `VSt`
Hard Indented by thumbnail with difficulty >200 `H`
Friable Easily crumbled or broken into small pieces by hand - `Fr`
Relative Density (coarse grained soils)
Relative Density Term Density Index Abbreviation Code
Very loose <15 `VL`
Loose >15 - ≤35 `L`
Medium dense >35 - ≤65 `MD`
Dense >65 - ≤85 `D`
Very dense >85 `VD`
Note, tactile assessment of relative density is difficult, and generally requires penetration testing, hence a
tactile assessment guide is not provided.
3 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 21
Terminology
Soil Descriptions Symbols
Abbreviations
Compaction (anthropogenically modified soil) Cementation (natural and anthropogenic)
Compaction Term Abbreviation Code Cementation Term Abbreviation Code
Well compacted `WC` Moderately cemented `MOD`
Poorly compacted `PC` Weakly cemented `WEK`
Moderately compacted `MC`
Variably compacted `VC`
Extremely Weathered Material
AS1726-2017 considers weathered material to be soil if the unconfined compressive strength is less than
0.6 MPa (i.e. less than very low strength rock). These materials may be identified as “extremely weathered
material” in reports and by the abbreviation code `XWM` on log sheets. This identification is not correlated
to any specific qualitative or quantitative behaviour, and the engineering properties of this material must
therefore be assessed according to engineering principles with reference to any relic rock structure, fabric,
or texture described in the description.
Soil Origin
Term Description Abbreviation
Code
Residual Derived from in-situ weathering of the underlying rock `RS`
Extremely Formed from in-situ weathering of geological formations. Has `XWM`
weathered material strength of less than ‘very low’ as per as1726 but retains the
structure or fabric of the parent rock.
Alluvial Deposited by streams and rivers `ALV`
Fluvial Deposited by channel fill and overbank (natural levee, crevasse `FLV`
splay or flood basin)
Estuarine Deposited in coastal estuaries `EST`
Marine Deposited in a marine environment `MAR`
Lacustrine Deposited in freshwater lakes `LAC`
Aeolian Carried and deposited by wind `AEO`
Colluvial Soil and rock debris transported down slopes by gravity `COL`
Slopewash Thin layers of soil and rock debris gradually and slowly `SW`
deposited by gravity and possibly water
Topsoil Mantle of surface soil, often with high levels of organic material `TOP`
Fill Any material which has been moved by man `FILL`
Littoral Deposited on the lake or seashore `LIT`
Unidentifiable Not able to be identified `UID`
Cobbles and Boulders
The presence of particles considered to be “oversize” may be described using one of the following
strategies:
• Oversize encountered in a minor proportion (when considered relative to the wider area) are noted in
the soil description; or
• Where a significant proportion of oversize is encountered, the cobbles/boulders are described
independent of the soil description, in a similar manner to composite soils (described above) but
qualified with “MIXTURE OF”.
intentionally blank
4 of 4 www.douglaspartners.com.au
Page 22
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Mort Family Trust SURFACE LEVEL: LOCATION ID: 4
PROJECT: Proposed Retaining Wall COORDINATE: E:511166.0, N:7080196.0 PROJECT No: 222438.01
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 24/06/24
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY.(*)
GROUNDWATER
CONSIS.(*)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
MOISTURE
TEST TYPE
RESULTS
INTERVAL
REMARKS
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(#)
DESCRIPTION AND
REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
TOPSOIL / Clayey SAND (SC): dark brown; fine
to medium; with organics.
TOP L M
PT to 2m 0.20
0.25
0 Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): grey orange pale brown;
0 medium plasticity; fine to medium sand.
PP 180kPa
D
0.50
RS St M
PP 200kPa
0.90 0.90 PP 240kPa
DCP9/100
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): grey orange; medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
1 1
D
1.20
PP 140kPa
RS St M
20/80
PP 160kPa
2
Borehole discontinued at 2.00m depth.
Refusal.
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
NOTES: (#) Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Christie Soil Sampler OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: PT to 2m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of drilling
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 23
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Mort Family Trust SURFACE LEVEL: LOCATION ID: 5
PROJECT: Proposed Retaining Wall COORDINATE: E:511165.0, N:7080203.0 PROJECT No: 222438.01
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 24/06/24
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY.(*)
GROUNDWATER
CONSIS.(*)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
MOISTURE
TEST TYPE
RESULTS
INTERVAL
REMARKS
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(#)
DESCRIPTION AND
REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
TOPSOIL / Clayey SAND (SC): dark brown; fine
to medium; with organics. TOP L M
PT to 2.3m
0.20
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): brown grey pale brown;
medium plasticity; fine to medium sand. PP 290kPa
0
0
RS St M PP 250kPa
PP 160kPa
1
1.00 1
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): grey orange; medium
plasticity; fine to medium sand; trace fine to
medium gravel.
F
- M
St
PP 100kPa
DCP9/100
1.60
1.60m: dark brown grey RS
D
M 1.90 PP 140kPa
St -
2 W 2
Borehole discontinued at 2.30m depth.
Refusal.
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
NOTES: (#) Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Christie Soil Sampler OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: PT to 2.3m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of drilling
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 24
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Mort Family Trust SURFACE LEVEL: LOCATION ID: 6
PROJECT: Proposed Retaining Wall COORDINATE: E:511160.0, N:7080208.0 PROJECT No: 222438.01
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 24/06/24
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY.(*)
GROUNDWATER
CONSIS.(*)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
MOISTURE
TEST TYPE
RESULTS
INTERVAL
REMARKS
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(#)
DESCRIPTION AND
REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
TOPSOIL / Clayey SAND (SC): dark brown; fine
to medium; with organics. TOP L M
PT to 2.2m
0.20 0.20
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): pale brown orange
mottled grey; medium plasticity; fine to D PP 140kPa
0 medium sand.
0
0.40
0.50m: grey orange pale brown
RS St M PP 100kPa
PP 110kPa
1
1.00 1
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): dark brown; high
plasticity; fine to medium sand.
DCP9/100
PP 180kPa
St
RS - M
1.60m: dark brown grey VSt
2 2
Borehole discontinued at 2.20m depth.
Refusal.
20/70
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
NOTES: (#) Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Christie Soil Sampler OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: PT to 2.2m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of drilling
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 25
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Mort Family Trust SURFACE LEVEL: LOCATION ID: 7
PROJECT: Proposed Retaining Wall COORDINATE: E:511138.0, N:7080221.0 PROJECT No: 222438.01
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach, QLD DATUM/GRID: MGA2020 Zone 56 DATE: 24/06/24
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/---° SHEET: 1 of 1
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SAMPLE TESTING AND REMARKS
DENSITY.(*)
GROUNDWATER
CONSIS.(*)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
MOISTURE
TEST TYPE
RESULTS
INTERVAL
REMARKS
GRAPHIC
ORIGIN(#)
DESCRIPTION AND
REMARKS
TYPE
OF
RL (m)
STRATA
5 10 15
TOPSOIL / Silty Sandy CLAY (CI-CH): dark
brown pale brown; medium to high plasticity;
fine to medium sand.
TOP
PT to 1.5m FILL
St M
PP 180kPa
0
0
0.40
FILL / Sandy GRAVEL (GP): grey; fine to coarse;
fine to medium sand. FILL MD M
0.60 PP 190kPa
Silty Sandy CLAY (CI): grey orange pale brown;
medium plasticity; fine to medium sand.
RS St M
PP 100kPa
1
1.00 1
Silty Sandy CLAY (CH): grey mottled orange;
high plasticity; fine to medium sand.
RS St M
DCP9/100
PP 160kPa
Borehole discontinued at 1.50m depth.
Refusal.
2
20/90
Generated with CORE-GS by Geroc - Soil Log
3
NOTES: (#) Soil origin is "probable" unless otherwise stated. (*)Consistency/Relative density shading is for visual reference only - no correlation between cohesive and granular materials is implied.
PLANT: Christie Soil Sampler OPERATOR: DK LOGGED: DK
METHOD: PT to 1.5m CASING: Uncased
REMARKS: No groundwater seepage observed at time of drilling
Refer to explanatory notes for symbol and abbreviation definitions
Page 26
Appendix D
Laboratory Results
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 27
Material Test Report
Report Number: 222438.01-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 05/08/2024 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: Mort Family Trust Sunshine Coast Laboratory
12 Sinclair Street, East Toowoomba QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Paul Taylor
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 222438.01
Project Name: Proposed Retaining Wall
Project Location: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach QLD
Work Request: 28909
Sample Number: SS-28909A
Date Sampled: 24/06/2024 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 25/06/2024 - 28/06/2024
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Sample Location: Bore 4, Depth: 0.9 - 1.2m
Laboratory Manager
Material Source: Insitu
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
0.075
0.425
1.18 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
1.18
0.3
0.6
(mm)
0.6 mm 99 100
0.425 mm 97 90
0.3 mm 90
80
0.15 mm 56
Percent Passing
0.075 mm 51 70
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 60
Sample History Oven Dried
Preparation Method Dry Sieve 50
Liquid Limit (%) 35 40
Plastic Limit (%) 18
30
Plasticity Index (%) 17
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max 20
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.2 10
Linear Shrinkage (%) 8.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling None 0.1 0.2 1 2 3
Particle Size (mm)
Report Number: 222438.01-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 1 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 28
Material Test Report
Report Number: 222438.01-1
Issue Number: 1
Date Issued: 05/08/2024 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Client: Mort Family Trust Sunshine Coast Laboratory
12 Sinclair Street, East Toowoomba QLD 2 Mallet Street Kunda Park QLD 4556
Phone: (07) 5351 0400
Contact: Paul Taylor
Email: [email protected]
Project Number: 222438.01
Project Name: Proposed Retaining Wall
Project Location: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach QLD
Work Request: 28909
Sample Number: SS-28909B
Date Sampled: 24/06/2024 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Dates Tested: 25/06/2024 - 28/06/2024
Sampling Method: Sampled by Engineering Department
The results apply to the sample as received
Approved Signatory: Shae Harry
Sample Location: Bore 5, Depth: 1.6 - 1.9m
Laboratory Manager
Laboratory Accreditation Number: 828
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution (AS1289 3.6.1)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cob
Sieve Passed % Passing Limits
0.075
0.425
19 mm 100 Sieve
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
13.2
0.3
0.6
6.7
9.5
19
(mm)
13.2 mm 98 100
9.5 mm 98 90
6.7 mm 98
80
4.75 mm 98
Percent Passing
2.36 mm 98 70
1.18 mm 93
60
0.6 mm 87
0.425 mm 83 50
0.3 mm 76
40
0.15 mm 54
0.075 mm 48 30
Atterberg Limit (AS1289 3.1.2 & 3.2.1 & 3.3.1) Min Max 20
Sample History Oven Dried
10
Preparation Method Dry Sieve
Liquid Limit (%) 43
0.1 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30
Plastic Limit (%) 27
Particle Size (mm)
Plasticity Index (%) 16
Linear Shrinkage (AS1289 3.4.1) Min Max
Moisture Condition Determined By AS 1289.3.1.2
Linear Shrinkage (%) 8.5
Cracking Crumbling Curling None
Report Number: 222438.01-1 This document shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory. Page 2 of 2
Results relate only to the items tested/sampled.
Page 29
Appendix E
Previous Investigation Results
Proposed Retaining Wall 222438.01.R.001.Rev0
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach August 2024
Page 30
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Northern Consulting Engineers SURFACE LEVEL: -- BORE No: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Extensions EASTING: 511155 PROJECT No: 222438.00
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach NORTHING: 7080194 DATE: 30/5/2023
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Water
Depth
Log
RL
Sample
of (blows per 100mm)
Depth
Type
(m) Results &
Comments
Strata 5 10 15 20
FILL/Clayey SAND SC: fine to medium grained, brown, 0.0
trace of organics, moist, loose, fill D
0.3 0.3 pp = 300
FILL/Sandy CLAY CL: low plasticity, brown mottled 0.4
grey-orange, fine to medium grained sand, trace of fine
gravel, moist, very stiff, fill 0.6 pp = 300
0.7
- grey mottled brown
D
0.9 pp = 350
1 1.0 1
1.2
D
1.4 pp = 290
1.5 1.5
SAND SP: fine to medium grained, grey-white, moist,
loose
D
2 2.0 2
- wet
3 3
- loose to medium dense
3.8
Sandy CLAY CI/Clayey SAND SC: medium plasticity,
4 brown mottled grey-orange, fine to medium grained sand, 4.0 4
wet, stiff
D
4.4
5 5
- very stiff 5.3
D
5.6
6 6.0 6
Bore discontinued at 6.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Drillman GT10-KD DRILLER: DK LOGGED: DK CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 2.1m depth.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 31
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST REPORT
CLIENT: Northern Consulting Engineers PROJECT No: 222438.00 LOCATION No: 2
PROJECT: Proposed Extensions SURFACE LEVEL: -- DATE: 30/05/2023
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach SHEET 1 OF 1
Depth (m)
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
RL
(blows per 100mm)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
TESTED BY: DK Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
Page 32
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST REPORT
CLIENT: Northern Consulting Engineers PROJECT No: 222438.00 LOCATION No: 3
PROJECT: Proposed Extensions SURFACE LEVEL: -- DATE: 30/05/2023
LOCATION: 10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach SHEET 1 OF 1
Depth (m)
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
RL
(blows per 100mm)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
TESTED BY: DK Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
Page 33
10 Surfside Court – Construction Management Plan
Initial steps for the proposed work will be to erect barricade fencing to either side of the
site access opening as per attached areal photo markups. It was observed by the
builder when on site conducting preliminary site meetings etc over the course of one
week, that all pedestrian tra ic accessing the boardwalk at the end of Surfside Court,
used the pedestrian footpath on the Eastern side of the cul-de-sac without exception,
as it’s a more direct line of access. Therefore, pedestrian access will not be restricted or
impacted by the works.
The access driveway adjacent to the site is to a vacant block with no activity on the lot.
The owner of the block, Joanne Thompson, has given permission to the owner of
number 10 to use her block for access. This will provide additional o -street parking of
trade vehicles when required. The home at number 10 will be vacant during the works
and that driveway will provide o street parking, loading and unloading of trucks etc.
Once the dilapidated front boundary wall to the site is removed, all site access will be
through that point and contained within the property frontage and inside the safety
barricades. All materials, plant and equipment will be stored on site inside the property
boundaries.
The finished height of the proposed retaining wall at the sewer maintenance hole will be
no higher than the existing concrete terrace. The line of the step-back of the wall around
the maintenance hole will be approximately the same line as the existing concrete
terrace. Therefore, the accessibility of the maintenance hole has not been impacted.
The clearances around the maintenance hole were approved by Unity Water through
that part of the application process. The proposed works does not require the
excavation or unearthing of the Unity Water asset therefore it will not be impacted.
Accurate electronic pipe location will determine the exact depth and location of the
sewer line prior to commencement.
All street cleaning and care protocols will be followed throughout the construction
process.
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
OPW25/0053 30 MAY 2025
Page 34
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
OPW25/0053 30 MAY 2025
ARBORICULTURAL ASSESSMENT
10 Surfside Court, Sunshine Beach
Commissioned by Charlie Mort
Prepared by Brendan Martin
Director/Principal Consulting Arborist
ABN: 92 281 076 405
March 26, 2025
PO BOX 304 EUDLO Q 4554
Mobile: 0412 586131
[email protected] www.treesolutions.com.au
Dip.Arb/Hort, MAA, MISA, MQAA
Page 35
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
1. COPYRIGHT
Produced by: Tree Solutions Australia P/L
Prepared by: Brendan Martin (Dip.Arb/Hort, MAA, MISA, MQAA)
Commercial in Confidence
All the information contained in this document is provided in strict commercial confidence. It
shall not be disclosed to any third party or reproduced in any way without the express written
consent of Tree Solutions Australia.
Copyright
© Tree Solutions Australia P/L
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 2 of 10
Page 36
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
2. BRIEF
Terms of Reference
Request by Charlie Mort to prepare a Tree Report as per Council conditions.
Procedure
A ground site assessment was conducted on January 28, 2025.
2.0 Site Map – Approximate location of trees
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 3 of 10
Page 37
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
3. FINDINGS
3.0 Proposed boundary retaining wall at 10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach borders Council riparian
buffer Lot 400 on RP810724.
Engineering methodology involves the construction of a wall using a post and pier design with 1.5
metre and 2.7 metres spacings. This will allow tree roots to grow beyond the boundary line and
would greatly reduce or almost eliminate the excavation of or damage to existing tree roots.
3.1 Tree species located in the riparian buffer are varied but predominantly consist of Eucalyptus
robusta “Swamp Mahogany”, Hibiscus tiliaceus “Cottonwood” and a Ficus lyrata “Fiddleleaf Fig”
and are classified as early mature.
The construction methodology proposed will cause very little, if any, damage to the root systems
of these trees.
3.2 The boundary area of the riparian buffer is heavily overplanted with many trees encroaching
private property at number 10 Surfside Court.
There are potential issues with the root system of the exotic Fiddleleaf Fig causing damage to the
underground sewerage assets located on 10 Surfside Ct. This could be addressed during the
excavation/ pier boring process of the retaining wall.
3.3 Comments relating to the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands overlay code.
Paragraph b. c. and d. The existing habitat and the ecological values on the adjoining site will not
be diminished at all by the proposed work on the boundary line therefore no further provisions
will be required.
With reference to AO3.2 There are no habitat trees located in the area near the proposed site
With reference to AO4.1 a. Trees will be flagged prior to construction. d. Covered in findings 3.0
With reference to AO4.4 The minimal groundwork according to the engineering details will not result in
the removal of any vegetation that would cause such erosion.
With reference to AO5 a. to f. No wildlife refuges or movements will be impacted by the development.
With reference to AO6.1 a. b. and c. The proposed work will be accessed and carried out entirely from
the private property side of the boundary so no vegetation on the riparian buffer area will be impacted.
With reference to AO6.2 Refer to AO6.1
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.0 Recommend some minor root pruning as/if required during the post installation. There will also
be some pruning required to reduce encroachment from the boundary.
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 4 of 10
Page 38
IMAGES
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
UNITY WATER
MAINTENANCE HOLE
ASSET: 2665943,
S.L:25.23m
HE 23.35m,
SEWER BRIDGING
FOOTING FBI.
PROPOSED FUTURE
EXTENSION
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DECK
se
PROPOSED NEW BOUNDARY
MTV) RETAINING WALL WITH 1m.
TIMBER PALING FENCE.
NOTE:
[THE BUILDER SHALL ALLOW FOR CUT & REMOVAL
OF ALL ENCROACHING TREE ROOTS TO FACILITATE
[BORED PIER FOOTINGS,
NEW CONCRETE SLEEPER
RETAINING WALL WITH Im
} [UNITY WATER
183 [powncraen
\ % | MAINTENANCE HOLE.
Be fearouss
see
/
FROPOSID ANREP DEE ~ \ VE
s . Oe +
a c— a ~~ \ & 2
> Los — . Ny iw
NENENENE SS = —_ . ~ pl 5
INES ES a
: st
Ze Eyshub a nde ovetong ; swimingPoot
EXISTING MASONRY FENCE
TO BE DEMOLISHED AND
HAVE NEW TIMBER FENCE
WITH GATES BY BUILOER,
RETAINING WALL LAYOUT PLAN 1:100 @ a3
‘ALL DIMENSIONS AND REDUCED LEVELS MUST BE VERIFIED ON-SITE PRIOR TO EXCAVATIONS.
FOOTING LEGEND:
SITE & RETAINING WALL NOTES:
MARK
DESCRIPTION
a.
2
RWI
(8450 x 2000d BORED PIER FOOTING
‘1BOOHT SLEEPER WALL MAX.
150 UC 23.4 [email protected]?
(9600 x 2600 BORED PIER FOOTING
2240OHT SLEEPER WALL MAX.
150 UC 30.0 SOLDIERS @1550ers.
{0600 x 3000d BORED PIER FOOTING
PRE-CAST PANEL WALL 2400HT MAX.
SEWER BRIDGING RW.
200 UC 46.2 [email protected]
'350w X 400d B.C.
‘SEWER BRIDGING FOOTING BEAM
EXISTING BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN INDICATIVE ONLY.
EXISTING SEWER ALIGNMENT IS APPROXIMATE ONLY
[AND REQUIRES ON-SITE VERIFICATION PRIOR TO
UNDERTAKING ANY EXCAVATION WORKS.
ALL LEVELS HAVE BEEN DERIVED BASED ON UNITY
WATER MAINTENANCE HOLE SURFACE LEVEL DATA.
TRANSPOSED FROM BUILDERS ON-SITE LEVEL DATUM
(ON POOL SHELL COPING BEAM,
[ASITE TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL SURVEY SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN TO VERIFY ALL DESIGN LEVELS IN AHD
RIOR TO UNDERTAKING SITE WORKS,
‘ALLOW TO CONSULT WITH ENGINEER AFTER SURVEY
‘TO VERIFY CURRENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN.
BUILDER SHALL ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY CUT BATTER
SHORING WHERE NECESSARY.
SITE CONTOURS HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM NOOSA
SHIRE COUNCIL INTERACTIVE MAPPING AND ARE
INTENDED AS A GUIDE ONLY ALLOW TO CONFIRM ALL
LEVELS ON SITE PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING
EXCAVATIONS.
ENSURE RW BACKFILL IS FULLY DRAINED.
BASES OF ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST BE FREE OF LOOSE
MATERIAL AND WATER PRIOR TO CONCRETE
PLACEMENT.
DRAWING SCALE uno
DESCRIPTION BY [HKD JORAWING DETAILS
a FOR CONSTRUCTION te | va [orsign tr
forawn |i
[cHecK BY _|_KA
foate [oct 2070
FOR CONSTRUCTION
wwvw.structuraline.com
ph: 0478 009468
€ [email protected]
LS Robo
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach — March, 2025
‘Structuraline Consulting Engineers]
Lincoln Roberts - crtng, tn, nea 7393
PROPOSED BOUNDARY RETAINING WALL & LANDSCAPING | PROJECT No:
AT: 10 SURFSIDE COURT, SUNSHINE BEACH
FOR: MR CHARLES MORT
ING TITLE:
RETAINING WALL LAYOUT PLAN 02
Page 5 of 10
Page 39
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
Cotton Trees
Approx boundary
Council Riparian buffer
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 6 of 10
Page 40
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
Private property
Council Riparian buffer
Council Riparian buffer
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 7 of 10
Page 41
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
Council Riparian buffer
Fig
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 8 of 10
Page 42
Tree Solutions Australia P/L DISCLAIMER This information contained in this report has been prepared on an independent basis, free of any bias and represents the honest opinion of the consulting arborist. All data is based on visual inspection of the tree/s and its/their location at the time of writing, unless otherwise stated, and contains opinions, advice and recommendations based on information and data gathered from site inspections carried out by the author and information supplied by the Client. All information received from the Client shall be deemed to be true, accurate and up to date. To the extent permitted by law, you agree Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd is not liable to you or any person or entity for any loss of or damage caused or alleged to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence) either directly or indirectly, by your use of the information made available in this report. In no event will the author be liable to you for any lost revenue or profits, or for special, indirect, consequential or incidental damage (however caused and regardless of the theory of liability) arising out of or related to your use of that information, even if the author has been advised of the possibility of such a loss or damage. This report is subject to copyright laws and no part may be reproduced or used without the written permission of Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd nor will any responsibility be accepted for unauthorised or partial use of this report. Unless otherwise stated this report cannot be used within a court of law or any legal situation without the prior consent of Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd. The information contained in this report refers only to the trees that were inspected as per request and reflects the condition of the trees at the time of the inspection. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Arboriculturalists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. This report does not take into consideration the possibility of extreme weather or other events over which Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd has no control. Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the Arboriculturalists services, such as property boundaries and ownership, disputes between neighbours, sight lines, landlord-tenant matters and other related issues. Such issues cannot be considered unless complete and accurate information is given nor can any responsibility be accepted for the authorization or non-authorization of any recommended treatment or remedial measure. Arboriculturalists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Safety, the trees survival requirements and wildlife habitat needs are criteria considered. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live or work near a tree involves some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks associated with a tree is to eliminate the tree, our final and least desirable option. 10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 9 of 10
Page 43
Tree Solutions Australia P/L
BIBLIOGRAPHY
VTA (Visual Tree Assessment – Prof. Dr. Claus Mattheck 1994) based on ‘The Body Language of Trees’.
An Evaluation of Hazard Trees (ISA – Matheny & Clark 1994).
Dictionary for Managing Trees in Urban Environments – Danny B Draper and Peter A Richards.
Modern Arboriculture and a New Tree Biology by Dr Alex Shigo.
Arboriculture ‘Integrated Management of Landscape trees, shrubs and vines – Richard W. Harris.
Rainforest Trees and Shrubs – Harden, McDonald & Williams.
AS 4373 – 2007 (Australian Standards – Pruning of Amenity Trees).
AS 4970 – 2009 (Australian Standards – Protection of Trees on Development Sites).
10 Surfside Ct. Sunshine Beach – March, 2025 Page 10 of 10