Council archive · source document
Development Application Part 2 of 2 - Geotech Report and Plans - OPW13/0816
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
Very large file (18.0 MB): may take a few minutes to open.
Plare 8Meod,h", \~IiI\~~flill!\[liM~~I ~Ii\E
X0030304
,
"..;l1kJ
.--
THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF A
MULTIPLE PART RECORD
~t\ Part 2---ofL - -
[d59lJ’ [0 ’t~
(Please Circle)
Application number: O(JvJ l3\ d6\\.LJ.
T:\I&AMIBCS IAM\INFORMATION MANAGEMENlECORDS MANAGEMEi’mControl of RecordslEDRMSlMulti Pan Record Coyer Sheet FIRST PART.d
Development Counter
",’,.’ Z 1 OCT 2013 ’
,.
..;:..r -. ’"
,.;’, 1j’,
: i ;~: .~
.
,
,"
.’ . ’
Tewantin
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 27 pages
Page 2
PROCEDURE
1. INST ALL SCREW PILES
2. PLACE GEOFABRIC ON CREEK BED
DOLPHIN CRESCENT 3. PLACE ROCK -
ST AGE ONE
4. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE REVETMENT WALL
N 5.
6.
PLACE GEOFABRIC OVER ROCKS
PLACE ROCK -
STAGE TWO
7. BACKFILL BEHIND REVETMENT WALL
ROCK VOLUMES
\\ ST AGE 1 -
150 cub.m NOMINAL
\\ STAGE 2 -
115 cub.m NOMINAL
\\
\\ PILES
\\
1. PILES SHALL BE STEEL SCREW PILES COMPL YING WITH AS
\\
\\ 2159-2009
\\ 2. PILES SHALL BE SET WITH AN APPROVED TORQUE METER
\\ 3. ALL PILES SHALL BE SUPPLIED WITH A WRITTEN GUARANTEE
\\
FOR A MINIMUM USEABLE LIFE OF SO YEARS WITH A MINIMUM
\\
WORKING SAFE VERTICAL PERMANENT LOAD OF 9.0 TONNES
\\~
\\
No. 27 No. 25 \ \ c:;; No. 23
LOT 81 LOT 80 Hi LOT 79
\\~
on N10573 \\~
\\
\I
\1
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
1\
\1 3000
2000 10200 (NOM.I 1500
G&KWHYTE
r= PROPOSED
/
// OPERATIONAL WORK
//////// EXISTING
REVETMENT WALL
ADJACENT TO No.25
~
o
~
o
0
g
0-
C/f////////
~/ ////////
/
////////
DOLPHIN CRESCENT
<>
<>
o r/r//////// NOOSAVILLE
....
r/[.//////b
//v//////
.
Norden
Engineering
RECONSTRUCT CONCRETE "IRa
REVETMENT WALL
8000 4100
a structural I CIvIl De8IgR eng......
SUIte 16 ’TewantIn Plaza"
PoIncIana Avenue I PO Box 205
Tewantin Q 4565
Ph:0754497137 Fax:0754497172
\ Entail:jl’[email protected]
I DRAWN DATE
WEYBACREEK AGUNN OCTOBER 2013
SCALE
MSHOWN
ISSUE
SITE PLAN
WORKI
1:200
ORONO. AMEN
J831-01
Page 3
>-
0::
No. 25 DOLPHIN CRESCENT WEYBA CREEK <
o
:z
::>
o
co.
150 MIN.
KEY INTO EXISTING
REVERBMENT WALL EACH END.
40 COVER
COAT INTERFACE WITH BOND
EXISTING TEMPORARY SPRAyeD
BREAKER AND SEAL FACES
CONCRETE EMBANKMENT
1.60AHD
WATER LEVEL DURING SURVEY (0.200 AHDl
. .
.
’.
11
j’
9.
N12@200
I :~".’>: . N12@200
eoMPAC’f1!O PILL
":’ 9;
.~. ’.. .’.
I.
"
..
I.. ...:
.
.
’C.’
~
.....
CLEAN FREE- DRAINING "
.
’
.-
>- AGGREGATE
0::
<. DN50 OUTLET DRAIN
o GEOFABRIC
2
(TERRAFlXSP360 AT 3000 MAX CS.
::>
o OR EQUIVALENT)
co
>-
t-
o::
1.&.1’
0-
o
I
0:: ~
N
0..
~
~
....
016x 500 BAR.
SECTION
1:50
EB EXISTING TYPICAL
1000 NOM.
SCREWPILES AT 3000 MAX CS.
(DESIGNAND CONSTRUCT BY
OTHERS)
No. 25 DOLPHIN CRESCENT WEYBA CREEK
G&KWHYTE
PROPOSED
1.60 AHD OPERATIONAL WORK
ADJACENT TO No.25
DOLPHIN CRESCENT
HAT (0.560 AHDI
NOOSAVILLE
WATER LEVEL DURING SURVEY 10.200 AHDI REVETMENT WALL DETAIL
1:20
LA T (0.560 AHDI Norden
ROCK LAYER SHAPE 2
- Engineering
SCA.E:W PILES AT 3000 MAX CS. GEOFABRIC.STAGE 2
(OEiSIGNAND CONSTRUCT BY
OTHERS)
CONCRETE Structural IeMI DesIgn Engineers
1 Suite 16 ’TewantIn Plaza"
STRENGTH -
40 MPa Polnclana Avenue I PO Box 205
~1MAX SLUMP -
80mm
Tewantln Q 4565
Ph:0754491137 Fax:0754497172
Emall:[email protected]
GEOFABRIC- STAGE 1
DRAWN DATE
>-
0:: ROCK LAYER.STAGE 1
< A.GUNN OCTOBER 2013
o
2’
::>
o SCALE
co
>-
t- AS SHOWN
o::
1.&.1
0..
SECTION
EB PROPOSED
o ISSUE
0::
0..
1:50
WORKINGDRG
DMMO. AMENDMENT
J831-02
Page 4
"
"
r:: n tt~? J ~’<’H ir::v C,.~
,’# ~’m’! 11, }, ....ox * "’
..;} ""’"1 i!_
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT -
REVETMENT WALL FAILURE
CLIENT: G & KWHYTE
SITE: 25 DOLPHIN CRESCENT
NOOSAVILLE
DATE: SEPTEMBER,2013
JOB NO: 113-15522
Page 5
~
~
Direct’Jts
S’li :-:;w’)(~y;;; E’l~iin;~B,jn9 Fty Umiied
f"’.i Dixon qHOI)!;) r-<pu~
!-;!::3c:<;;ists in i~{mlied :)n<)t’;~a::-::(:i: ~JTP:);..kil’’:: f<A.\)v)~~("~i!)"::’\!~f~^j. r~r:~""~{:’:",....:.1 ~
..-\....B.N. 7~; {.IS4 04.1 G::
MVGenJe Er.~ (CivU}i,,!8A CPf.r. ~ t,~;E }\tt~i! RPEO
G J Gmy
v.,-..;..;w. ${:H~~:;~V0’iS. (":~T:j,I;,
P Eliiinnl.cn 8EiCiv!!) fvn= AIl~ RPE(~.
h:;:~<;. ~i,~~*:;)
J ka~~s. 8E/~.:~(H:D::~;) f13:8
son.StUWfXS CP ~;cE::1$::-,:: 8f.=.r::~(C~vi}) RPEQ
Gold Coast Office
Job No: 113-15522
Ref: 1-15522,2013-09-26, LR VER 0
Author: Tim Phillips
26th September, 2013
G & KWhyte
6 Glendower Street
TOOWOOMBA OLD 4350
Email:[email protected]
ATTENTION: GRAHAM WHYTE
Dear Sir,
RE: 25 DOLPHIN CRESCENT, NOOSAVILLE -
FAILED REVETMENT WALL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation carried out
by Soil
Surveys Engineering Pty Limited at the above site on the 27th August and 24th September,
2013.
The investigation was carried out at the request of Noosa Jetty Builders on behalf of Graham
and Karen Whyte.
Authorisation to proceed with the investigation was dated 21st August, 2013.
The objective of this investigation was to assess site and subsurface conditions across the
Weyba Creek revetment to determine the failure mechanism responsible for the collapse of
the revetment and retaining walls, jetty and rear deck and to provide remedial options for
reinstatement, if required, and stabilisation of the revetment profile.
2.0 SITE HISTORY
It is understood movement and distress first became apparent about July, 2013 with rotation
of the jetty supports noted.
Complete failure and collapse of the jetty, revetment and retaining walls and section of the
rear timber deck is understood to have taken place in late July/early
August, 2013.
Temporary stabilisation of the exposed soil batter has since been carried out with a surfac-
ing of sprayed concrete across the batter face.
H :"~r.,;";:f;t:. G~,.!d ":::"::!:"~? ~.j~,.r,:~(":’Y!’: [,:,:;("::’:c,
f..::!:".~:;,~":V
!.’~:,."’::: :~’ :~i ::!:’:r;":~,:~ S:’:’:::.;::~ U::::~, -: ’if: ~Jq:::::~,:.\ :}:’t." 1 ~::l,l,~ ::’:;~’f’1 :.~~i~ -:r:, ~-:.~~ C:::’~;t::c::1;~’~~ ;.:i’~’~;::
:--I~::~;’J:: :’;.::~ t-:pj1’p::,’1;l~ G::’J (:.:~,:,-3:::: ,’~:"r::,~ 7i~:: ’:’;-,,,:;:~:~~ :’:~,~)~;:, s..::;,:~:-: :’~ ""’~.: (.’~-:’;~:’:’
~)’:’: :!.::"{, :;,~ ’.’> f,’f.~ ~1",:7 :S!’~..:’:;: (,()i?: :., ~,;::~;f, j’:::’.::’,:$!::l
p~~~,::: :t;::::" ~..:::~: .;:’ >: H:,:::~-::::!’~’".!’:d.:~ ’;’ .(~, ~:;kj ~ 212.. f,,~:::.;.::-.:!.’y ~";:~":. Q::: .::’--; :
/:,:.r’::.:’,~::;.~ .....:.:{..~:’;..::;; f~t::~~r.:)::.:-:
~’;.?’l .:, ’: ’;’ }.:~’f::: ~/;:’;i; .’:’: 7:’:? :;=.::;:) :::,~t1;-: :"r: :.;~.? ,~ :1~/.’i.’:!’=.:f ;-:.r: ~; :(’ ~:{:.:~:~ ~:/. :t:
):;::x :: n J.-t:!,:;-:’ ~:~if:~} F..) :;V::’ :;:.i!J:~ :,~.~::.’" !;:;>.< 61’... .:",,r. :J~:.,’i!;:) ):3’’>: i.!:.... !;~:./1; ,:~::~::
~..;’!-’.,~...:~~::;’ ~A’..!’;;:::.. ::’\’:’:)’~.:~,";I-=-:.:’::$ t~t~k~~’:~~,~~~(~~’::~,iJ:’J:g ,-=- y~.., ~,~,!,~:. .:;1.: !’..:-d~e:’:,::,:\!:’::’~~!i;;:;;(~::~::.:: ’..-(~.....~: ~. ~~:,~..~,:
f:::.:~’ V:,:y~~{:t-.:,>:!:::;.t:..,~:-~ .....~’:~~ .~~~: :’:
Page 6
,
-2-
Job No. 213-15522
3.0 WALL CONSTRUCTION
Provided site photographs and site inspections indicated that the revetment wall construction
comprised a low height cast insitu concrete wall constructed on a short corrugated fibro
sheet cut off wall. A three course blockwork retaining wall, with soil backfill, to have
appears
been constructed on the revetment wall at a later date with a timber deck
supported on a
high level footing system constructed behind the retaining wall.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Subsurface conditions were assessed with four boreholes carried out from a work
boat,
using hydraulically driven window sampling equipment and supplemented with Continuous
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests (DCP’s)with three DCP’s carried immediately behind the
temporary shotcreted revetment batter.
Borehole depths ranged from 2.0m to 3.0m below existing creek bed levels. DCP tests were
terminated at near penetration refusal at depths of 1.5m to 3.0m below
existing creek bed
levels and 4.5m to 4.8m below the existing ground levels behind the
temporary
revetment
batter.
The field investigation, soil classification descriptions and field tests were carried out in
general accordance with Australian Standards.
AS 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigation
AS1289 Method of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes
Notes relating to this report, Borehole Record Sheets, DCP test results and an Aerial
Photograph/Site Plan detailing the location of boreholes are appended to this report.
Field work was carried out on the 27th August and 24th September, 2013.
Water levels were also recorded at varying offsets from the rear of the
property to provide a
general profile of the Weyba Creek bed immediately offset from the failed revetment wall
location. The results are presented in brackets on the appended Aerial
Photograph/Site
Plan.
4.1 Subsurface Profile
The subsurface profile encountered in Boreholes 1, 3 and 4, comprised
very loose sand
extending to depths of about 1.2 to 1.8m overlying medium dense to dense sand.
At Borehole 2 location medium dense sands extended to about 1.2m and
overlay dense
conditions. The encountered very loose upper level subsurface profile is
generally typical of
active marine alluvial deposition process.
DCP’s 5 to 7, located immediately behind the remaining revetment batter, encountered
very
loose to loose and variable conditions to depths of 1.4m to 2.3m medium dense to
overlying
dense conditions. The DCP’s were terminated at near penetration refusal in dense strata at
depths of 4.5m to 4.8m below existing ground surface levels.
-;;: SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 7
,
- 3 -
Job No. 213-15522
5.0 FAILURE MECHANISMS
Review of historic aerial photographs of the Weyba Creek at the rear of the property
indicates continual changing of the creek bed profile with significant
scouring and sediment
deposition along the creek frontage of No. 25 Dolphin Crescent and the adjacent properties
to the immediate north.
Deep holes appear to have been scoured immediately behind several of the properties,
including No. 25 Dolphin Crescent.
Based on the results of the field investigation, historic records and site
photographs provided
to aid this investigation, we advise that the failure mechanism
responsible for the collapse of
the revetment and retaining walls. jetty and outside edge of the deck is considered to be loss
of foundation support.
This loss of foundation support has been brought about by
scouring of the Weyba Creek bed
immediately adjacent to the revetment wall.
The failure mechanism has also been exacerbated. to varying degrees, by the addition
surcharge of a retaining wall constructed on top of the revetment wall. backfilling behind the
retaining wall, surcharging the backfill with high level footings supporting the timber deck,
and possible build up of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls due to lack or absence of a
subsurface drainage system.
6.0 REMEDIAL CONSIDERATIONS
We advise that unless significant and adequate measures to inhibit further
scouring of the
immediate creek bed and revetment batter are actioned. erosion and of the rear of
slumping
the property would be expected to continue and would place the residence in peril, ie. the
revetment batter is currently about 2.Om to 3.4m off set from the rear of the residence.
It is considered that a number of options to stabilise the revetment wall area available.
including the reconstruction of the revetment wall (which would involve the reclamation of
the scoured zone) or the mass rock stabilisation of the site (which could result in a loss of
some yard area).
6.1.1 Reinstatement of Revetment and Retaining Walls (6P It AI i’)
0
If replacement of the revetment/retaining wall is adopted, it is recommended a
piled footing
system be adopted for the support of the wall, with piles founded not less than 1.5m into the
dense or better sand strata indicated beyond about 4.4m to 4.7m
depth below existing
ground levels immediately behind the remaining revetment batter. Deeper piles may be
required for load capacities depending on the final wall design.
Cased. jetted. cast insitu concrete piles or steel screw piles would be considered the most
appropriate piling systems for the site conditions encountered and access restrictions
imposed. However. it is recommended piling contractors be consulted for further advice as
to the most appropriate system for this site. Reinstatement of the
jetty structure, if proposed,
could also be considered using a similar piling system with appropriate
bracing to ensure
adequate lateral stability is maintained.
"#-SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1.15522,2013-09.20, LR VER 0
Page 8
-4-
Job No. 213-15522
,
For design purposes, geotechnical design strengths
(Rct,g) of 500kPa in end bcc:-:r.g C~~
40kPa in lateral capacity would be available at not less than .5m embedment into dense. or
better, sand strata. Uplift resistance parameters can be provided once a piling system has
been considered.
The use of raked piles could also be considered for additional lateral
capacity. Buttressing
revetment rock against the revetment wall, to at least HAT levei, would also contribute to the
passive resistance of the wall, however, it is not recommended the passive resistance
afforded by the revetment rock be considered in the wall design.
A working platform would be required for the installation of
piles and construction of a
suspended footing system to support the replacement revetment/retaining wall.
Options to provide a suitable construction pad include reinstating the revetment batter with
clean sand utilising a berm of revetment rock placed along the creek
frontage
to the
support
sand backfill. Refer Option 1 I Figures 1A and 1B.
It is recommended clean sand be used as wall backfill with a
drainage layer comprising not
less than a 300mm width of 20mm clean, free draining aggregate encased in a ie.
geofabric,
Terrafix SP360 or similar, placed immediately behind the wall and to within 300mm of the
backfill surface. Refer Figure 1 C.
It is essential the wall be constructed with adequate drainage holes to ensure efficient and
long term drainage of the wall backfill. However, it is recommended the replacement wall be
designed for full height hydrostatic pressure.
The following retaining wall soil design parameters are recommended for the
replacement
wall.
Backfill Unit Weight 18kN/m3
Earth Pressure Co-Efficient-Active (Ka)0.36 (280internal friction
angle)
It is suggested piling works be carried prior to stabilising the creek bed and revetment batter
with rock protection in order to inhibit possible impediments to piling works. it is
However,
essential the stabilisation works proceed promptly to inhibit further
degradation of the revet-
ment profile, which is currently encroaching to within 2.0m of the residence, and
possible
loss of foundation support at the rear of the residence.
’#SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 9
.5.
Job No. 213.15522
/ NOT TO SCALE ~
( ’"Existing Residence I
I ~ I
(jfigir:E!i ;;viilii ,.inI"
I I ,/ I
I ~f" .
I
I I
~.~iJ~~ I
Revetment tod< 1f
Existing Scoured Profile
to create berrn /
/
Geofabric
Figure 1A -
Rock Berm
NOT TO SCALE
Original Wal: Line
/
#1’"
sz
A{id sanG or
tevettnent r’,,).ch
iO create 3
\)!atform
vv’ryrking ’~~
Rev~t,n~nt n.lck !
Existing Scoured Profile
to create berm
//
Gt!:ori:t r!(;
Figure 1B - Foundation Replacement
-;11, SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 10
-
6 -
Job No. 213-15522
/ NOT TO SCALf: ~
( "" Existing Residence I
I v\;ai; Line
I
I I //0riginai ;
I
I ~ MII~
New Revetment Wall
I
20mm aggregate/
.
I ~;gt),"".,
encased in geofabric
"..
o..;:.\.~"..-x:-.x,~....
sz
I
"Z~~~,-~",,-_ I
Exlstllg S i’ Pf fil
Piled Foundations
(minimum 1,5m into dense sand)
Figure 1 C Wall Construction
-
NOT TO SCALE
Original VIIal; Lino
/
.
New Revetment Wall
~
Rock with geofabric under
(Orthickness) 4
;:;::::::::::]1
,. ~’’!’"<t~~v ’,.
Existing Scoured Profile
Piled Foundations
(minimum 1,5m into dense sand)
Figure 10 Ii Rock Protection
__ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 11
-7-
Job No. 213-15522
6.1.2 Revetment Stabilisation (~P ILO r-I 2...)
It is essential relevant authorities be consulted regarding the stabilisation measures recom-
mended in this report as the recommended remedial works extend into the Weyba Creek.
We also advise that stabilising the creek frontage of No. 25 Dolphin Crescent
may adversely
impact on adjacent waterfront properties due to possible/probable changing water flows
around the rock protection and this must be considered prior to remedial works. It was also
bouqht to our attention that immediate adjacent properties have also experienced the
adverse effects of scouring in Weyba Creek, however, the extent of damage or remedial
works undertaken was not assessed as part of this investigation program.
It is recommended the Weyba Creek bed revetment frontage at no. 25 Dolphin Crescent be
stabilised by the creation of a working platform of sand (where piles are required) and revet-
ment rock at a temporary 2H:1V profile). A surficial capping of revetment rock, on a
geofab-
ric should be placed. The revetment rock, typically well graded sound rock of nominally
+75mm, -300mm
grading, at least 500mm minimum thickness, placed over a geofabric
layer, ie. Elcomax 600R, or similar, and extending from at least Highest Astronomical Tide
(HAT)level on the replacement revetment wall, or to platform level if a replacement wall is
not proposed, and extended into the Weyba Creek to the invert level of the adjacent scoured
creek bed. Figures indicate schematic recommended rectification profiles.
Option 2
/ NOT TO SCALE
.
~
( ~ Existing Residence )
I ~f<-’
I ,/
rigJna: 0,i’ai; Line
I
~ I
\ ~
~".---==:
: 1! Existing Scoured Profile
, I
I
I
G<!.;()fabnc
Figure 2
’#,SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522, 2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 12
- 8-
Job No. 213-15522
7.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the use of G & K WHYTE for design
purposes in accor-
dance withgenerally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This
reoort has not been oreoared for use bv oarties other than G & K WHYTE. It may not
contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses.
Soil Surveys Engineering consider that a documentation review service (during the design
phase and prior to construction) to verify that the intent of geotechnical recommendations is
properly reflected in the design, along with construction inspections, forms a very important
component of the geotechnical engineering design service/process.
This statement is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Soil Surveys
Engineering in accordance with our commission, but rather to ensure that all parties who
may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in doing so and the
risks they accept should they decline to have Soil Surveys Engineering carry out a geotech-
nical documentation review and geotechnical construction inspections.
The geotechnical review ensures geotechnical risks to our Client and their project are
minimised at the design and tender stage of the project. Further, with Soil Surveys Engineer-
ing being commissioned to carry out geotechnical construction inspections, an opportunity at
the time of construction to confirm any assumptions made in the preparation of the report
and allow the effect of any normally occurring variation in ground conditions to be assessed
with respect to construction becomes available.
~SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 13
-9-
Job No. 213-15522
It is highly recommended that the Client avail themselves of these review and inspection
services; our standard rates will apply.
Yours faithfully,
. i7-,"b~/~ ....-
./:/7///r?/
/’
T. PHILLIPS
.
’’’-",.."-_.._’’’’~~,./
~:"-._____.._".
~..2-:r’"
.7~-._#-
~
P. ELKINGTON (RPEQ 7226)
for and on behalf of
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY L1MITEC
Attachments 1 )Notes Relating to this Report
2) Borehole Record Sheets and DCP Test Results
3)Aerial Photograph/Site Plan
4)Site Photograph
5) Historic Aerial Photographs
~SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
1-15522,2013-09-20, LR VER 0
Page 14
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
.lNIRQDUCU01l. descriptive terms regarding weathering (AS1726-1993
These notes are provided by Soil Surveys Engineering Table A9), strength (refer Table 1 below;, (:l;:.~:l~~:;
Pty Lm ted (the Company) to complement the (AS1726-1993 Table A10), etc. Where strength testing
geotechnical report in regard to classification methods (ie Point Loads) is carried out, AS1726-1993 Table A8
and field procedures. Not all notes are necessarily is used. Where relevant, further information regarding
relevant to all reports. rock classification is attached.
The ground is a product of continuing natural and
Table 1 Estimated strength descriptions given to rock
man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety
based on engineering examination
of characteristics and properties which vary from place
to place and can change with time. Geotechnical :1~t,iJ;(\;~\;~~’m:~~~r0\~~J1~jr~ :~,~r~~~~!~~~~)!!!1’
engineering involves gathering and assimilating limited Extremely Weak < 1.0
information about these characteristics and properties
Very Weak 1.0 -
5.0
in order to understand or predict the behaviour of the
Weak 5.0 -
25
ground on a particular site under certain conditions.
This report may contain such information obtained by Moderately Strong 25- 50
inspection, excavation, probing, sampling, testing or Strong 50 -100
other means of investigation. If so, they are directly
Very Strong 100 -
250
relevant only to the ground at the place where and at
Extremely Strong > 250
he time when the investigation was carried out.
Ref ISRM "Suggested Methods for the Quantitative
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICA TION METHODS
Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses"
Soils - The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
SAMPLING
Australian Standard 1726-1993 (Geotechnical Site
Investigations), where appropriate. In Sampling is carried out during drilling or from other
general,
excavations to allow engineering examination (and
descriptions cover the following properties - soil or rock
type, colour, structure, strength or density, and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.
nclusions. Identification and classification of soil and Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide
rock involves information on plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture
judgement and the Company infers
content, minor constituents and, depending upon
accuracy only to the extent that is common in current
geotechnical practice. sample disturbance, (information on strength and
structure).
Soil types are described according to the dominant
size and behaviour Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin
particle as set out in AS
1726-1993. walled sample tube, usually SOmm diameter (USO),into
the soil and withdraWing it with a sample of the soil
Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength
contained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such
(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer,
shear samples yieid information on structure and strength,
vane, laboratory testing or engineering
and are necessary for laboratory determination of
examination. The strength terms are defined in
shear strength, volume change potential and
AS1726-1993 Table A4.
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of
effective only in cohesive soils.
relative density usually based on insitu testing or
Details of the type and method of sampling used are
engineering examination (see AS1726-1993 Table A5).
given on the attached logs.
Rocks -
Rock types are classified by their geological
names (AS1726-1993 Table A6), together with
NOTES RELA nNG TO THIS REPORT.JUNE 2009.LWP SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 15
-
2-
TEST LoeA TlONS the drilling. The depth of refusal of the different bit
Test locations (e.g. boreholes, CPT’s, test pits etc.) types can provide information as to the st~~r.2~": .}f :!’:’:
Were based oli available access at the time of testili9 material encountered. Generally two different bit types
(access may need to be provided "by others"). Test are used. The ’V’ bit is a V shaped steel bit and the
locations may have been shifted if access was not ’TC’bit is a tungsten carbide tipped Screw type bit.
suitable. Wash Boring - The borehole is usually advanced by a
Unless noted otherwise, accuracy of test locations are rotary bit with water or fluid pumped down the hollow
to the accuracy of hand held GPS equipment. drill rods and returned up in the space between the
INVESTIGA TlON METHODS rods and the sailor casing, carrying the drill cuttings,
The following is a brief summary of investigation Only major changes in stratification can be determined
methods currently adopted by the Company and some from the cuttings, together with some information from
comments on their use and application. "feel" and rate of penetration. More accurate
Test Pits These excavated with information on soil strata is gained by regular testing
-
are normally a
backhoe tracked and sampling using the Standard Penetration Test
or a excavator, allowing close
examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend (SPT)and undisturbed thin walled tube samples (U50).
into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about Mud Stabilized Drilling - Either Wash Boring or
3m for a backhoe and up to 6m for an excavator. Continuous C r Drilling an US drilling mud as a
limitations of test pits are the problems associated circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The term
with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatement and the "mud" encompasses a range of products ranging from
consequent effects on close-by structures. Care must bentonite to polymers such as Revert or BiogeL The
be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pit mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable
locations to either properly recompact the backfill identification is only possible from regular intact
during construction or to design and construct the sampling (eg. from SPT and U50 samples) or from
structure so as not to be adversely affected by poorly rock coring, etc.
compacted backfill at the test pit location. Continuous Core Drilling - A continuous core sample
Hand Auger Drilling - A borehole of 50 to 100mm is obtained using a diamond or tungsten carbide
diameter is advanced by manually operated tipped core barrel. Provided full core recovery is
equipment. Refusal of the augers can occur on a achieved (which is not always possible in very weak
variety of materials such as hard clay, gravel or rock rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
fragments and does not necessarily indicate rock level. very reliable method of investigation. In rocks, NMLC
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - The borehole is coring (nominal 52 mm diameter) is usually used with
advanced water flush. The length of core recovered is compared
using 75 to 300 mm diameter continuous
to the length drilled and any length not recovered is
spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to
allow sampling insitu testing. This is a shown as CORE LOSS. The location of losses is
or relatively
economical of drilling in determined on site by the supervisor. If the location of
means clays and in sands
above the water table. the loss is uncertain, it is placed at the top end of the
Samples are returned to the
surface by the flights or be collected after run, when the core is placed in a storage tray and
may
withdrawal of the augers. Information from the drilling recorded on the log.
(as distinct from specific sampling) is of relatively lower Standard Penetration Tests -
Standard Penetration
reliability due to remoulding, inclusion of cuttings from Tests (SPT)are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but
above or softening of samples by groundwater, or can also be used in cohesive soils, as a means of
uncertainties as to the original depth of the samples. indicating density or strength. The test procedure is
Augering below the groundwater table has a lower described in Australian Standard 1289, "Methods of
reliability than augering above the water table. Various Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes" - Test 6.3.1.
drill bits are attached to the base of the augers during
NOTES RELA TlNG TO THIS REPORT JUNE 2009.LWP
-
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 16
-
3 -
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm resistance, fs, in kPa). These forces are measured by
diameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under electrical transducers (strain gQ~g~:::; ’..::~~::-: ~~: :::-::
the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 device. The ratio between friction resistance and cone
mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three resistance is also calculated as a percentage, ie.-
successive 150 mm increments and the ’N’ value is . Friction Resistan eels (kPa)x 100
Fnct’
Ion R at’
/0 (FR) _
-
cone resistan ce, qe (kPa)
taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm, the The friction ratio, FR, is generally low in sands (less
upper 150 mm being neglected due to possible than 1% or 2%)and generally higher in clays (say 3%
disturbance from the drilling method. In dense sands, or more). The interpretation of sandy clays, clayey
very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm sands and material with a high silt content is more
penetration may not be practicable and the test is difficult, but intermediate values (between 1 % and 3%)
discontinued at a reduced penetration. would be expected. Highly organic clays and peats
In the case where full penetration is obtained with generally have a friction ratio in excess of 5%.
successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say 4, 6 Static cone data is recorded in the field on disc for later
and 7 blows, the record shows, presentation using computer aided drafting.
4,6,7 N = 13 The equipment can be operated from any conventional
In a case where the test is discontinued short of full drill rig. A total applied load in the range of 4 to 10
penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm tonnes is required for practical purposes, although
and 30 blows for the next 40 mm, the record shows: lighter loads may be used. The cone penetrometers
15,30/40mm are available with various capacities of cone resistance
The results of the test can be related empirically to the ranging to 100 MPa for
up general purpose
engineering properties of the soil. investigations, while a range of 0 to 10 MPa can be
Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mm used where more sensitive investigations of soft clay
diameter thin walled sample tubes (USO)in clays. In are required.
such circumstances, it is noted on the borehole logs. The resistance value continuous
cone provides a
A modification to the SPT test is where the same measure of soil strength or density, and together with
driving system is used with a solid 600 tipped steel the friction ratio, provide very useful indications of the
cone of the same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. presence of narrow bands of geotechnically significant
The solid cone can be continuously driven for some layers such as thin, soft clay layers or lenses of sand
distance in soft clays or loose sands, or may be used which might otherwise be missed using conventional
where damage would otherwise occur to the SPT. The drilling methods.
results of this Solid SPT are shown as "Ne" on the The lithology of the encountered soils is interpreted
borehole logs, together with the number of blows per from static cone data and is generally presented on the
150 mm penetration. static cone log sheets,
Cone Penetration Tests -
Test Method -
Cone It is important to note that the lithology is interpreted
Penetration Tests (CPT)are carried out in accordance information and is based on research by Schmertmann
with AS 1289 Test 6.5.1-1977, using an electrical (1970), Sanglerat (1972), Robinson and Campinalli
friction-cone penetrometer. (1986), modified to suit local conditions as indicated by
The test essentially comprises the measurement of borehole information and laboratory testing.
resistance to penetration of a cone of 35.7 mm As soils generally change gradually it is sometimes
diameter pushed into the soil at a rate of 10-20 mm per difficult to accurately describe depths of strata
second by hydraulic force. The resistance to changes, although greater accuracy is obtained with
penetration is recorded in terms of pressure on the end the static cone compared with conventional drilling. In
area of the cone (cone resistance, qe, in MPa) and addition, friction ratios decrease in accuracy with low
friction on the side of the 135 mm long sleeve cone resistance values, and in desiccated soils. As a
immediately above the top of the cone (friction result, some overlap and minor discrepancies may
NOTES RELA TING TO THIS REPORT JUNE 2009.LWP
-
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 17
-4-
exist between static cone and nearby borehole GROUNDWATER
information. Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes,
Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers -
Portable there are several otehtlal robletns.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)tests are carried Although groundwater may be present in lower
out by driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight
permeability soils, it may enter the hole slowly or
hammer and measuring the blows for successive
perhaps not at all during the time the hole is open.
100mm increments of penetration. A localized
.
perched water table may lead to an
The DCP comprises a Cone of 20 mm diameter with
erroneous indication of the true water table.
30 degree taper attached to steel rods of smaller .
Water table levels will vary from time to time with
section.
seasons or recent weather changes and may not be
The cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer falling 510
the same at the time of construction.
mm (AS. 1289 Test 6.3.2). The test was developed The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask
initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and
any groundwater inflow. Water has to be bailed out of
empirical correlations of the test results with California
the bore and mud must be washed out of the hole or
Bearing Ratio have been published by various Road
"revertedft if water observations are to be made.
Authorities. The Company has developed their own
More reliable measurements can be made by use of
correlations with Standard Penetration tests and
standpipes which are read after stabilizing at periods
Density Index tests in sands.
ranging from several days to perhaps weeks for low
LOGS
permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular
The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are an
stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or
engineering and/or geological interpretation of the
where there may be interference from perched water
subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend
tables or surface water.
to some extent on the frequency of sampling and the
FILL
method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous The presence of fill materials can often be determined
undisturbed sampling or core drilling will enable the
only by the inclusion of foreign objects (eg. bricks,
most reliable assessment but is not always practicable
steel, etc.) or by distinctly unusual colour, texture or
or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any
fabric. Identification of the extent of fill materials will
case, the boreholes or test pits represent only a very
also depend on investigation methods and frequency.
small sample of the total subsurface conditions.
Where natural soils similar to those at the site are used
The attached explanatory notes define the terms and
for fill, it may be difficult with limited testing and
symbols used in preparation of the logs.
sampling to reliably determine the extent of the fill.
Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, The presence of fill materials is usually regarded with
and its application to design and construction, should
caution as the possible variation in density, strength
therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or
and material type is much greater than with natural soil
test pits, the method of drilling or excavation, the
deposits. Consequently, there is an increased risk of
frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of adverse engineering characteristics or behaviour. If
other than ftstraight line" variations between the
the volume and quality of fill is important to a project,
boreholes or test pits. Subsurface conditions between
then frequent test pit excavations are preferable to
boreholes or test pits may vary significantly from boreholes.
conditions encountered at the borehole or test pit
locations.
NOTES RELA TING TO THIS REPORT JUNE 2009.LWP
-
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 18
-5-
LABORATORY TESTING If differences occur, the Company will be pleased to
Laboratory testing is normally carried out in assist with investigation or advice to resolve any
accordance with ALJstraliah Standard 1289 "Methods of problems occurring.
Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes". Details of the SITE ANOMALIES
test procedure used are given on the individual report In the event that conditions encountered on site during
forms and the attached explanatory notes summarize construction appear to vary from those expected from
important aspects of the Laboratory Test Procedures the information contained in the report, the Company
adopted. requests that it immediately be notified. Most
ENGINEERING REPORTS problems are more readily resolved when conditions
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified are exposed than at some later stage, well after the
personnel and are based on the information obtained event.
and on current engineering standards of interpretation Extreme events including but not limited to the results
and analysis. The information provided in Soil Surveys of climate change, ego flood levels above previously
Engineering reports is opinion and interpretation and identified levels, beach scour or erosion beyond
not factual. The client/contractor increases their risk normal expectations (as identified by local authorities)
by not retaining the person who authored the extreme rainfall events, war, espionage, sabotage may
geotechnical report, to carry out site inspection and r sult in different c ndit ns betw n tim of
review (overseeing role) during construction, to confirm investigation and time of construction.
opinion and interpretation expressed in the report is REPRODUCTION OF INFORMA TlON FOR
accurate. Where the report has been prepared for a CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES
specific design proposal the information and Attention is drawn to the document "Guidelines for the
interpretation may not be relevant if the design Provision of Geotechnical Information in Construction
proposal is changed. If this happens, the Company will Contracts (1987)", published by the Institution of
be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of
Engineers, Australia. Where information obtained from
the investigation work.
this investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to is recommended that all information, including the
interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of written report and discussion, be made available. In
geotechnical aspects and recommendations or circumstances, where the discussion or comments
suggestons for design and construction. Since the section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it
test sites in any exploration represent a very small be
may appropriate to prepare a specially edited
proportion of the total site and since the exploration document. The Company would be pleased to assist
only identifies actual ground conditions at the test sites, in this regard and/or to make additional report copies
even under the best circumstances actual conditions available for contract purposes at a nominal charge.
may vary from those inferred to exist. No responsibility REVIEW OF DESIGN
is taken for:-
Where major civil or structural developments are
Unexpected variations in ground and/or groundwater proposed or where only a limited investigation has
conditions. been completed or where the geotechnical conditions/
Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by constraints are quite complex, it is prudent to have a
statutory authorities. joint design review which involves a senior
.
The actions of other persons. geotechnical engineer. We would be happy to assist in
Any work where the company is not this regard as an extension of our investigation
given the
commission. Construction drawings should be
opportunity to supervise the construction using the
reviewed by Soil Surveys Engineering, with sufficient
Companies designs/recommendations.
time to allow changes if required, prior to inspections.
NOTES RELA TlNG TO THIS REPORT JUNE 2009.LWP
-
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 19
-
6 -
Otherwise Soil Surveys Engineering reserves the right conservatism which is commensurate with the
to refuse to carry out inspections.
consequences of the risk of error.
SITE INSPECTION Estimates of volumes based on our findings require
The Company will always be pleased to provide interpolation and extrapolation between test locations
engineering inspection services for geotechnical and as such may be significantly different from actual
aspects of work to which this report is related. volumes.
i) Site visits during construction to confirm reported
ground conditions
ii) Site visits to assist the contractor or other site
personnel in identifying various soil/rock types such as
appropriate footing or pier founding depths, the stability
of a filled or excavated slope; or
iii) Full-time engineering presence on site.
In the vast majority of cases it ;s advantageous to the
principal for the geotechnical engineer who wrote the
investigation report to be involved in the construction
stage of the project.
The geotechnical engineer cannot take responsibility
for variations in encountered conditions, where he is
not given the opportunity to review plans for the
proposed development with sufficient time to allow
review and make changes to the proposed
development if required, and where he is not given the
opportunity to inspect the site and oversee
construction methods with regard to site conditions
with sufficient time to observe all relevant site
conditions and operations.
RESPONSIBLE USE OF GEOTECHNICAL
INFORMA TlON
Recommendations in our report are for design
purposes only and provided on the basis that
inspections are carried out to allow finalisation of
opinions and recommendations contained in our
report.
The geotechnical investigation consisting of field and
laboratory testing has been carried out to indicate
typical conditions by indicating conditions and
parameters at the specific locations of boreholes/test
pits. Subsurface conditions are indicated at these
locations only and. the inference of conditions between
or away from these locations (interpolation and
extrapolation) involves a certain degree of risk.
Persons inferring such conditions or carrying out such
inferences should do so with a degree of caution and
NOTES RELA NG TO mls REPORT JUNE 2009.LWP
-
SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING
Page 20
..
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Mlton:ph~1133696tlOObtIobane@ScloLrve}’8.arn."" Location Number: BH 01
Gold Coos!: ph+1755OO0465~c""...u
Nor1hamRlvefs:ph+175S2345n_~com.lW Project Number: 113-15522
Maclaly. ph +61 749<229rJ1 m Y@sole<r;eys.oom.au
Project Name: Revetment Wall Failure
~q:f)U. S{.HfVl~YS
Location: 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville
Easting:507654 Northing: 7080212 RL: Bed level m Client: G & K Whyte
Logger: 8M Operator. CS Machine: Date: 27/08/2013 Page: 1 OF
"
Drilling Method DCPTest
:c
g r Depth Q.
Description (blows/10Omm) Samples and
l!’ Remarl<s
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl 12 18 24 30
.:....: .: NATURAL SAND (SP)Very loose, fine to medium grained,
::....-:-.:: grey, shell grit, wet.
’,,’ .
:
’,::’,
0.5
"
.
’,:
’.
’,’ ~.
1.0
’". .
.
’.’ .
.
.".’
1.5
.
’,’ .
1.80 ’. .,.: ’.
:’........: SAND (SP)Medium dense,fine to medium grained, yellow
2.0 ::’’:-:’..:’brown, shell grit, moist.
’.
.
: .
.2
BOREHOLE BH 01 TERMINATED AT 2.20 m
2.5
~
o
~
~
o
3.0
’"
I
t
3.5
~
~
g
:;:
~ 4.0
a:
g
<
~
:J
en
g 4.5
~
<!!
!
&
5.0
~
~ Comments: AS- 6ci1
g ’I:W’~.IIIIIy""""’’’.l
"".........,--
sw-~~
i
IV
FR-FJW1
Rod<~h
Wl’w~...
MS......umllrolg Approved:
.........
~ ~Water FIrst Noted ...s.-Water Steady Level Vs-VflYstralg Date:
Page 21
.
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
MJton:ph<11336961lOObrWm~~COO1.au Location Number: BH 02
Gad CoeoI: ph +61 75500 fl465 goIda>[email protected]
Ncr1hemRlw=ph+61755234577na1horrrNe<[email protected] Project Number: 113-15522
_Yo ph +61 749422!XJl macJy@soilouve~com.Bu
Project Name: Revetment Wall Failure
S~[Hi. S~1:RVi7fS
Location: 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville
Easting:507654 Northing: 7080224 RL: 8ed level m Client: G & K Whyte
Logger: 8M Operator: CS Machine: Date: 27/08/2013 Page: 1 OF 1
"
Drilling Method OCPTest
:
g r Depth a.
Desaiption (bIowsJ100mm) Samples and
~ Remarks
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (!)
:’.......: NATURAL SAND (SP)Medium dense, fine to medium
::’.>:’..:’ grained. grey, moist
’.
":.’,
" .’
.
."
0.5
’. .
. ..
..... .
1.0
. .’
. .
"
.... .
1.26 :’:’:’.
:’...... -:. SAND (SP)Dense, fine to medium grained, grey, moist.
.... "
"
"
1.5 ’,’,- ",
.
’,’ .
2.0 2.00" ’::’.
BOREHOLE 8H 02 TERMINATED AT 2.00 m
2.5
1
o
8
~
o
3.0
..,
I
^
.
3.5
g
~
~
~
J
~ 4.0
tr
~
it
::::J
..
~ 4.5
~
"1
~
~
~ Comments:
5.0
~ RS- ’.Soil
g XN-BIr..IIIjy-...dIllf.l
1)DCP refusal met at 1.5m. DW.I>otindIY_
SW-SlcJhfti’olllUltw.d uso
I
~
::::J
FR-Fn5h
Rock~th
w;w~... SPT]
U)
us - Madum ItrmQ
Disturted
Approved:
Sample [
6.......
~ ~Water First Noted ....s.- Water Steady LeIIel VS-V<<y~ Date:
Page 22
.
Soil SUNeys Engineering Ply. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Mlton:[email protected] Location Number: BH 03
=::’;::6~:23~=;a.,,-,w Project Number: 113-15522
_y:ph <617 49o<22!107 macIca~cor"’(J
Project Name: Revetment Wall Failure
SOIL SilRVEYS
Location: 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville
Easting:507662 Northing: 7080227 RL: Bed level m Client: G & K Whyte
Logg.er: 8M Operator: CS Machine: Date: 27/08/2013 Page: 1 OF
0riIII0g Method o
DCPTest
:t=
g r Depth a.
Description (blows/1oOmm) Samples and
~ Remarks
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (!)
.
NATURAL SAND (SP)Very loose,fine to medium grained,
::’.:’:’::’ grey brown., wet
’,," .
.
."
0.5
’,’,,4,
. . ’.
.
’" .
.
."
1.0
’,’,’ ".
.
’.’ .
1.20 :’:’:’.
:’.:.:.:. SAND (SP}Medium dense, fine to. medium grained,
grey,
’:.::. :. moist.
1.5 .
.
’.’
..
.
’,’ .
’,:’ .
1.70,’ :’.
SAND (SP)Dense, fine to medium grained, grey, moist.
"
’.
2.0 2.00 ’. .: :’.
BOREHOLE BH 03 TERMINATED AT 2.00 m
2.5
1
o
~
lil
’"
’"
3.0
::
..,
I^
l
3.5
I
~
:::i
~
~ 4_0
If
g
...
~
=>
’"
~ 4.5
~
<!1
~
~
~
5.0
~
~ Comments: AS- Soil
’"
>l:N..E.,.jy......d
’"
DW.__
SW-Sl/IIIti~
i
’"
FR-Ff1IIth
Rod<
Stn.:ath
IIINw~"",
MS Mtdum strmg
-
Approved:
s.......
g ~Water~Noted ~WaterSteadyLevel \IS-V.-yShtlg Date:
Page 23
.
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialist in Applied Geotechnics
Mllon:pIl+61733696000~ys.",,",.,," Location Number: BH 04
Goid Coo’" ph <61 75500 0465 goIck;[email protected]
N_RNeta:pI\+6175523-’S77_~ys.com.au Project Number: 113-15522
Mackay. pIl.oS1 749422SfJ7 _~oom.Bv
Project Name: Revetment Wall Failure
s.on. SJ,lRvt?Y3
location: 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville
Easting:50765B Northing: 70B0234 RL: 8ed level m Client: G & K Whyte
Log.g.er: 8M Operator: CS Machine: Date: 27/08/2013 Page: 1 OF 1
(J
DrillIng Method DCPTest
:t:
gE Depth Cl.
Description (blows1100mm) Samples and
~ Remarks
~ ~ ~ ~ 5 (!) 12 18 24 30
NATURAL Silty SAND (SM)Very loose, fine to medium
grained, yellow brown, medium plasticity fines, organics
throughout, strong odour.
0.5
1.0
1.5
.
SAND (SP)Loose to medium dense, fine to medium
::’.’::<: grained, grey, moist.
.
2.0 2.00 . :.
.: :
.:.:....:. SAND (SP)Medium dense, fine to medium grained, grey,
’:..:’.:- moist.
2.30 . ’::’.
SAND (SP)Dense, fine to medium grained, grey, moist.
2.5 .
....:.
1 ’. ," ,
o . .’
. ", .
N
~
.,
’.
:..
’.:....
.’
.
o
::
’"
BOREHOLE BH 04 TERMINATED AT 3..Q0 m
I
~
~
3.5
1
~
~
:;:j
:g
J
~. 4.0
f&
g
<(
~
:::>
’"
,.;
lil 4.5
~
~
~
~
5.0
~
~ Comments: R$- 5cil
’"
o
’:t!N-&lr.~......._.d
rm.lliotinaIy_
SW-SllQhtly....., uso
I
i
CD
FR-Frah
RockSlh.nath
"".;7:" SPT
]
us Mrdum strm"
-
Disturbed
Approved:
Sample [
.........
~ ~WaterArstNDted -S-WaterSteadyLevel VS-Vrjstrcng Date:
Page 24
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited DYNAMIC CONE PENTROMETER TESTINn
Specialistin Applied Geotechnics
Project Num ber: 113-15522
Mlton: ph +17 3369 6OOOb~arn.,,"
GaldCoost:ph+61755000465go1d~oom.ou Project Name: Revetment Wall Failure
==::;:~;:!~-:=ys.com.au Location: 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville
Client: G & K Whyte
:ROI1. S~.JRVl~:(:~
DCP05 DCP06 DCP07
Ea&t Nor1hi1g: Rl Easting. Northing: Rl Ea1iUlg: Nonting: RL
DCPTest DCPTest DCPTest
(blowsl100mm) (blowsl1OOmm) (blows1100mm)
12 18 24 30 12 18
0.0 0.0 24 30
0.0 12 18 24 30
0.5 0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
2.5E 2.SE 2.SE
a. a. a.
Gl Gl Gl
Q Q Q
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5 3.5
4.0 4_Q 4_0
4.5 4.5 4.5
5.0 5.0 5.0
Notes Notes Notes
.
1. Operator: ZDK 1. Operator:ZDK 1. Operator: ZDK
2. Date: 2410912013 2. Date: 2410912013 2. Date: 24/0912013
Page 25
--~-_._-_._-
(~a tLlf~d t)ftSurlda~t~ ’11 Au.gust 20’1(3
BH Offsets from Remaining Revetment Wall rl_......____
BH1 -
20m DCP’s 5-7 located
BH2 -
10m immediately behind the
____.___ ’__-.i.
Project Revetment/Retaining Wall Failure
BH3 -
10m shotcrete revetment batter Drawing Nt),
Date
BH4 -
O.5m Sept 2013 location 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville J1l4.
11~:.1!W22
Note: Water depth in brackets (measurementstaken within 2 hours of High Tide) Checked
Client G & K Whyte
=====_ :==::111==_===-’==:
Page 26
"
Job No. 213-15522
I ...~/~?~~f?~~;~F’ .;;..... ..~~;.;:.. .~: :.::.
,’~;"l;~ti:i :’::’:?~:’,):(" -:~: ;’:~m::~:;~: ;;:::::~::::::
.
:";::..’ ..
....
_..’:....~~:
..."’’^’’’’’.’,..
i.,’
.. :’:.
:;;:^.~
..
.
>’;-’:::
.....:’jl),;~jlr.i!’!;:~i;d\,;,;.; :}:f{f:;;~{:j"
;;;:’.-.:::::-
.’;’ .
.
~..:
.::’~’"
~ ;: ~:
;.:-
::.::::~:’::’
;:.= ::~:
:’:’: :.):
.~:;
:{i.t;!;w:; ;!:’:.t(: (i;’;:.; ~1: :\~!,;i)f;~ w~~i1jj~
’;’: :.::....~K: ~x~;:., ........ .{{:":;: ,.. ’~ ...~",," 7"’." "’f
1
Site Photograph 27 August 2013
#,SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
[OCR of page images]
Job No. 213-15522
Site Photograph 27 August 2013
#- SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
Page 27
..
.l
J~b No. 213-15522
June 2008
September 2012
~ SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
[OCR of page images]
Job No. 213-15522
|
|
;
June 2008
|
|
September 2012
#- SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
Page 28
Graham & Karen Whyte
25 Dolphin Crescent
Noosaville, Qld...4566
9th October, 2013
Queensland Department of Natural Resources & Mines
Re: Authority to Act on our Behalf
Dear Sir,
This letter is to advise that we give authority to the following to act on our behalf individually or
together with respect to Owners Consent to a Development Application for proposed works at our
property situated at 25 Dolphin Crescent, Noosaville, Qld, 4566:
Danny Reed
c/- Noosa Jetty Builders
P.O. Box 299
Noosaville. Qld...4566
John Norden
c/- John Norden & Associates
Structural/Civil Design Engineering
Suite 16, Tewantin Plaza,
113 Poinciana Avenue
Tewantin, Qld...4565
Yours Faithfully,
/-~r
K.M. Whyte
Used in these records
Development Application Part 2 of 2 - Geotech Report and Plans - OPW13/0816Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 18.0 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.