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.
,
- 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
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed 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.