Original source · versioned page text
Slope Analysis 18 Hay St
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
ABN 51 640 311 841
Attention: Wim Brouwers 28 Apr 2022
By Email ARCOS PROJECT:220452
Report 01 Revision 0
Report on Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residential Dwelling
18 Hay Street, Tewantin
Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd (Arcos Group) has undertaken a geotechnical investigation for the above project and
client.
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
Results of Australian Geomechanic Society Landslide Risk Assessment
Very Low
Note: The above is a summary of the detailed investigation results discussed within this report. The entire report must be read,
understood and kept in entirety.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Andre Dos Santos B.Eng (Civ), MIEAust, RPEQ, CPEng,
NER
[email protected]
For and On Behalf of Arcos Group
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
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 38 pages
Page 2
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
1 INTRODUCTION
Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd (Arcos Group) was commissioned to undertake a geotechnical investigation for the project
at the location described on the title page of this report.
This report outlines the results of the investigation, laboratory testing, analysis, and interpretive reporting on the
following items:
Review of the existing slope stability hazards, their attributed risks and impacts of the proposed development in
alignment with the practices set out within the Australian Geomechanics Society guidelines; and,
Provide recommendations from a geotechnical context that will avoid or reduce any potential instability.
This report must be kept in entirety. The use of this document is exclusively undertaken in accordance with our terms
and conditions.
2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The site is in an area underlain by late Triassic to early Jurassic aged Myrtle Creek Sandstone, which typically
comprises “deeply weathered quartzose sandstone, siltstone, shale conglomerate, coal”. The encountered conditions
broadly agree with the weathering of the anticipated geological unit.
3 EXISTING STABILITY RISK
Local authorities prepare mapping tools to aid in assessing potential slope stability requirements. The mapping tools
are a “high level” approach where the site specific investigations are specific to a particular site/allotment. It is
important to note that where a site specific investigation and slope stability assessment are undertaken, they take
precedence.
Reference to the available overlays for the area show the allotment has been probably initially mapped as “Moderate”
in terms of landslide hazard.
4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A geotechnical investigation has been undertaken for the property by Caloundra Soil Testing as detailed in their
report (Report No. 2487 Site Classification Report 21/03/2022). The investigation indicates a soil profile of loose/soft
soils underlain by very stiff clay below 0.7 m to 2 m depth.
This report is attached and the encountered conditions in this investigation have informed the analysis undertaken
by this office. Given this, where discrepancies exist between the encountered conditions in the referenced report and
the encountered conditions, our analysis cannot be considered to be accurate and reassessment will be required.
5 WALKOVER ASSESSMENT
Geotechnical comments are based on the factual findings of the investigation, best practice, local experience,
published correlations; however, are fundamentally founded in opinion and this should be considered.
Topographically, the site has a gentle slope to the south at angles of less than 5° to 10°. No obvious signs of disturbed
ground, tension cracks or hummocks were noted during the walkover assessment. A variety of vegetation ranging
from small shrubs to mature trees were observed. The mature trees were all observed to be typically vertical with no
misshapen or curved trunks. Misshapen or curved trunks are usually good indicators for previous slope instability.
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 3
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
6 AGS ASSESSMENT
Landslides are caused where a soil or rock mass has a decrease in strength, usually attributed to groundwater,
resulting in the material not being able to maintain its own self-weight resulting in a slope failure.
The Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) developed a set of tools and procedures for assessing the stability of
a slope. The tools and procedures presented with the AGS documentation form the basis of the assessment
undertaken herein and their documentation is attached for reference.
The guidelines also identify that the regulator typically sets the standard for levels of tolerable risk. AGS defines
tolerable risk as “risks within a range that society can live with so as to secure certain benefits. It is a range of risk
regarded as non-negligible and needing to be kept under review and reduced further if practicable”.
The guides suggest that areas of moderate or greater risk should not be developed unless a rigorous remediation
plan be implemented to reduce the area to a level of Acceptable Risk. AGS defines acceptable risk as “risk which
everyone affected is prepared to accept. Action to further reduce such risk is usually not required unless reasonably
practicable measures are available at low cost in terms of money, time and effort.”.
AGS suggest that regulators generally accept risk levels of “low” or lower as a level of acceptable risk.
AGS prepared a semi-quantitative assessment tool for determining the level of risk for a site. The tool separates the
potential hazards for a site, from a stability context, and rates them with a level of risk frequency. The multiplication
of these individual risk frequency summates as the risk frequency rating which is then measured against the levels
of risk nominated by AGS.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: AGS ASSESSMENT
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Level
Global Failure Barely Credible Major Very Low
Shallow Soil Slumping or Creep Rare Minor Very Low
Based on the results of the AGS assessment, the perceived risk based on the conditions encountered and information
available at the time of the assessment is “Very Low”.
7 HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION
The following works should be implemented in addition to other items highlighted within this document. These
points are considered to be typical good hillside construction practice as explained in attached documentation:
All footings should be founded into very stiff natural clays.
Attention should be given to erosion protection. Where possible, drainage channels should divert surface water
flow away from the proposed residence.
It is important that the stormwater management system be designed and maintained so that it will not adversely
affect or compromise the overall slope stability. Do not allow areas of the site to become saturated from seepage
or surface water, and regularly check and clean all drainage lines so that they do not become blocked.
Avoid leakage from underground services and drains. Any leaking services or blocked drains should be remedied
promptly.
8 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENCDATIONS
The following sections details specific geotechnical constraints or recommendations in addition to general hillside
construction notes.
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 4
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
8.1 RETAINING STRUCTURES
Retaining walls must be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer and preferably in accordance
with AS 4678. The geotechnical parameters for use in design of either flexible or rigid wall systems are presented in
Table 2.
Passive forces should be ignored in areas where disturbance may occur (i.e. future trenching or earthworks
processes).
Compaction for retaining wall backfill should be undertaken with due care. Layers should be placed thinner than for
normal earthworks processes (say a maximum layer thickness of 100 mm) and compacted using light weight
equipment such as hand controlled compactive equipment to minimise the stresses on the wall. If hand controlled
equipment is not practical, temporary wall propping will be required.
Walls will need to incorporate full height drainage in accordance with good design practice to minimise hydrostatic
pressure. The below parameters do not include surcharge loadings.
TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS
Material Ɣ (kN/m3) Ø (°) C’ (kPa)
New FILL* and Very Stiff CLAY 19 26 2
Loose SAND / GRAVEL 18 30 0
Soft CLAY 17 22 1
Notes: Ɣ = Unit Weight (moist); Ø = Drained friction angle; C’ = apparent cohesion; * = Placed under Level 1 inspection and
testing and behaves as clayey material.
8.2 FOOTINGS
In accordance with industry standards, a geotechnical engineer from Arcos should undertake the testing within the
footings to confirm that the encountered material is in alignment with the adopted parameters and assumptions
provided within this report. Where this does not occur, Arcos cannot be held liable for any of the information presented
within this report.
All footings will need to be designed to accommodate potential ground surface movement, settlement values and
any additional settlement values associated with the placement of new fill.
Settlement for suitably sized and designed high level footings should be in the order of 1-2% of the width of the
footing.
If footings are located adjacent to an underground service or other obstruction that is not homogenous with the
founding strata, the footing should be extended a minimum 0.3 m below an imaginary line projected at a 45 degree
angle from the lowest point of the service/obstruction. This is depicted graphically for reference:
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 5
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Where footings found into very stiff natural clays, they may be dimensioned for a maximum allowable bearing
pressure of 100 kPa. Based on the bore logs, the above material is encountered at approximately 0.7 m to 2 m depth.
The ultimate geotechnical end bearing and shaft adhesion parameter are presented in Table 3. The values given will
need to reduced by applying a suitable geotechnical strength reduction factor (Φg) for limit state or divided by a
suitable factor of safety for working stress methods. The Φg should be selected by the designer.
TABLE 3: DEEP LEVEL FOOTING – ULTIMATE GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS (LONG PILE)
Material Fb (kPa) Fs (kPa)
Very Stiff CLAY 450 30
Notes: Fb = Base Bearing (Ultimate); Fs = Shaft Adhesion (Ultimate)
The upper 1 m of soil profile should be ignored in shaft calculations to allow for shrinkage cracks. The values
presented in Table 3 assume that the material equal to four pile diameters below the base of any footings is as strong
or stronger.
Settlement values are subjected to a variety of factors; however, a properly designed and constructed pile should
have a serviceability settlement between 1% and 2% of its’ diameter.
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 6
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
ATTACHMENTS
About Your Geotechnical Report
Interpretation of the Subsurface Sheets
Test Location Plan
Subsurface Logs
Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner’s Guide
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 7
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
ABOUT YOUR GEOTECH REPORT
Reporting
These notes have been provided to clarify and The report has been prepared and reviewed by
enhance the reader’s understanding of the suitably qualified and experienced persons. The
terminology used throughout the report, and also to persons draw on previous experience, local
identify where limitations exist. All investigations are knowledge, published literature, and otherwise
undertaken based on budgetary constraints which standard engineering approaches and principals. The
impart a level of uncertainty as a result of limiting the context of which the report has been prepared for must
amount of investigation undertaken. be considered and if the context changes, due
consideration should be given to the possibility that the
report is no longer considered relevant and review by
Copyright Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd must be undertaken.
This report remains the property of Arcos Unit Group Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd undertakes quality
Pty Ltd at all times unless ownership is transferred in assurance checks in accordance with its’ quality
writing. It cannot be included in any documentation system requirements; however, restrictions on the
without the express written permission of Arcos Unit project outside of Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd’s control
Group Pty Ltd can result in unanticipated variations, changes in
policy or interpretation of said policies by the relevant
authority, or the actions of contractors subject to
Subsurface Report Sheets (Bores etc) commercial pressure.
The provided subsurface sheets are inherently an
interpretation undertaken by a suitably qualified and
experienced person; however, the reliability of the
Site Variations
provided information will rely on the method of If site variations become evident at the time of
investigation. It is prudent to state that these sheets construction or after the release of a report, Arcos Unit
only represent a very small percentage of the Group Pty Ltd requests immediately notification. This
subsurface conditions across a particular project. notification is proposed in order to assist in
remediation prior to any permanent structures or
It reasons that given the relatively small representation
design procedures are undertaken.
of the subsurface conditions for a project, spacial
variability between testing locations must be taken into
consideration including the orientation of strata Collaboration
intersections.
Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd strongly recommends open
The presence or lack of groundwater is usually stated and collaborative communication about the use and
on the subsurface sheets; however, it must be noted inherent interpretation of Arcos Unit Group Pty Ltd’s
that the measurements undertaken onsite are typically report. Please contact the author of the report to
very inaccurate and if the presence or lack of arrange for an obligation free discussion regarding the
groundwater will have any degree of affect on the potential benefits of having geotechnical consultants.
project, additional groundwater monitoring techniques
should be employed such as groundwater monitoring
wells.
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 8
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Interpretation of the Subsurface Sheets
The terminology included on Arcos Unit Group Pty the most important component. Typically, the strength
Ltd’s has been evolved from AS1726:2016. Typically of rock is based on laboratory testing, tactile
a soil’s strength, colour, plasticity, grain size, other assessment and other observations as relevant. The
inclusions, and moisture will be described. A rock’s industry standard method for assessing the strength of
strength, weathering, colour, grain, and other rock in the field is to use the point load strength index
inclusions are typically described. (AS4133.4.1). It is important to note that the point load
strength index does not take into consideration the
degree of fracturing of a rock mass which can both
Soil lower and increase the overall rock strength. The
Soil is typically described by the components that strength of rock is broken down as follows:
make it up by percentage or whichever has a Very Low Strength (VLS) < 2 MPa (UCS)
governing behaviour. The types and sizes reproduced Low Strength (LS) 2 to 6 MPa (UCS)
from AS1726 are: Medium Strength (MS) 6 to 20 MPa (UCS)
Boulder >200 mm High Strength (HS) 20 to 60 MPa (UCS)
Cobble 63 to 200 mm Very High Strength (VHS) 60 to 200 MPa (UCS)
Gravel 2.36 to 63 mm Extremely High Strength (EHS) > 200 MPa (UCS)
Sand 0.075 to 2.36 mm Very Low Strength (VLS) < 0.1 Is(50)
Silty 0.002 to 0.075 mm Low Strength (LS) 0.1 to 0.3 Is(50)
Clay < 0.002 mm Medium Strength (MS) 0.30 to 1.0 Is(50)
The strength of soil is usually assessed by suitably High Strength (HS) 1.0 to 3.0 Is(50)
experienced persons through the use of laboratory Very High Strength (VHS) 3.0 to 10.0 Is(50)
test results, published literature, field assessments or Extremely High Strength (EHS) > 10.0 Is(50)
a combination of the above. The strength of soil is The Is(50) values are based on a correlation between
characterised into either cohesive (clays and silts) or the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 20.
cohesionless (sands and gravels) as shown below: This value varies significantly and site specific testing
Cohessive Soil Strength Term must take precedence.
Very Soft < 12.5 kPa Rock weathering is broken down as follows:
Soft 12.5 to 25 kPa Extremely weathered (EW) Behaves as soil but rock structure
Firm 25 to 50 kPa evident
Stiff 50 to 100 kPa Highly weathered (HW) Colour and strength of original fresh rock
is not recognisable. Decomposition of rock evident
Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa
Moderately weathered (MW) Defects are heavily stained with
Hard > 200 kPa
rock mass showing signs of discolouration
Cohesionless Soils Strength Term (uncorrected Qc) Slightly weathered (SW) Some staining but minimal to no
Very Loose <2 MPa change in strength
Loose 2 to 5 MPa Fresh stained (FS) Minor staining evident
Medium Dense 5 to 15 MPa Fresh rock (FR) No change
Dense 15 to 25 MPa Rock fracturing is broken down as follows and can only
Very Dense > 25 MPa be accurately described where undamaged
continuous sampling has been undertaken:
Fragmented (Fg) Defect spacings < 20 mm
Rock
Highly Fractured (HF) Defect spacings 20 to 50 mm
Rock is typically described by the components that Fractured (Fr) Defect spacings 50 to 200 mm
make it up by percentage or whichever has a Slightly Fractured (SF) Defect spacings 200 to 1000 mm
governing behaviour. The strength of rock is typically Unbroken (Ub) Defect spacings > 1000 mm
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 9
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 10
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 11
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 12
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Page 13
March 21, 2022
Report No. 2487
SITE CLASSIFICATION REPORT (AS 2870 – 2011)
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n
Prepared for: Wim Brouwers
Photo – Proposed Site
(Taken from the Hay Street, facing West)
DCC Consul ng Engineers Pty Ltd
As Trustee for the Curtain Family Trust Trading As Caloundra Soil Tes ng
ABN – 36 397 461 128 ACN: 166 548 170
M. 0437 865 006 I E: admin@caloundrasoiltes ng.com.au I QBCC License No: 15202091
Page 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Caloundra Soil Tes ng was commissioned by Wim Brouwers to undertake a site inves ga on at 18 Hay
Street, Tewan n in the view to report the Site Classifica on in accordance with AS 2870-2011
(Residen al Slabs and Foo ngs).
It was understood that the proposed development will consist of a new residen al dwelling. It is
understood that the exis ng dwelling will be removed as part of this development.
The construc on type of the proposed dwelling will be single storey, combina on of clad and masonry
walls supported by strip/ pad foo ngs and a concrete slab.
2.0 INVESTIGATION
On the 17th March, 2022 a site inves ga on was undertaken which consisted of drilling 2 boreholes
with a hydraulic drilling rig.
The boreholes were drilled with a 100mm diameter con nuous flight auger to depth of 1.8 to 2.5
metres.
Disturbed soil samples were taken from the auger and assessed then logged by Civil Engineer.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) and Pocket Penetrometer (PP) tests were undertaken at various
depths with results shown on the a;ached bore log sheets.
The logged soil profiles and loca on of the bore holes are shown on the a;ached bore log and site plan
sheets.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site has a slight fall towards the southern boundary and is currently occupied by an exis ng
dwelling. It is understood that the exis ng dwelling will be removed as part of this development.
There appeared to be a natural drainage line that runs along the southern boundary.
There were numerous large trees present across the site. It is understood that several of these trees
will be removed as part of this development. (Please refer to site plan for approximate loca ons).
The surface of the site was moist at the me of the inves ga on.
There was no visual evidence of surface cracking over the site.
Groundwater seepage was encountered at a depth of 1.2 metres below the exis ng surface level in
borehole 1.
3.1 SITE GEOLOGY
The “Australian Geology Travel Maps Applica on” shows the site underlain by Myrtle Sandstone
Forma on with this generally being confirmed by findings during the inves ga on.
Page 2 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
Page 15
4.0 SITE CLASSIFICATION
Caloundra Soil Tes ng has classified this Site as Class P as per the AS 2870 – 2011.
The above classifica on is due to depth of unsuitable founding material (Insufficient bearing strength)
found at the site. The depth of unsuitable founding material found ranged between 700 to 2000mm
deep.
The close proximity of the exis ng trees and removal of the exis ng dwelling should also be taken into
account when designing the foo ng systems for this site.
The reac vity of the soil profile would generally lead to a Class H2 (Highly Reac ve) in absence of the
above reasons. Based on the reac vity of the soil profile the Es mated Characteris c Surface
Movement (ys) for this soil type would be 65-70mm (this does not take into account the effect of any
trees or removal of buildings from the site).
5.0 FOOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
The minimum founding depths and founding materials should be as follows.
Borehole Minimum founding Founding material Allowable
Number depth for edge Bearing
beams, strips and pad Capacity
foo ngs below (kPa)
exis ng surface levels
(mm)
1 2000 Sandy silty CLAY, pale grey/ off white, very stiff 100
2 700 Sandy silty CLAY, pale grey/ off white, very stiff 100
Special a;en on should be paid to the AS2870 - 2011 for overriding minimum founding depths and
design requirements for the given site classifica on for this site.
It is recommended that any trees be located a minimum of 1.00 x the mature height of the tree away
from the proposed building(s). This distance should be increased by 50% for groups or lines of trees. If
any trees impede on the recommended setbacks the foo ng system should be engineered designed. It
is the designing engineer responsibility to calculate the effect of any trees near the proposed structure.
Page 3 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
Page 16
6.0 IMPORTANT NOTES
1). The site classifica on in this report is based upon soil informa on that was obtained during the site
inves ga on. Other contribu ng factors may include exis ng vegeta on and structures on the site.
Informa on supplied by the client, including the type of building proposed, loca on of the building and
any known details of the past history at the site is also taken into account when determining the site
classifica on.
2). This inves ga on included undertaking a limited amount of boreholes to establish the exis ng soil
condi ons at the me of the inves ga on. It is not economic or prac cal to test every subsurface
feature on this site. Therefore, there is a possibility for a varia on in the soil profile to occur onsite. If
varia ons are found onsite to those in the bore logs (including material type, strength or differing
depths) it is recommended that the office be contacted immediately for further advice.
3). This site classifica on does not take into account changes to the site aFer the inves ga on date.
Changes may include cuGng or filling to the site, introduc on of vegeta on (trees and shrubs) and
flooding at the site or a significant rain event where water is leF to pool on the site for a prolonged
period. It is recommended that a re-classifica on or further work be undertaken if any of the above
changes have been made to the site.
4). Special a;en on should be given to the CSIRO, BTF 18, “Founda on Maintenance and Foo ng
Performance: A Homeowners Guide” document. This document outlines the typical causes for building
movements and gives recommenda ons to prevent any such movements. This document is a;ached
to this report.
5). The strength of the soil can be highly variable depending on the moisture (wet or dry) present in the
soil. The strength of the soil is in the bore logs is an indica on of the strength at the me of the
inves ga on only.
6). The soil colours stated in the bore logs may vary with individual interpreta on and the moisture
content at the me of the inves ga on. Therefore, it is assumed that whoever is inspec ng the
founda ons that they have a reasonable understanding of soils and can iden fy the recommended
founding material. If there is an issue in iden fying the recommended founding material it is
recommended that a Caloundra Soil Tes ng be contacted or suitably qualified person be engaged.
7). This report does not take into account the slope stability of the site. If this site is within a
designated land slip area or has excessive slope then it is recommended that a slope stability
assessment be undertaken on this site.
If you should have any queries concerning these results then please don’t hesitate to contact
Caloundra Soil Tes ng on 0437 865 006.
Prepared by
Daniel Curtain
Civil Engineer BE (Civil)
on behalf of Caloundra Soil Tes ng
QBCC License No. 15202091
Page 4 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
Page 17
7.0 BORE LOGS
Borehole No. 1
Density Index
Consistency/
DCP (blows/
Water Table
Depth (m)
100mm)
PP (kPa)
Material Description
Clayey silty SAND/ Clayey sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet, 0.10 Loose 1
dark brown 0.20 1
0.30 1
0.40 1
0.50 2
CLAY, high plasticity, moist to wet, dark grey/ black 0.60 Soft to Firm 1
Est. Iss- 6-8 0.70 2 50
(VERY REACTIVE CLAY) 0.80 1
0.90 2
1.00 2
1.10 3
1.20 3
1.30 2 50
1.40 2
1.50
1.60
Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, wet, pale grey/ off white 1.70 Loose
1.80
1.90
2.00
Sandy silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, moist, pale grey/ off white 2.10 Very Stiff 300
Est Iss- 2-3 2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
Borehole 1 – [email protected] metres 2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
Undrained Shear Density
Consistency Density Minor Components
Strength (kPa) Index (%)
Very Soft 0 - 12 Very Loose < 15 Trace Coarse Grained soils <5%.
Soft 12 - 25 Loose 15 - 35 Fine grained soils <15%.
Firm 25 - 50 Medium Dense 35 - 65
Stiff 50 - 100 Dense 65 - 85 Some Coarse Grained soils 5-12%.
Very Stiff 100 - 200 Very Dense > 85 Fine grained soils 15-30%.
Hard > 200
PP – Pocket Penetrometer test (unconfined compressive strength) DCP – Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Page 5 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
Page 18
Borehole No. 2
Density Index
Consistency/
DCP (blows/
Water Table
Depth (m)
100mm)
PP (kPa)
Material Description
FILL: Sandy GRAVEL, medium to coarse gravel, moist, brown 0.10 Loose
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Clayey sandy SILT, moist, brown 0.60 Loose 2
0.70 2
Sandy silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, moist, pale grey/ off white 0.80 Very Stiff 5 300
Est Iss- 2-3 0.90 6
1.00 7
1.10 8
1.20 8
Pale grey mottled red 1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
Borehole 2 – [email protected] metres 1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
Undrained Shear Density
Consistency Density Minor Components
Strength (kPa) Index (%)
Very Soft 0 - 12 Very Loose < 15 Trace Coarse Grained soils <5%.
Soft 12 - 25 Loose 15 - 35 Fine grained soils <15%.
Firm 25 - 50 Medium Dense 35 - 65
Stiff 50 - 100 Dense 65 - 85 Some Coarse Grained soils 5-12%.
Very Stiff 100 - 200 Very Dense > 85 Fine grained soils 15-30%.
Hard > 200
PP – Pocket Penetrometer test (unconfined compressive strength) DCP – Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Page 6 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
Page 19
8.0 SITE PLAN
Page 7 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
[OCR of page images]
8.0 SITE PLAN
4p -BORE HOLE (_) EXISTING LARGE TREES DRAWING NOTFTOSCALE
Page 7 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewantin | Report No. 2487
Page 20
Page 8 of 11 Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487 [OCR of page images] Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewantin | Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner's Guide (a) csirRoO BIF 18 replaces Intormation Sheet 10/91 Buildings can and often do move. This movement can be up, down, lateral or rotational. The fundamental cause of movement in buildings can usually be related to one or more problems in the foundation soi important for the homeowner to identify the soil type in order to ascertain the measures that should be put in place in order to ensure that problems in the foundation soil can be prevented, thus protecting against building movement. This Building Technology File is designed to identity causes of soilrelated building movement, and to suggest methods of prevention of resultant cracking in buildings. oil Types The types of soils usually present under the topsoil in land zoned for residential buildings can be split into two approximate groups granular and clay. Quite often, foundation soil ts a mixture of both types. The general problems associated with soils having granular content are usually caused by erosion. Clay soils are subject to saturation and swell/shrink problems. Classifications for a given area can generally be obtained by application to the local authority, but these are sometimes unreliable and if there ts doubt, a geotechnical report should be commissioned. As most buildings suffering movement problems are founded on clay soils, there 1s an emphasis on classification of soils according to the amount of swell and shrinkage they expertence with variations of water content. The table below ts Table 2.1 from AS 2870, the Residential Slab and Footing Code. ‘auses of Movement Settlement due to construction There are two types of settlement that occur as a result of construction: © Immediate settlement occurs when a building ts first placed on its foundation soil, as a result of compaction of the soll under the weight of the structure. The cohesive quality of clay soil mitigates against this, but granular (particularly sandy) soll ts susceptible. Consolidation settlement ts a feature of clay soll and may take place because of the expulsion of motsture from the soll or because of the soil’s lack of resistance to local compressive or shear stresses. This will usually take place during the first few months after construction, but has been known to take many years in exceptional cases. These problems are the province of the builder and should be taken into consideration as part of the preparation of the site for construc- tion. Butlding Technology File 19 (BTF 19) deals with these problems. Erosion All soils are prone to erosion, but sandy soll ts particularly susceptible to being washed away. Even clay with a sand component of say 10% or more can suffer from erosion. Saturation ‘This ts particularly a problem in clay soils. Saturation creates a bog- like suspension of the soil that causes it to lose virtually all of its bearing capacity. To a lesser degree, sand ts affected by saturation because saturated sand may undergo a reduction in volume — particularly imported sand fill for bedding and blinding layers. However, this usually occurs as immediate settlement and should normally be the province of the builder. Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of soil All clays react to the presence of water by slowly absorbing it, making the soll increase in volume (see table below). The degree of increase varies considerably between different clays, as does the degree of decrease during the subsequent drying out caused by fair weather periods. Because of the low absorption and expulsion rate, this phenomenon will not usually be noticeable unless there are prolonged rainy or dry periods, usually of weeks or months, depending on the land and soil characteristics. ‘The swelling of soil creates an upward force on the footings of the building, and shrinkage creates subsidence that takes away the support needed by the footing to retain equilibrium. Shear failure ‘This phenomenon occurs when the foundation soil does not have sufficient strength to support the weight of the footing. There are two major post-construction causes: * Significant load increase. ¢ Reduction of lateral support of the soil under the footing due to erosion or excavation. In clay soil, shear failure can be caused by saturation of the soil adjacent to or under the footing. GENERAL DEFINITIONS OF SITE CLASSES Class Foundation A Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement from motsture changes Ss Slightly reactive clay sites with only slight ground movement from motsture changes M Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which can expertence moderate ground movement from motsture changes H Highly reactive clay sites, which can experience high ground movement from moisture changes E Extremely reactive sites, which can experience extreme ground movement from motsture changes AtoP Filled sites P Sites which include soft soils, such as soft clay or silt or loose sands; landslip; mine subsidence; collapsing soils; soils subject to erosion; reactive sites subject to abnormal moisture conditions or sites which cannot be classified otherwise Report No. 2487 Page 8 of 11
Page 21
Page 9 of 11
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487
[OCR of page images]
‘Tree root growth
‘Trees and shrubs that are allowed to grow tn the vicinity of footings
can cause foundation soll movement in two ways:
© Roots that grow under footings may increase in cross-sectional
size, exerting upward pressure on footings.
¢ Roots in the vicinity of footings will absorb much of the motsture
tn the foundation soll, causing shrinkage or subsidence.
“Unevenness of Movement
The types of ground movement described above usually occur
unevenly throughout the building's foundation soll. Settlement due
to construction tends to be uneven because of:
* Differing compaction of foundation soll prior to construction.
¢ Differing motsture content of foundation soil prior to construction.
Movement due to non-construction causes ts usually more uneven
still. Erosion can undermine a footing that traverses the flow or can
create the conditions for shear failure by eroding soll adjacent to a
footing that runs in the same direction as the flow.
Saturation of clay foundation soil may occur where subfloor walls
create a dam that makes water pond. It can also occur wherever there
1s a source of water near footings in clay soil. This leads to a severe
reduction in the strength of the soll which may create local shear
failure.
Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of clay soil affects the perimeter of
the building first, then gradually spreads to the interior. The swelling
process will usually begin at the uphill extreme of the building, or on
the weather side where the land ts flat. Swelling gradually reaches the
interior soll as absorption continues. Shrinkage usually begins where
the sun's heat ts greatest.
Effects of Uneven Soil Movement on Structures
Erosion and saturation
Eraston removes the support from under footings, tending to create
subsidence of the part of the structure under which tt occurs.
Brickwork walls will resist the stress created by this removal of
support by bridging the gap or cantilevering until the bricks or the
mortar bedding fail. Older masonry has little resistance. Evidence of
failure varies according to circumstances and symptoms may include:
+ Step cracking in the mortar beds in the body of the wall or
above/below openings such as doors or windows.
© Vertical cracking in the bricks (usually but not necessarily in line
with the vertical beds or perpends).
Isolated piers affected by erosion or saturation of foundations will
eventually lose contact with the bearers they support and may tilt or
fall over. The floors that have lost this support will become bouncy,
sometimes rattling ornaments etc.
Seasonal swelling/shrinkage in clay
Swelling foundation soll due to rainy periods first lifts the most
exposed extremities of the footing system, then the remainder of the
perimeter footings while gradually permeating inside the building
footprint to lift internal footings. This swelling first tends to create a
dish effect, because the external footings are pushed higher than the
internal ones.
The first noticeable symptom may be that the floor appears slightly
dished. This 1s often accompanied by some doors binding on the
floor or the door head, together with some cracking of cornice
mitres. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearers and
Joists, the floor can be bouncy. there may be visible
dishing of the hip or ridge lines.
As the motsture absorption process completes its journey to the
innermost areas of the building, the internal footings will rise. If the
spread of moisture ts roughly even, it may be that the symptoms will
temporarily disappear, but it ts more likely that swelling will be
uneven, creating a difference rather than a disappearance in
symptoms. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearers
and Jotsts, the tsolated plers will rise more easily than the strip
footings or piers under walls, creating noticeable doming of flooring.
Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewantin | Report No. 2487
As the weather pattern changes and the soll begins to dry out, the
external footings will be first affected, beginning with the locations
where the sun's effect ts strongest. Thts has the effect of lowering the
external footings. The doming fs accentuated and cracking reduces
or disappears where it occurred because of dishing, but other cracks
open up. The roof lines may become convex.
Doming and dishing are also affected by weather in other ways. In
areas where warm, wet summers and cooler dry winters prevail,
water migration tends to be toward the intertor and doming will be
accentuated, whereas where summers are dry and winters are cold
and wet, migration tends to be toward the exterior and the
underlying propensity ts toward dishing.
Movement caused by tree roots
In general, growing roots will exert an upward pressure on footings,
whereas soil subject to drying because of tree or shrub roots will tend
to remove support from under footings by inducing shrinkage.
Complications caused by the structure itself
Most forces that the soll causes to be exerted on structures are
vertical — 1.e. etther up or down. However, because these forces are
seldom spread evenly around the footings, and because the building
resists uneven movernent because of its rigidity, forces are exerted
from one part of the building to another. The net result of all these
forces 1s usually rotational. This resultant force often complicates the
diagnosts because the visible symptoms do not simply reflect the
original cause. A common symptom ts binding of doors on the
vertical member of the frame.
Effects on full masonry structures
Brickwork will resist cracking where it can. It will attempt to span
areas that lose support because of subsided foundations or ralsed
points. It ts therefore usual to see cracking at weak points, such as
openings for windows or doors.
In the event of construction settlement, cracking will usually remain
unchanged after the process of settlement has ceased.
With local shear or erosion, cracking will usually continue to develop
until the original cause has been remedied, or until the subsidence
has completely neutralised the affected portion of footing and the
structure has stabilised on other footings that remain effective.
In the case of swell/shrink effects, the brickwork will in some cases
return to its original position after completion of a cycle, however it
1s more likely that the rotational effect will not be exactly reversed,
and it ts also usual that brickwork will settle in its new position and
will resist the forces trying to return it to its original position. This
means that in a case where swelling takes place after construction
and cracking occurs, the cracking 1s likely to at least partly remain
after the shrink segment of the cycle ts complete. Thus, each time
the cycle ts repeated, the likelthood ts that the cracking will become
wider until the sections of brickwork become virtually independent.
With repeated cycles, once the cracking 1s established, if there ts no
other complication, it 1s normal for the incidence of cracking to
stabilise, as the building has the articulation it needs to cope with
the problem. This ts by no means always the case, however, and
monitoring of cracks in walls and floors should always be treated
seriously.
Upheaval caused by growth of tree roots under footings ts not a
simple vertical shear stress. There ts a tendency for the root to also
exert lateral forces that attempt to separate sections of brickwork
after initial cracking has occurred.
Page 9 of 11
Page 22
Page 10 of 11 Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487 [OCR of page images] The normal structural arrangement ts that the inner leaf of brick- work in the external walls and at least some of the internal walls (depending on the roof type) comprise the load-bearing structure on which any upper floors, ceilings and the roof are supported. In these cases, it 1s internally visible cracking that should be the main focus of attention, however there are a few examples of dwellings whose external leaf of masonry plays some supporting role, so this should be checked if there ts any doubt. In any case, externally visible cracking ts Important as a guide to stresses on the structure generally, and it should also be remembered that the external walls must be capable of supporting themselves. Effects on framed structures Timber or steel framed buildings are less likely to exhibit cracking due to swell/shrink than masonry buildings because of their flexibility. Also, the doming/dishing effects tend to be lower because of the lighter weight of walls. The matn risks to framed buildings are encountered because of the isolated pler footings used under walls. Where erosion or saturation cause a footing to fall away, this can double the span which a wall must bridge. This additional stress can create cracking in wall linings, particularly where there ts a weak point in the structure caused by a door or window opening. It ts, however, unlikely that framed structures will be so stressed as to suffer serious damage without first exhibiting some or all of the above symptoms for a considerable period. The same warning period should apply in the case of upheaval. It should be noted, however, that where framed buildings are supported by strip footings there ts only one leaf of brickwork and therefore the externally visible walls are the supporting structure for the building. In this case, the subfloor masonry walls can be expected to behave as full brickwork walls. Effects on brick veneer structures Because the load-bearing structure of a brick veneer building 1s the frame that makes up the interior leaf of the external walls plus perhaps the internal walls, depending on the type of roof, the bullding can be expected to behave as a framed structure, except that the external masonry will behave in a similar way to the external leaf of a full masonry structure. i Water Service and Drainage Where a water service pipe, a sewer or stormwater drainage pipe ts in the vicinity of a building, a water leak can cause erosion, swelling or saturation of susceptible soil. Even a minuscule leak can be enough to saturate a clay foundation. A leaking tap near a building can have the same effect. In addition, trenches containing pipes can become watercourses even though backfilled, particularly where broken rubble ts used as fill. Water that runs along these trenches can be responsible for serious erosion, interstrata seepage into subfloor areas and saturation. Pipe leakage and trench water flows also encourage tree and shrub roots to the source of water, complicating and exacerbating the problem. Poor roof plumbing can result in large volumes of rainwater being concentrated in a small area of soil: ¢ Incorrect falls in roof guttering may result in overflows, as may gutters blocked with leaves etc. * Corroded guttering or downptpes can spill water to ground. + Downpipes not positively connected to a proper stormwater collection system will direct a concentration of water to soil that ts directly adjacent to footings, sometimes causing large-scale problems such as erosion, saturation and migration of water under the building. Seriousness of Cracking In general, most cracking found in masonry walls is a cosmetic nutsance only and can be kept in repair or even ignored. The table below 1s a reproduction of Table C1 of AS 2870. AS 2870 also publishes figures relating to cracking in concrete floors, however because wall cracking will usually reach the critical point significantly earlier than cracking in slabs, this table 1s not reproduced here. Prevention/ Cure Piumbing Where building movement ts caused by water service, roof plumbing, sewer or stormwater fatlure, the remedy ts to repair the problem. It ts prudent, however, to consider also rerouting pipes away from the butlding where possible, and relocating taps to positions where any leakage will not direct water to the building vicinity. Even where gully traps are present, there 1s sometimes sufficient spill to create erosion or saturation, particularly in modern installations using smaller dtameter PVC fixtures. Indeed, some gully traps are not situated directly under the taps that are installed to charge them, with the result that water from the tap may enter the backfilled trench that houses the sewer piping. If the trench has been poorly backfilled, the water will either pond or flow along the bottom of the trench. As these trenches usually run alongside the footings and can be at a similar depth, it ts not hard to see how any water that ts thus directed into a trench can easily affect the foundation's ability to support footings or even gain entry to the subfloor area. Ground drainage In all soils there ts the capacity for water to travel on the surface and below it. Surface water flows can be established by inspection during and after heavy or prolonged rain. If necessary, a grated drain system connected to the stormwater collection system ts usually an easy solution. Tt ts, however, sometimes necessary when attempting to prevent water migration that testing be carried out to establish watertable height and subsoil water flows. This subject ts referred to in BTF 19 and may properly be regarded as an area for an expert consultant. Protection of the building perimeter Te ts essential to remember that the soil that affects footings extends well beyond the actual building line. Watering of garden plants, shrubs and trees causes some of the most serious water problems. For this reason, particularly where problems exist or are likely to ‘occur, it ts recommended that an apron of paving be installed around as much of the building perimeter as necessary. This paving CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE WITH REFERENCE TO WALLS Description of typical damage and required repair Approximate crack width Damage limit (see Note 3) category Hatriine cracks <0.1 mm 0 Fine cracks which do not need repair <I mm 1 Cracks noticeable but easily filled. Doors and windows stick slightly <imm 2 (Cracks can be repaired and possibly a small amount of wall will need 5-15 mm (or a number of cracks 3 to be replaced. Doors and windows stick. Service pipes can fracture. 3 mm or more in one group) Weathertightness often impatred Extensive repair work involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls, 15-25 mm but also depend 4 especially over doors and windows. Window and door frames distort. Walls lean on number of cracks or bulge noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewantin |_ Report No. 2487 Page 10 of 11
Page 23
Page 11 of 11 Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewan n I Report No. 2487 [OCR of page images] Clump of trees; height selected for distance from house Carport an — Ba | Garden bed Dri rae covered with we = 2} mulch should extend outwards a minimum of 900 mm (more tn highly reactive soil) and should have a minimum fall away from the building of 1:60. The finished paving should be no less than 100 mm below brick vent bases. Tt ts prudent to relocate drainage pipes away from this paving, if possible, to avold complications from future leakage. If this 1s not practical, earthenware pipes should be replaced by PVC and backfilling should be of the same soll type as the surrounding soll and compacted to the same density. Except in areas where freezing of water ts an issue, it ts wise to remove taps in the building area and relocate them well away from the building — preferably not uphill from it (see BTF 19). Tt may be desirable to install a grated drain at the outside edge of the paving on the uphill side of the building. If subsoil drainage ts needed this can be installed under the surface drain. Condensation In butidings with a subfloor void such as where bearers and joists support flooring, insufficient ventilation creates ideal conditions for condensation, particularly where there ts little clearance between the floor and the ground. Condensation adds to the moisture already present in the subfloor and significantly slows the process of drying out. Installation of an adequate subfloor ventilation system, etther natural or mechanical, ts desirable. Warning: Mithough this Butiding Technology File deals with cracking in butldings, it should be said that subfloor motsture can result in the development of other problems, notably: © Water that ts transmitted into masonry, metal or timber building elements causes damage and/or decay to those elements. High subfloor humidity and moisture content create an ideal environment for various pests, Including termites and spiders. © Where high moisture levels are transmitted to the flooring and walls, an increase in the dust mite count can ensue within the living areas. Dust mites, as well as dampness In general, can be a health hazard to inhabitants, particularly those who are abnormally susceptible to respiratory ailments. The garden The ideal vegetation layout ts to have lawn or plants that require only light watering immediately adjacent to the dratnage or paving edge, then more demanding plants, shrubs and trees spread out in that order. Overwatering due to misuse of automatic watering systems ts a common cause of saturation and water migration under footings. If it ts necessary to use these systems, it 1s important to remove garden beds to a completely safe distance from butldings. Existing trees Where a tree ts causing a problem of soll drying or there is the existence or threat of upheaval of footings, if the offending roots are subsidiary and their removal will not significantly damage the tree, they should be severed and a concrete or metal barrier placed vertically in the soil to prevent future root growth in the direction of the building. If it 1s not possible to remove the relevant roots without damage to the tree, an application to remove the tree should be made to the local authority. A prudent plan ts to transplant likely offenders before they become a problem. Information on trees, plants and shrubs State departments overseeing agriculture can give information regarding root patterns, volume of water needed and safe distance from buildings of most species. Botanic gardens are also sources of information. For information on plant roots and drains, see Building ‘Technology File 17. Excavation Excavation around footings must be properly engineered. Soil supporting footings can only be safely excavated at an angle that allows the soil under the footing to remain stable. This angle ts called the angle of repose (or friction) and varies significantly between soil types and conditions. Removal of soil within the angle of repose will cause subsidence. Where erosion has occurred that has washed away soll adjacent to footings, soll of the same classification should be introduced and compacted to the same density. Where footings have been undermined, augmentation or other specialist work may be required. Remediation of footings and foundations is generally the realm of a specialist consultant. Where isolated footings rise and fall because of swell/shrink effect, the homeowner may be tempted to alleviate floor bounce by filling the gap that has appeared between the bearer and the pler with blocking. The danger here ts that when the next swell segment of the cycle occurs, the extra blocking will push the floor up into an accentuated dome and may also cause local shear failure in the soil. If tt ts necessary to use blocking, it should be by a pair of fine wedges and monitoring should be carried out fortnightly. This BIF was prepared by John Lewer FAIB, MIAMA, Partner, ‘The information in this and other issues in the series was derived from various sources and was believed to be correct when published. The information is advisory. It is provided in good faith and not claimed to be an exhaustive treatment of the relevant subject. Further professional advice needs to be obtained before taking any action based on the information provided. Distributed by CSIRO PUBLISHING PO Box 1139, Collingwood 3066, Australia Freecall 1800 645 051 Tel (03) 9662 7666 Fax (03) 9662 7555 www.publish.csiro.au Email: [email protected] © CSIRO 2003. Unauthorised copying of this Building Technology file is protibited Site Address: 18 Hay Street, Tewantin | Report No. 2487 Page 11 of 11
Page 24
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE Drawing List
COSTING SET
Current
Current Revision
Sheet Number Sheet Name Revision Date
A-000 Title Sheet 3 11.03.2021
A-002 Area Measure 3 11.03.2021
A-100 Site Plan - Survey 3 11.03.2021
A-120 Site Plan - Planning Envelope 3 11.03.2021
A-130 Site Plan - Proposed 3 11.03.2021
A-301 GA Plan - Upper Ground 3 11.03.2021
A-302 GA Plan - Roof 3 11.03.2021
A-330 Wall Type Plan - Upper Ground 3 11.03.2021
A-331 Wall Type Plan - Lower Ground 3 11.03.2021
A-350 RCP - Level 1 3 11.03.2021
A-400 Elevations 01 3 11.03.2021
A-401 Elevations 02 3 11.03.2021
A-402 Elevations 03 3 11.03.2021
A-450 Sections 01 3 11.03.2021
A-451 Sections 02 3 11.03.2021
A-452 Sections 03 3 11.03.2021
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Title Sheet
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-000 11.03.2021 3
Page 25
Area Schedule (Gross Building)
Name Area
Exterior Area
Not Placed
Covered Outdoor 9 m²
Covered Outdoor 25 m²
Gross Building Area
Covered Outdoor Covered Outdoor Guest House 39 m²
9 m² 25 m² Garage 49 m²
Main House 139 m²
Guest House
39 m²
Main House
Garage DN
139 m²
49 m²
1 Area Measure
A-002 1 : 200
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 200 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Area Measure
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-002 11.03.2021 3
Page 26
20 m
SC A LE B AR
S C A LE 1 :2 00
22 31 28 90°00' 43
3 3 3 3
34 42 .7 4 8 38
3 3 Power Pole
3 .0 0
15
13
3
3 Building wall Above
Building wall
02 Deck Above
3.0 0
Gravel Driveway
3
Building wall Above
Above
Building wall
Below Building wall Above
28
2
Building wall
11 .8 3 2
Back of Kerb
Building wall
Water
46
80
11 .8 3 2
Meter
2
Building wall Below
45
2
Below
25
Fire Hyd.
2
Below
73 07
2
54
Building wall Above
2 70 3
Deck Above
75
2
21
Building wall Below
RP 28717
2
Building wall
2
RL 4.70
63 37
Below
43
2
80
2
52
2
85 3 .0 0
2
46
2
57 2
180°00'
2
2 90
0°0 0'
2
51 42 46
Approx. Invert Level 1.45
2 46 Building wall Below 2 2
2
27
12
35 Building wall
2
Letter
24 3 0Above
Building wall
Building wall
2
2 Box
20
2 2
Back Drop
Above 2
25 Deck Above
47
Above
72
11 .8 3 2 4 2
11 .8 3 2
2
2 2
2
33
44
29
2
44 2 13 34
2
2 2
2
55
50
20
0.5 6
Invert Le vel In v
2
2
e rt
95 °4 8' 50 "
RP 28717 Sewer Manhole
Lid Level 2.50
Le v
el 0
.4 3 70
58
2
2
90°00' TBM Nail in Kerb
38
12 .8 3 5 AHD RL 2.70
2
38 30.
2
63 41
Emt42 .7 4B RP810544
2
0°0 0'
2 0.8 8
3.
Invert Le vel
Sewer Manhole
50 8
55
Lid Level 2.63 2 35
2
Telstra Pit
270°00' 2
25
S/water Pit
2
Boundary peg found
Boundary Line
Top of Bank
Bottom of Bank
Fence Line
Edge of Vegetation Line
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 200 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Site Plan - Survey
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-100 11.03.2021 3
Page 27
87 Gympie St
22 Hay St
(1 Storey - Gable Roof) 5668
(1 Storey - Hip Roof)
SETBACK
3000
2750
6000
Hay St
SETBACK
MANHOLE
1500 1500
EXCLUSION
SEWER LINE
HED)
(SHOWN HATC
SETBACK
3000
EASEMENT
(SHOWN RED)
DRIVEWAY
OVER
57 Ward St
(1 Storey -
SEWERLINE
Hip Roof)
14 Hay St 14600
(1 Storey - Skillion Roof)
EXISTING HOUSE SETBACK
1 Site Plan - Planning Envelope
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
A -120 1 : 150
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 150 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Site Plan - Planning
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Envelope
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-120 11.03.2021 3
Page 28
87 Gympie St
22 Hay St
(1 Storey - Gable Roof)
(1 Storey - Hip Roof)
3307 3430
3333 3392
SCREEN PLANTING
3108
LAWN GARDEN
LAWN
POOL
3178
GARDEN
4000
GARDEN
2724
Hay St
GARDEN 2782
4000
DN
2463
2800
2500
2524 2752
GARDEN
6150
DRIVEWAY 2649
SCREEN PLANTING
2482 2268 2327
57 Ward St
(1 Storey -
Hip Roof)
14 Hay St
(1 Storey - Skillion Roof)
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
1 Site Plan - Proposed
A -130
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 150 @ A3
1 : 150
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Site Plan - Proposed
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-130 11.03.2021 3
Page 29
1 3 4
A-451 A-450 A-450
OUTDOOR
DINING
6 x 3.5M POOL
ENTRY
DECK
1
GUEST HOUSE
A-452
F
ROBE
BATH 3
2 LIVING / DINING
A-452
F
DN
STORE
WIR BATH 2
MASTER BED 2
ENSUITE LNDRY
ROBE
DOUBLE GARAGE
PANTRY
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
1 GA Plan - Upper Ground GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
A -301 1 : 100 18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
GA Plan - Upper Ground
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-301 11.03.2021 3
Page 30
1 3 4
A-451 A-450 A-450
RS-01
25 DEGREES
1
25 DEGREES
A-452
RS-05
RS-02 RS-03
25 DEGREES
RS-01
25 DEGREES 25 DEGREES
2
A-452 RS-05
25 DEGREES
RS-02 RS-01
RS-05
- RS-02 RS-01
---
ROOF SYSTEM
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
GA Plan - Roof
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-302 11.03.2021 3
Page 31
Wall Type Legend
WS.01 Internal Partition
WS.02 Internal Thermal Line Partition
1 3 4
WS.10 External - Brick Veneer
A-451 A-450 A-450
WS.11 External - Timber Cladding
WS.12 External - Fibre Cement Cladding
POOL FENCE WS.21 External - Core Filled Blockwork
Section J / Insulation line
FL-07 FENCE WITH CLADDING
TO MATCH WS.11
W07
FL-04
D04
FL-08
W06
1 FL-01
A-452 D01
FL-04 D07
FL-07
D10 D10
FL-03
W08 W09 D06 W10
FL-01
2 D05
D08 D02
A-452
D09 D09
FL-03
DN FL-03
FL-03
FL-05 FL-01
FL-01
D10 W01
D03 W05 W04 W03 W02
FL-06 -
---
1 Wall Type Plan - Upper Ground PROJECT SCALE NORTH
A-330 GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE @ A3
As indicated
1 : 100
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Wall Type Plan - Upper
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Ground
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-330 11.03.2021 3
Page 32
3
A-450
1
A-452
EARTH NEW COMPACTED FILL TO RAISE
SITE TO COURTYARD LEVEL
2
A-452
TIMBER STAIRS
FL-05
EARTH
UP
- 2 1 4
--- A-500* A-500* A-450
3
A-500*
1 Wall Type Plan - Lower Ground
A -331 1 : 100
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Wall Type Plan - Lower
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Ground
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-331 11.03.2021 3
Page 33
1 3 4
A-451 A-450 A-450
CL-01 +2400
2400 AFFL
CL-02a+2400
BULKHEAD CL-02b +2400 CL-02b +2400
EXPOSED HARDWOOD TRUSSES
CL-02b+2400
UNDERSIDE OF RS-03
CL-01 +2700 CL-01 +2400
1
CL-02b+2400
A-452
2400
2400 AFFL PITCHING PT
BULKHEAD
CL-01 +2400
RAKING
SKY LIGHT
3850
RAKING
CL-01
CL-01 +2700
650
CL-02b +2400 4471
APEX CL-01
2 2400 AFFL RAKING
CL-02a +2400
A-452 BULKHEAD
2400 AFFL
BULKHEAD 2400
SKYLIGHT
PITCHING PT
CL-02a+2400
CL-01 +2400 EXTENT OF FX-01
(RELATIVE TO UPPER FLOOR LEVEL) CL-01 +2400 CURTAIN SHOWN WITH
CL-01
RAKING
RED LINE
CL-01 +2700 2400
SKY LIGHT
CL-01 +2700 CL-01 +2700 PITCHING PT
CL-01 +2400
CL-02a +2400 CL-02a +2400 CL-02a +2400
DASHED LINE SHOWS ALIGNMENT OF
CUSTOM GUTTER OVER. CL-02 CLADDING TO
UNDERSIDE
1 RCP - Upper Ground
A-350 1 : 100
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
RCP - Level 1
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-350 11.03.2021 3
Page 34
RS-01
Eave Level
6400
2400
W01 WS-11 D02 FENCE
WS-10
WS-10
Upper Ground
Courtyard 4000
3700
Lower Ground
2800
3 East Elevation
A -400 1 : 100
Eave Level
6400
W05 WS-11 W04 WS-11 W03 W02 WS.11 W01
WS-10
WS-10 D03 WS-10 WS-10
Upper Ground
Courtyard
4000
3700
Lower Ground
2800
2 South Elevation
A -400 1 : 100
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Elevations 01
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-400 11.03.2021 3
Page 35
Eave Level
6400
WS-10 W07
D01 WS.12 WS.12
WS.12
Upper Ground
Courtyard
4000
3700
Lower Ground
2800
1 North Elevation
A -401 1 : 100
RS-02
Eave Level
6400
WS.12 W06 WS.12
WS-10
Upper Ground
Courtyard
4000
3700
WS.21 WS.21
Lower Ground
2800
2 West Elevation
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
A -401 1 : 100
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Elevations 02
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-401 11.03.2021 3
Page 36
TIMBER TRUSSES
WS.12 WS.12
WS.12 WS.12
Eave Level
6400
WS.12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
W S .12
D07 W10 D06 W09 W08 D05 D04
Upper Ground
4000
Courtyard
3700
1 Courtyard East 3 Courtyard South 2 Coutyard West
A -402 1 : 100 A -402 1 : 100 A -402 1 : 100
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Elevations 03
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-402 11.03.2021 3
Page 37
Eave Level
6400
ENTRY LIVING /
DECK DINING
LAWN
Upper Ground
Courtyard
4000
3700
DRIVEWAY Lower Ground
2800
4 Section C
A -450 1 : 100
2
A-500*
Eave Level
6400
ENSUITE
OUTDOOR
DINING
Upper Ground
POOL
Courtyard
4000
3700
DRIVEWAY Lower Ground
2800
3 Section B
A -450 1 : 100 PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Sections 01
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-450 11.03.2021 3
Page 38
GUEST GUEST
HOUSE BATH
LAWN GARAGE
Upper Ground
Courtyard
4000
3700
Lower Ground
2800
1 Section A
A -451 1 : 100
PROJECT SCALE NORTH
GOOD NEIGHBOUR HOUSE 1 : 100 @ A3
18 HAY ST, TEWANTIN
DRAWING
STAGE
Sections 02
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PURPOSE
DRAWING NUMBER DATE ISSUE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A-451 11.03.2021 3
Page 39
ABN 51 640 311 842
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast
Contact Us
07 5293 7648
@arcosgroup
[email protected]
arcosgroup.com.au
Sunshine Coast | Brisbane | Gold Coast