Original source · versioned page text
Geotech Report - Initial Findings
Attached to the e-mail Operation Works Application - OPW19/0266 - 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach - (EMAIL 2/3) - Site Based Stormwater Management Plan, Acid Sulphate Soil & Groundwater Management Plan.
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No.: 62731
Site No.: 52930
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN
215-219 DAVID LOW WAY
PEREGIAN BEACH
Prepared for Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd
Project No. 007-160A, 27 April 2010
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
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 31 pages
Page 2
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No.: 62731
Site No.: 52930
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Project ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Proposed Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Commission ............................................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 2 - THE SITE 3
2.1 Previous Investigation ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Site Description .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Geology ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK 6
3.1 Drilling and Sampling Methods .................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Bore Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS 7
4.1 Reports ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 5 - GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DISCUSSION 8
5.1 Ground Model ............................................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Existing Fill Condition and Performance .................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Earthworks ................................................................................................................................................. 9
5.3.1 Excavation ................................................................................................................................... 9
5.3.2 Temporary Batter Stability ........................................................................................................... 9
5.3.3 Batter Erosion Protection ............................................................................................................ 9
5.3.4 Compaction ...............................................................................................................................10
5.3.5 Traffickability..............................................................................................................................10
5.4 Groundwater Control ................................................................................................................................10
5.4.1 Temporary .................................................................................................................................10
5.4.2 Permanent Groundwater Control ..............................................................................................11
5.5 Site Settlement .........................................................................................................................................12
5.6 Foundations .............................................................................................................................................12
5.6.1 Strip and Pad Footing................................................................................................................12
5.6.2 Pile Foundations ........................................................................................................................13
5.6.3 Raft Foundation .........................................................................................................................13
5.7 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................................14
5.8 On-Ground Slabs and Pavements ...........................................................................................................14
5.9 Vibration ...................................................................................................................................................15
TABLES:
Table 1: Summary of Particle Size Distribution Test Results ................................................................................................. 3
Table 2: Summary of Particle Size Distribution Test Results ................................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Maximum Temporary Unsurcharged Cut Batter Slopes ........................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Subgrade and Fill Compaction Requirements ........................................................................................................10
Table 5: Working Bearing Capacity for Design of Shallow Foundations in Natural Soils .....................................................12
Table 6: Maximum Working Bearing Pressures for Pile Design ...........................................................................................13
Table 7: Soil Settlement Modulus Values .............................................................................................................................13
Table 8: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients ........................................................................................................................14
Table 9: Subgrade Design Parameters .................................................................................................................................14
ATTACHMENTS:
Drawing No. 1 Locality Plan & Test Locations
Appendix A Bore Report Sheets with Explanatory Notes
Page 3
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project
It is understood that it is proposed to develop the site by the construction of a residential and commercial
development comprising multiple two and three storey buildings, access roads, driveways and car parking
areas. It is also understood that excavations of up to approximately 3m will be required in the eastern part of
the site to form partially in-ground basement car parking and that approximately 1m of fill is to be placed over
the western part of the site. The location of the site and the layout of the proposed development are shown
approximately on Drawing No. 1, attached.
1.2 Proposed Scope of Work
Based on prior experience at the site, the subsurface conditions were generally anticipated to comprise a
discontinuous surface layer of fill, underlain by predominantly sandy alluvial strata (including indurated sand
layers) overlying residual soils then weathered rock (generally at increasing depth from east to west). It was
proposed to undertake additional geotechnical investigation of the site by drilling and sampling six bores to
6m to 7m depth.
Using the results of relevant existing investigation information and the fieldwork outcomes obtained from the
proposed additional investigation, it was proposed that a report would be produced that would provide
geotechnical design information on each of the following topics:
subsurface conditions; working bearing pressures;
earthworks and site preparation; estimated site settlement;
reactive soil movement; anticipated founding depths; and,
retaining wall pressures; anticipated construction aspects.
suitable alternate foundation types;
1.3 Commission
A fee to undertake the investigation was presented in a proposal of 12 March 2010 and
Butler Partners Pty Ltd was subsequently commissioned by Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd to conduct the
geotechnical investigation as proposed.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 2
Page 4
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
SECTION 2 - THE SITE
2.1 Previous Investigation
Butler Partners has previously carried out an Acid Sulfate Soil (ASS) assessment at the site and the results
of this investigation are detailed in the following report:
Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment
Residential Development
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No: 07160 Dated: 18 June 2007
The ASS assessment comprised the drilling and sampling of six bores (Bores 1 to 6) with samples taken for
laboratory testing. The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores generally comprised a surface layer
of either fill material (in Bores 1 to 4), that varied up to a maximum depth of 0.8m, or silty sand (in Bores 5
and 6) to a maximum depth of 0.4m. In Bores 1 and 2 only, the fill was underlain by natural, dark grey-brown
silty clays that were underlain in turn by silty sands that were indurated below 2m depth. In Bores 3 to 6, the
surface fill or silty sand layer was underlain by sands.
Free groundwater was encountered during the drilling of four of the six bores at the depths/levels given in
Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Particle Size Distribution Test Results
Groundwater Observations from June 2007
Bore Depth Reduced Level
(m) (m)
1 0.8 RL2.3
2 0.8 RL2.3
3 1.5 RL6.0
4 Not encountered
5 1.6 RL5.9
6 Not encountered
The results of the laboratory testing indicated that, in general, the fill material and natural sands and silty
sands were not ASS. The natural silty clays indicated levels of actual acidity below laboratory reporting
limits, with one exception. The silty clays were therefore considered to include an apparently limited amount
of ASS, potentially at isolated locations.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 3
Page 5
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
2.2 Site Description
At the time of the current investigation the site was developed as a caravan park. A one and two storey
Manager’s Residence/Office and a single storey Amenities Block were located on the eastern side of the
site, with the remainder of the site comprising caravan parking areas, surrounded by grassed areas with
medium to tall trees and a gravel and partly paved ‘ring-road’ around the site. Ground surface levels
reduced non-uniformly across the site from east to west from a high at David Low Way of approximately
RL10m to a low along the western boundary of approximately RL2.5m. Three general views of the site are
given in Photographs 1 to 3.
Photograph 1: General view of the site looking north from the south-eastern corner
Photograph 2: General view of the site looking north from the south-western corner
butlerpartners.com.au Page 4
Page 6
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
Photograph 3: General panoramic view of the site looking north-west to north-east from the southern side of
the site
2.3 Geology
Reference to Queensland Department of Mines and Energy’s 1:100,000 Gympie Special sheet indicates that
the site is mapped in an area of Quaternary Parabolic Dunes (comprising quartz sand) and Estuarine
Deposits (comprising sandy mud, muddy sand and minor gravel), overlying Tiaro Coal Measures (comprising
lithofeldspathic labile and sublabile to quartzose sandstone, siltstone, shale and coal with a ferruginous oolite
marker bed).
butlerpartners.com.au Page 5
Page 7
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK
3.1 Drilling and Sampling Methods
The current investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of six bores (Bores 7 to 12, which have been
numbered sequentially from the bores carried out for the previous ASS assessment). The current bores
were drilled using a Jacro 350 drilling rig operating solid flight augers to 3m depth and wash bore drilling
from 3m to the termination depth of the bores. Strata identification was from material returned to the surface
by the augers and in the wash bore fluid, supplemented by inspection of Standard penetration test (SPT)
samples, taken at selected depth intervals.
3.2 Bore Locations
Bore locations were limited by existing site development, were determined in the field by direct measurement
from existing site features and are indicated approximately on the attached Drawing No. 1. The ground
surface levels at the bore locations have been interpolated from contours given on PMM’s Combined Detail
Survey Plan (Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007).
A geotechnical engineer set out the test locations, logged the stratigraphy encountered in the bores and
directed the in-situ sampling and testing program.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 6
Page 8
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS
4.1 Reports
The subsurface conditions encountered at the bore locations are summarised on Bore Report sheets
included in Appendix A, using classification and descriptive terms defined in accompanying notes.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
For details of the strata encountered at the bore locations the Bore Report sheets should be consulted.
However, in very broad summary, the stratigraphy encountered in the bores generally comprised a
discontinuous surface layer of fill and/or possible fill to 0.2m to 0.8m depth in Bores 1 to 4, 9, 10 and 12.
Underlying the fill and/or possible fill, and from ground surface levels in the remaining bores, very loose to
loose sand and silty sand was encountered that was underlain in turn by medium dense sand below 1.2m to
3.9m depth. In all bores except Bore 11, the medium dense sand was underlain by a variable thickness
layer of dense, weakly cemented indurated sand. In Bores 1 and 2 only, the fill was underlain by natural,
dark grey-brown silty clays then silty sands that were indurated below 2.0m depth. In Bores 7, 8 and 9 the
indurated sand layer was underlain by medium dense sand. The bores were discontinued in sand and
indurated sand at approximately 7.3m to 8m depth.
It should be noted that the medium dense sands underlying the indurated sands represents a ‘strength
inversion’ (i.e. lower strength material underlying higher strength material). A strength inversion was also
encountered in Bore 11 where loose sand was encountered below 6.2m depth underlying medium dense
sand.
4.3 Groundwater
Free groundwater was encountered during auger drilling of the bores at the depths/levels given in Table 2. It
should be noted that groundwater levels would be expected to vary both seasonally and with the prevailing
weather conditions. It is recommended that groundwater presence/levels be confirmed if construction is
undertaken during or following significant wet weather, or if a significant period of time elapses between this
investigation and construction.
Table 2: Summary of Particle Size Distribution Test Results
Groundwater Observations from April 2010
Bore Depth Reduced Level
(m) (m)
7 2.8 RL3.2
8 2.7 RL4.6
9 1.6 RL4.2
10 1.2 RL4.0
11 0.5 RL2.5
12 0.9 RL2.0
butlerpartners.com.au Page 7
Page 9
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
SECTION 5 - GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DISCUSSION
5.1 Ground Model
The results of the investigation indicate that the stratigraphy encountered at the bore locations generally
comprised a discontinuous layer of fill and/or possible fill up to approximately 0.8m depth that was underlain
by very loose to loose sands to approximately 1.2m to 3.9m depth with a layer of silty clay encountered in
Bores 1 and 2, then medium dense to dense sands and dense, weakly cemented indurated sands. Strength
inversions were encountered in the sands and indurated sands. For the ground conditions encountered at
the test locations, geotechnical design will need to particularly consider at least (but not exclusively) the
following key issues:
the condition of the existing fill material;
excavatability;
groundwater control during construction;
estimated site settlement;
retaining wall pressures;
suitable foundation types and founding level;
presence of ‘strength inversions’ and their effect on footing design;
the potential for significant settlement and/or liquefaction of the very loose sands;
potential for settlement in surrounding areas; and
construction issues.
Discussion of geotechnical design parameters, as well as design and construction recommendations and
suggestions are detailed in the following sections.
5.2 Existing Fill Condition and Performance
It is not known whether the existing fill material at the site is ‘controlled’ (i.e. it is not known whether the
existing fill has been placed and uniformly compacted to an appropriate engineering specification).
Supporting documentation should be obtained and checked to confirm whether the fill has been placed in a
controlled manner to a specification that is appropriate for the proposed development. If documentation
does not exist, or the specification is not appropriate for the proposed development, then it is suggested that
the existing fill be assumed to be uncontrolled.
If the fill cannot be shown to be controlled, then consideration should be given to the potential for variations
in both the composition and degree of compaction of the fill. The presence of voids within uncontrolled fill as
well as potential soft/loose zones or inclusions of deleterious materials may lead to potentially significant
future total and differential settlements, possibly occurring over relatively short distances.
To minimise the risk of potentially adverse settlement occurring, it is recommended that all uncontrolled fill
present in settlement sensitive areas be removed and replaced/recompacted as controlled fill.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 8
Page 10
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
5.3 Earthworks
5.3.1 Excavation
Excavation of the sands encountered in the bores should be readily achieved in bulk excavation using a
medium sized hydraulic excavator, possibly supplemented by ripping in any significantly cemented zones.
5.3.2 Temporary Batter Stability
If movement sensitive services are not located ‘close’ to excavations, and geometry permits, battered slopes
may be adopted. Stable (cut) batter angles will need to be properly assessed once design and earthworks
procedures have been finalised. However, as a preliminary guide, the values given in Table 3 are suggested
for unsurcharged batters, up to 3m in height, where some movement behind batter crests is acceptable and
the sands are fully dewatered. Detailed stability analysis prior to bulk earthworks design finalisation will be
required on a location by location basis (as part of bulk earthworks design) to confirm stable batter slopes
and detailed inspection by an experienced geotechnical engineer will be required at the time of construction
to confirm the stability of batter faces.
The batter angles given in Table 3 are based on the assumption that batter faces are protected from erosion
and that drainage is designed to keep surface and groundwater away from the slopes. If free water is
allowed to emanate from batter faces, slopes will be unstable at the nominated batter slopes.
Table 3: Maximum Temporary Unsurcharged Cut Batter Slopes
Material Strength Temporary Cut Batter*
very loose to loose 1V : 3H
Sands
medium dense to dense 1V : 1.5H
* Dewatered
If insufficient space exists for the construction of cut batters at the maximum slopes given in Table 3, positive
excavation support will be required in order to prevent excavation instability.
If buildings etc. are proposed close to slope crests, specific slope stability analysis will be required on a
structure by structure basis to establish stable slope angles and foundation requirements etc. to minimise the
potential for crest movements to adversely affect buildings and to minimise building surcharge loading to
slopes.
Fill batters should be formed by over-filling by a minimum distance of not less than 1m and cutting back to
profile, to ensure proper compaction of batter faces. All exposed fill should be protected from weathering,
erosion and groundwater seepage.
5.3.3 Batter Erosion Protection
It is anticipated that cut and fill batters at the site will erode and require ongoing maintenance. It will be
necessary to install concrete lined collector drains at the crest of slopes and to fully protect batter faces to
minimise future erosion and maintenance requirements.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 9
Page 11
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
5.3.4 Compaction
Exposed subgrade should be uniformly compacted (if possible) to the minimum dry density ratio nominated
in Table 4. If the subgrade is too soft to allow compaction, a granular bridging layer (e.g. crushed concrete)
and acceptance by engineering inspection under proof-rolling would be required for the bridging layer. Any
‘soft spots’ encountered should be either tyned and dried then recompacted, or excavated and replaced with
compacted granular select fill. In areas of soft/firm clays, or where subgrade level is close to these clays, it
will not be possible to obtain proper compaction and allowance is suggested for over excavation and
replacement with a track rolled granular replacement.
Table 4: Subgrade and Fill Compaction Requirements
Location Minimum Dry Density Ratio
Foundation support 100% (Standard compaction)*
General floor slab support 100% (Standard compaction)*
Pavement Subgrade - >500mm below subgrade level 98% (Standard compaction)
- top 500mm of subgrade 100% (Standard compaction)
* ‘Level 1’ supervision
All fill which is to support building loads and/or movement sensitive features of the development, should be
‘controlled’ (i.e. placed in layers having a loose thickness of not more than 250mm and uniformly compacted
to an appropriate engineering specification). Suggested minimum compaction requirements for fill are given
in Table 4.
Reactive materials are not recommended for use as fill. However, if it is not possible to avoid the use of
reactive material it should be placed and maintained at a moisture content greater than Standard optimum
moisture content, in order to reduce potential shrink-swell movements. It should be noted that over-
compacting reactive fill (particularly at a moisture content below optimum) should be avoided as potentially
significant expansion could occur on ‘wetting up’. Reactive fill/soil moisture should not be allowed to change
during or following construction.
To assist with achieving adequate control over fill placement, geotechnical testing as set out in Section 8 of
AS3798 - 2007 Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments would be required. It
is recommended that where fill is to be placed beneath pavements, that ‘Level 2’ geotechnical supervision
and testing be adopted and the requirement be increased to ‘Level 1’ where fill is to be placed beneath
buildings or anywhere where future settlement needs to be limited.
5.3.5 Traffickability
To assist with traffickability, consideration should be given to the placement of a coarse granular working
surface over the exposed subgrade. The required layer thickness will depend on the type of plant proposed
to traffic the site and should be determined on a case by case basis however, a layer thickness of
approximately 0.15m would be anticipated for ‘light’ equipment.
5.4 Groundwater Control
5.4.1 Temporary
It will be necessary to obtain groundwater samples for testing to confirm disposal water quality, prior to
finalisation of groundwater control methods.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 10
Page 12
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
Extreme caution should be exercised if groundwater table lowering is envisaged, as any adjacent structures
founded in (or above) very loose and loose sands may experience significant (and potentially non-uniform)
settlement as a result of groundwater level reduction.
Suitable temporary groundwater control methods would need to be properly assessed, but would most likely
comprise a system of spear points. As a very preliminary guide, discussions with groundwater dewatering
contractors with experience in the general area indicate that inflow rates of 0.1l/s to 0.5l/s per square meter
of excavation base for a depth of 1m to 1.5m below groundwater level and side area (below the groundwater
level) may be appropriate, but will be subject to the excavation depth and the temporary support method
adopted. Inflow values will need to be confirmed by detailed analysis and design.
5.4.2 Permanent Groundwater Control
In proposed basements, groundwater seepage into the excavation may occur that could adversely affect
basement wall and floor slab performance and building amenity. Unless a fully tanked basement is adopted,
control of groundwater seepage by drainage will be necessary. For a ‘non-tanked’ basement, floor slabs will
need to be cast over a free draining layer (incorporating agricultural drains) graded to sumps so that
groundwater is removed and pressure does not build-up under the slab.
Detailed groundwater modelling will be required to confirm the feasibility of adopting drained basements and
to enable determination of potential inflow values.
Three options which could be considered (subject to the results of detailed groundwater modelling) for
permanent groundwater control in the basement are indicated below. Whichever option is selected the
‘average’ groundwater level external to the site should not be lowered.
Option 1: Fully tanked basement. The basement walls and slab could be designed and tanked for
hydrostatic pressures equivalent to the highest predicted groundwater levels at the site. This
is the most expensive option.
Option 2: Fully drained basement. An appropriately designed drainage layer behind basement walls,
and an under slab drainage layer, would be used to control groundwater and remove
hydrostatic pressures. It is however recommended that the walls and slabs be designed to
accommodate some hydrostatic load if there is a failure / blockage in the drainage system.
Any underslab drainage system would need to be properly analysed and designed, however,
for initial costing a 200mm thick layer of single sized aggregate should be allowed for,
together with 75mm diameter geotextile wrapped agricultural drains laid one way at not more
than 6m to 8m centres and connected to sumps.
Option 3: Hydrostatic relief system. The basement walls and slab could be designed and tanked for
a groundwater level required to balance hydrostatic uplift and the weight of the overall
structure (allowing for a minimum factor of safety applied to uplift forces). When
groundwater levels rise above this level, a pressure relief system would allow the basement
to flood, or alternatively collect the overflow waters within a system of drains and sumps.
This option is based on the acceptance of the risk that the basement may flood.
It is strongly recommended that groundwater inflow volumes are monitored during construction to provide an
assessment of the permanent inflow rates and that the results of this monitoring be compared with predicted
groundwater inflow volumes.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 11
Page 13
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
It will be essential to ensure that all services connecting into the site that are to be terminated are properly
sealed off (including trench backfill) to prevent them becoming water conduits to the site and causing water
pressure surcharging of excavation support works.
5.5 Site Settlement
Provided the subgrade is prepared in accordance with Section 5.3 and no soft/firm clays exist, it is
preliminarily estimated that subgrade settlement induced by fill placement could be in the range 10mm to
30mm per metre depth of fill placed, under the weight of the fill alone (i.e. no structure loads applied to the
fill). Some (additional) settlement will also occur within the fill due to self-weight and these settlements could
be of the order of 1mm to 3mm per metre of properly compacted fill placed.
5.6 Foundations
The site is underlain to approximately 0.8m by fill and/or to approximately 1.2m to 3.9m depth by ‘low
bearing capacity’ and potentially highly variable, very loose to loose sands, with a reasonably high
groundwater level. It is therefore considered strip and pad foundations should be extended to found in the
medium dense sands or the indurated sands. If this is not possible, then buildings could be supported on a
(preferably non-vibratory) pile system, founding in the medium dense to dense sand and dense, weakly
cemented indurated sand. Bored piles would be expected to encounter severe construction difficulties and
their use is not recommended.
It should be noted that a strength inversions were encountered in the bores and that detailed consideration
must be given to the presence of the inversion in the selection of foundation bearing pressure and founding
depth.
5.6.1 Strip and Pad Footing
Working bearing capacities that could be used for preliminary design of strip and pad footings are presented
in Table 5. Footing design will also need to consider footing settlement, which would need to be assessed in
detail once footing sizes, loadings, layouts and locations are known.
Table 5: Working Bearing Capacity for Design of Shallow Foundations in Natural Soils
(1)
Working Bearing Capacity
Material Strength
(kPa)
Controlled Fill Level 1 100
(2)
medium dense 250
Sand (2)
dense/weakly cemented 400
(1) Not underlain by ‘softer’ material
(2) Given as a guide only and should be assessed before finalising design - dependent upon footing width and
founding depth
It is considered that variations in fill, soil strength are likely to occur over the site at founding level and that a
‘flexible’ approach would best be adopted to foundation design and construction methodology, so that footing
sizes/founding depths can be readily adjusted as required during construction, without cost/time penalties
being incurred. It should also be noted that ‘strength inversions’ were encountered in the bores (i.e. lower
strength material underlying higher strength material), for example in Bore 11 a layer of loose sand was
encountered at 6.2m depth underlying medium dense sand.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 12
Page 14
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
It is suggested that an experienced engineer inspect all footing excavations prior to casting to ensure bearing
capacity at foundation level is adequate, as there is potential for ‘softer/looser’ materials to be present on
site. Care should be exercised in the selection of footing founding depths where excavations or natural
slopes exist (or will exist in the future).
All footing excavations should be clean, dry and free of loose/softened materials immediately prior to casting.
5.6.2 Pile Foundations
Maximum working bearing stress that could be adopted for preliminary design of single axial compression
loads for piles, founding in sands are given in Table 6. These pressures must be confirmed by testing during
installation. Potential ‘interaction’ effects must be carefully assessed where piles are closely spaced. It will
be necessary to carefully consider the effects on foundation performance if soil of lesser strength is located
below founding level.
Table 6: Maximum Working Bearing Pressures for Pile Design
(1)
Maximum Working Bearing Pressure
Material Strength
(kPa)
medium dense 600
Sand/Silty Sand/Indurated Sand
dense/weakly cemented 1,000
(1)
For a pile length to base diameter ratio greater than 4.0 and no ‘softer’ underlying layers
If screw piles are considered for support of buildings, it should be noted that they would not be expected to
provide significant lateral capacity unless significantly ‘raked’.
The installation of driven piles will involve noise and vibration, and it will be necessary to properly assess any
potential adverse effects that noise and vibration may have on surrounding structures, existing in-ground
services etc.
5.6.3 Raft Foundation
For the preliminary assessment of the performance of a stiffened raft foundation, the soil parameters
presented in Table 7 could be used. The parameters have been based on the results of the investigation,
past experience and published correlations. Detailed analysis will be required if a raft option appears
feasible.
Table 7: Soil Settlement Modulus Values
Material Strength Settlement Modulus
Controlled fill (Level 1, see Section 5.3) - 10 – 20
(MPa)
(1)
very loose Vibration sensitive – not possible to reliably predict
(2)
loose 7 – 15
Sand/Silty Sand/Indurated Sand
medium dense 20 – 50
dense/weakly cemented 40 – 80
Poisons Ratio ( ) 0.3
(1)
Not recommended for settlement sensitive structures. Very loose sands will be sensitive to vibration and liquefaction
effects. Liquefaction potential should be checked as part of detailed design.
(2)
Difficult to reliably predict and sensitive to vibration
butlerpartners.com.au Page 13
Page 15
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
It is expected that some variability in material properties will occur across the site, however it is considered
that they should generally be within the range noted. Despite this variability, it would be generally expected
that the ‘higher’ modulus values are more likely to be applicable for short-term, transient loads (e.g. wheel
loads) whilst the ‘lower’ modulus values are more likely to apply to long-term loads.
5.7 Retaining Walls
Where sands are retained, non anchored retaining wall pressures could be based on the lateral earth
pressure coefficients given in Table 8, where a horizontal ground surface is retained in conjunction with a
triangular pressure distribution, provided the excavation is not surcharged by adjacent buildings/services and
some movement tolerance exists.
Table 8: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Unit Lateral Earth Pressure
Material Strength Weight Coefficient (K)
3
(t/m ) Cantilever Propped
very loose to loose 1.8 0.40 0.60
Sand/Silty Sand/Indurated Sand medium dense 2.0 0.30 0.50
dense/weakly cemented 2.1 0.25 0.40
Where retaining walls are located on (or close behind) slopes, global stability of the overall slope must also
be checked (i.e. check for potential instability of materials occurring beneath the wall footing). Careful
consideration will also need to be given to wall and/or structure detailing, where settlement sensitive
structures/features are located ‘close’ to the top of ‘flexible’ retaining walls.
Prop loads for unsurcharged propped shoring walls could be designed based on a uniform pressure
distribution with depth, equivalent to 5H (kPa) where H is the depth of the excavation.
Even if a drainage system is installed behind retaining walls, it would still be prudent to allow for elevated
water pressures to act on the walls as elevated groundwater levels may occur due to blocked drainage
systems.
5.8 On-Ground Slabs and Pavements
Subgrade properties will vary across the site following earthworks, and detailed assessment/testing will be
required at the time of construction in order to confirm design values. Preliminary design of on-ground slabs
and pavements, cast over a natural soil, or controlled fill subgrade, could be based on the parameters
presented in Table 9. The values presented in Table 9 are based on the assumption that the subgrade is
prepared in accordance with Section 5.3.
Table 9: Subgrade Design Parameters
(1)
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Subgrade Type CBR (%)
(kPa/mm)
Silty Sand (natural or controlled fill) 5 – 10 30 – 50
Sand (natural or controlled fill) 8 – 10 40 – 50
(1)
For transient loading only
butlerpartners.com.au Page 14
Page 16
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
On-ground slabs should be fully dowelled and joints between slabs sealed to control differential movements
and minimise under-slab moisture changes. It is suggested that floor slabs be tied into shallow footings to
prevent relative movement. However, if slabs are not tied in, they should be detailed to enable movement,
independent of foundations, fixtures, etc.
5.9 Vibration
If strong vibration (e.g. due to vibrating sheet pile installation, or heavy machinery etc) and/or significant
earthquake have the potential to induce significant, non-uniform settlement in the very loose sands.
BUTLER PARTNERS PTY LTD
Reviewed by:
MIKE NEIGHBOUR BRUCE BUTLER
Principal Principal
butlerpartners.com.au Page 15
Page 17
v “Add b ‘ON ONIMVUd
V091-200 ‘ON LOSPOUd
‘G3AOUddY
ad “NMVUd
O10 TddV ‘dvd
OOOL:L
wor 0€ 02 OL 0
‘eV LV 31WOS
GL1ALd dNOYS ALYSdOYd NOINVOS
HOV3S NVIOSNAd ‘AVN MOT GIAWG 612-912
NVISaddd 4O SONASSS
SNOILVOO1 LSSL ONY NW1d ALITVOO1
SIN (UonIP PES) EL PUD 62 deW OS:eouEVJ8y GEN
7 DET AT STOTT TOSTORTOTT
arp ;
ne ‘woo sieuedalinq@seiinbue
gogse zSee 2 19 x4
ooge zsee 2 19 ‘Ud
ne'woo'sisujsedsojjng’ Mmm
900% puejsusenH
og Aaen opnyic4
18%Z XO “Od sung soquyy
900h pue|susend ‘pesjsmeNn oo
}9911§ 11:8660q 6/
208 PLS O18 FI NAY
PIT Ald Sisuyed JalIng —iT
‘wrivasny LInsNo>
Sadaawntavd
tc} el UL) set
5
vzoRzids
- oi
2002'90'40 Palep ‘S0-v'ON Bulmerg ‘\ue|q juaWaseg 2115, $,P17 Ald PIO S}OaIlYouy YIN PUR
2002'r0'81 parep ‘Smp'yed-eZe/ON Buymesg ‘eld Aading |1e}8q pauiqwog, s,dnag Wd -eove1jey
682MAN
Lol
Asepunog 941$
(uawssasse sgy snoinaid) aiog L eo
(uoyeByseau! Juana) aJ0g l aa
QN3941
119048HON
L6
|, ?- |
\ das Sa —
‘ snosna ——
JaqgempunouB . jequawuoJ!iAua-oabB . jea!uyaa40a6
Page 18
Essence of Peregian
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Project No. 007-160A,
27 April 2010
APPENDIX A
BORE REPORT SHEETS WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
Page 19
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 1
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 3.1m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
3.1
0 0.0
FILL
- grey-brown and yellow-brown, silty sand, traces of sandy clay, trace of sub- D
angular gravel
0.25
D
0.5
D
0.75
SILTY CLAY (OH)
D
- dark grey-brown, with organics
1 1.0
2.0 D
SILTY SAND (SM) 1.25
- dark grey-brown
D
1.5
D
1.75
D
2 2.0
- indurated sand
1.0 D
2.25
D
2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 0.8m depth
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 20
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 2
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 3.1m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
3.1
0 0.0
FILL
- grey-brown and yellow-brown, silty sand, traces of sandy clay, trace of sub- D
angular gravel
0.25
D
0.5
D
0.75
SILTY CLAY (OH)
D
- dark grey-black, with organics
1 1.0
2.0 D
SILTY SAND (SM) 1.25
- dark grey-brown
D
1.5
D
1.75
D
2 2.0
- indurated sand
1.0 D
2.25
D
2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 0.8m depth
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 21
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 3
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 7.5m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
7.5
0 0.0
FILL
- grey-brown, sandy fine sub-angular gravel D
SAND (SP) 0.25
- light grey-brown, fine grained
D
7.0 0.5
D
0.75
D
1 1.0
D
1.25
D
6.0 1.5
- medium to coarse grained
D
1.75
D
2 2.0
D
2.25
D
5.0 2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 1.5m depth
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 22
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 4
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 6.0m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
6.0
0 0.0
FILL
- grey-brown and orange, sandy fine to medium sub-angular gravel D
SAND (SP) 0.25
- light grey-brown, fine grained
D
0.5
D
0.75
D
1 5.0 1.0
D
1.25
D
1.5
D
1.75
D
2 4.0 2.0
D
2.25
D
2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3 3.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 23
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 5
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 7.5m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
7.5
0 0.0
SILTY SAND (SM)
- dark grey-brown, fine grained D
0.25
D
SAND (SP)
- light grey-brown, fine grained 7.0 0.5
D
0.75
D
1 1.0
D
1.25
D
6.0 1.5
- medium to coarse grained D
1.75
D
2 2.0
D
2.25
D
5.0 2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 1.6m depth
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 24
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Properties Pty Ltd BORE 6
Project: Residential Development Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 8 June 2007
Project No: 07160 Ground Surface Level: RL 9.0m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
9.0
0 0.0
SILTY SAND (SM)
- dark grey-brown, fine grained D
0.25
SAND (SP)
D
- light grey-brown, fine grained
0.5
D
0.75
D
1 8.0 1.0
D
1.25
D
1.5
D
1.75
D
2 7.0 2.0
D
2.25
D
2.5
End of Bore at 2.5 m
3 6.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Hydrapower Trekker
Drilling Method: Auger
Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling
Remarks: * Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03, dated 18 April 2007
Page 25
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 7
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 9 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL6.0m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
6.0
0
SAND (SP)
- loose, grey, fine to medium grained
- light grey
1 5.0
1.5
S 2,3,4
N=7
2 4.0 1.95
- medium dense
3 3.0 3.0
S 7,13,18
INDURATED SAND (SP) N=31
- dense/weakly cemented, dark brown, fine to medium grained 3.45
4 2.0
4.5
S 10,16,20
N=36
5 1.0 4.95
6 0.0 6.0
S
6.27 29,30 for 120mm
SAND (SP)
- medium dense, brown, fine to medium grained
7 -1.0 7.0
S 8,13,13
N=26
7.45
End of Bore at 7.45 m
8 -2.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 2.8m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 26
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 8
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 9 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL7.3m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
7.3
0
SAND (SP)
- loose, grey
1
6.0
1.5
- light grey mottled grey 2,4,5
S
N=9
2 1.95
5.0
3 3.0
- medium dense, light grey S 4,7,10
4.0 N=17
3.45
4
3.0
INDURATED SAND (SP) 4.5
- dense/weakly cemented, dark brown, fine to medium grained 11,20,24
S
N=44
5 4.95
2.0
6 6.0
S 7,11,19
1.0 N=30
6.45
7 7.0
S 17,14,14
SAND (SP) 0.0 N=28
- medium dense, brown, fine to medium grained 7.45
End of Bore at 7.45 m
8
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 2.7m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 27
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 9
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 10 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL5.8m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
5.8
0
SAND (SP)
- loose, brown (possibly fill)
- dark grey (possibly fill)
- grey 5.0
1
1.5
- light grey S 3,3,3
4.0 N=6
2 1.95
- medium dense 3.0
3 3.0
S 7,13,19
- dense, dark grey N=32
3.45
2.0
4 - brown
4.5
S 6,12,16
1.0 N=38
5 4.95
INDURATED SAND (SP)
- dense/weakly cemented, dark brown, fine to medium grained
SAND (SP)
- dense, brown, fine to medium grained 0.0
6 6.0
S 10,12,18
N=30
6.45
-1.0
7 7.0
S 13,21,19
N=40
7.45
End of Bore at 7.45 m
-2.0
8
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 1.6m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 28
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 10
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 10 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL5.2m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
5.2
0
FILL
- grey-brown, silty sand (topsoil)
SAND (SP)
- loose, grey, fine grained
1
4.0
- medium dense
1.5
S 6,6,7
N=13
2 1.95
3.0
3 3.0
INDURATED SAND (SP) 2.0 S 30 for 150mm
3.15
- dense/weakly cemented, dark brown, fine to medium grained
4
1.0
4.5
S 25,29,30 for 100mm
4.9
5
0.0
6 6.0
-1.0 S 17,19,16
N=36
6.45
7 7.0
-2.0 S 11,24,30 for 140mm
7.44
End of Bore at 7.44 m
8
-3.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 1.2m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 29
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 11
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 10 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL3.0m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
3.0
0
FILL
- loose, dark grey, silty fine grained sand
SAND (SP)
- loose, dark grey, fine grained
1 2.0
1.5
- medium dense S 3,6,9
N=15
2 1.0 1.95
- medium dense, dark brown
3 0.0 3.0
S 2,4,7
N=11
3.45
4 -1.0
4.5
S 4,6,8
N=14
5 -2.0 4.95
6 - medium dense, with indurated sand bands -3.0 6.0
S 11,4,5
- loose, dark grey-brown N=9
6.45
7 -4.0
- dense, brown, fine to medium grained
7.5
S 10,16,20
N=36
8 -5.0 7.95
End of Bore at 7.95 m
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 0.5m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 30
BORE REPORT
Client: Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd BORE 12
Project: Essence of Peregian Page No: 1 of 1
Location: 215 - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Date: 9 April 2010
Project No: 007-160A Ground Surface Level: RL2.9m*
Sample Depth (m)
Sample Type
Test Results
Description
Depth (m)
Lithology
RL (m)
2.9
0
SILTY SAND (SM)
- very loose, dark grey, fine grained (possible fill)
SAND (SP)
- very loose, dark grey, fine grained
2.0
1
1.5
S WOH
1.0 N=0
2 1.95
0.0
3 3.0
S 1,2,2
N=4
3.45
-1.0
4 - medium dense, dark brown
4.5
S 6,5,7
-2.0 N=12
5 4.95
-3.0
6 6.0
- medium dense, light grey-brown 9,11,13
S
N=24
6.45
INDURATED SAND (SP) -4.0
7 7.0
- dense/weakly cemented, dark brown, fine to medium grained S 17,30 for 150mm
7.3
End of Bore at 7.3 m
-5.0
8
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) Up Pushtube Sample S Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Disturbed Sample
E Environmental Sample C NMLC Coring (d) Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Bulk Sample
U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) HB SPT Hammer Bouncing (a) Axial Point Load Strength Test
pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa) ( ) No Sample Recovery V Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Rig: Jacro 350
Drilling Method: Auger to 3.0m then washbore
Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 0.9m depth during auger drilling
Remarks: *Approximate ground surface level interpolated from PMM Group's Drawing No. 7328-03A.dwg, dated 18 April 2007.
Page 31
Notes on Description and Classification of Soil
Revision 3, November 2008
Notes on Description and Classification of Soil
The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are generally based on Australian Standard AS1726-1993
Geotechnical Site Investigations.
Soil description is based on an assessment of disturbed samples, as recovered from bores and excavations, or from undisturbed
materials as seen in excavations and exposures or in undisturbed samples. Descriptions given on report sheets are an interpretation of
the conditions encountered at the time of investigation.
In the case of cone or piezocone penetrometer tests, actual soil samples are not recovered and soil description is inferred based on
published correlations, past experience and comparison with bore and/or test pit data (if available).
Soil classification is based on the particle size distribution of the soil and the plasticity of the portion of the material finer than 0.425mm.
The description of particle size distribution and plasticity is based on the results of visual field estimation, laboratory testing or both.
When assessed in the field, the properties of the soil are estimated; precise description will always require laboratory testing to define
soil properties.
Where soil can be clearly identified as FILL this will be noted as the main soil type followed by a description of the composition of the fill
(e.g. FILL – yellow-brown, fine to coarse grained gravelly clay fill with concrete rubble). If the soil is assessed as possibly being fill this
will be noted as an additional observation.
Soils are generally described using the following sequence of terms. In certain instances, not all of the terms will be included in the soil
description.
MAIN SOIL TYPE (CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOL)
- strength/density, colour, structure/grain size, secondary and minor components, additional observations
Information on the definition of descriptive and classification terms follows.
SOIL TYPE and CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOLS
Classification
Major Divisions Particle Size Typical Names
Group Symbol
BOULDERS > 200mm
COBBLES 63 – 200mm
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
GW
GRAVELS little or no fines.
Coarse: 20 – 63mm
(more than half of Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand
Medium: 6 – 20mm GP
mixtures, little or no fines, uniform gravels.
coarse fraction is larger
Fine: 2.36 – 6mm
COARSE than 2.36mm) GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
GRAINED SOILS GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
(more than half of Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or
material is larger than SW
SANDS no fines.
0.075 mm) Coarse: 0.6 – 2.36mm
(more than half of Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands;
Medium: 0.2 – 0.6mm SP
little or no fines, uniform sands.
coarse fraction is
Fine: 0.075 – 0.2mm
smaller than 2.36mm) SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
Inorganic silts and very fine sands,
ML silty/clayey fine sands or clayey silts with
low plasticity.
SILTS & CLAYS
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
(liquid limit <50%) CL and CI
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays.
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low
FINE OL
plasticity.
GRAINED SOILS Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
(more than half of MH
fine sandy or silty soils.
material is smaller than SILTS & CLAYS
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity.
0.075 mm) (liquid limit >50%)
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
OH
organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC
Pt Peat and other highly organic soils.
SOILS
butlerpartners.com.au Page 1
Page 32
Notes on Description and Classification of Soil
Revision 3, November 2008
PLASTICITY CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS
(Reference: Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations)
DESCRIPTIVE TERMS FOR MATERIAL PROPORTIONS
Coarse Grained Soils Fine Grained Soils
% Fines Modifier % Coarse Modifier
<5 Omit, or use „trace‟ < 15 Omit, or use trace.
5 – 12 Describe as „with clay/silt‟ as applicable. 15 – 30 Describe as „with sand/gravel‟ as applicable.
> 12 Prefix soil as „silty/clayey‟ as applicable > 30 Prefix soil as „sandy/gravelly‟ as applicable.
STRENGTH TERMS – COHESIVE SOILS
Strength Undrained Shear
Field Guide to Strength
Term Strength
Very soft < 12kPa Exudes between the fingers when squeezed in hand.
Soft 12 – 25kPa Can be moulded by light finger pressure.
Firm 25 – 50kPa Can be moulded by strong finger pressure.
Stiff 50 – 100kPa Cannot be moulded by fingers, can be indented by thumb.
Very stiff 100 – 200kPa Can be indented by thumb nail.
Hard > 200kPa Can be indented with difficulty by thumb nail.
DENSITY TERMS – NON COHESIVE SOILS
Density Density CPT Cone
SPT “N”
Term Index Resistance
Very loose < 15% 0–5 0 – 2MPa
Loose 15 – 35% 5 – 10 2 – 5MPa
Medium dense 35 – 65% 10 – 30 5 – 15MPa
Dense 65 – 85% 30 – 50 15 – 25MPa
Very dense > 85% > 50 > 25MPa
COLOUR
The colour of a soil will generally be described in a „moist‟ condition using simple colour terms (eg. black, grey, red, brown etc.) modified
as necessary by “pale”, “dark”, “light” or “mottled”. Borderline colours will be described as a combination of colours (eg. grey-brown).
EXAMPLE
e.g. CLAYEY SAND (SC) – medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained with silt.
Indicates a medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained clayey sand with silt.
butlerpartners.com.au Page 2