Geotechnical Investigation Report

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 123
At a glance
Powered by AI
The report discusses a geotechnical investigation of a site in Mt. Eliza including site conditions, field investigation methodology, findings of the soil profile and slope stability analysis.

The report provides a geotechnical investigation of a site to assess slope stability and landslip risk for a proposed development.

Boreholes were drilled and soil samples were taken and tested in a laboratory to determine the soil profile and properties.

33 Jacksons Road, Mt.

Eliza GE7586-20

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza

CLIENT: Taylors

DATE: 27 July 2020

REPORT No.: GE7586-20

i
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. FIELD INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 2
3. FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Site Conditions and Topography .................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Site Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Generalised Soil Profile .................................................................................................................. 5
3.4 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.5 Site Classification ............................................................................................................................ 9
4. POTENTIAL MODES OF LANDSLIP ............................................................................................ 10
4.1 Proposed Site Development ........................................................................................................ 10
4.2 Potential Modes of Instability ..................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Past Landslips ................................................................................................................................ 12
5. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Soil Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 13
5.2 Result of Slope Stability Analysis ............................................................................................... 14
6. LANDSLIP RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY LOSS ............................................................ 15
6.1 Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Likelihood of Failure Event ......................................................................................................... 17
6.2.1 Shallow Slump Failure Mode ............................................................................................................. 18
6.2.2 Deep Seated Failure Mode .................................................................................................................. 19
7. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO LIFE .................................................................................................... 20
7.1 Method of Assessment ................................................................................................................. 20
7.2 Risk to Life ..................................................................................................................................... 21
8. LANDSLIP RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 22
8.1 Risk Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 22
8.2 Risk Treatments ............................................................................................................................. 22
9. FOOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 31
9.1 Strip/Pad Footing System ............................................................................................................ 31
9.2 Slab on Ground.............................................................................................................................. 33
9.3 Bored Piers ..................................................................................................................................... 35
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRENCHING ................................................................................. 37
10.1 Excavation Influence Zone ........................................................................................................ 37
10.2 Trench Excavation....................................................................................................................... 38
10.2.1 Open Cut Trenching ........................................................................................................................... 38
10.2.2 Trench Shields ..................................................................................................................................... 38
10.2.3 Drainage Pipeline Embedment ......................................................................................................... 39
10.3 Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................. 40
10.3.1 Trafficable Areas ................................................................................................................................. 40
10.3.2 Non-Trafficable Areas ........................................................................................................................ 42
10.4 Trenchless Excavation ................................................................................................................ 44
11. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EARTH WORKS............................................................................ 46
11.1 Site Stripping & Clearing ........................................................................................................... 46
11.2 Earthworks ................................................................................................................................... 46
11.3 Drainage of Retention Systems ................................................................................................. 46
11.4 Erosion and Sediment Control .................................................................................................. 46

i
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

11.5 Trafficability During Wet Season.............................................................................................. 47


11.6 Selected Fill Material .................................................................................................................. 47
11.7 Material Selection ........................................................................................................................ 47
11.8 Pre-treatment Prior to Filling .................................................................................................... 48
11.9 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................................................ 48
12. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATION .................................................................................... 50
12.1 Traffic Data .................................................................................................................................. 50
12.2 Design CBR Value and Pavement Design ............................................................................... 50
12.2.1 Pavement Composition ..................................................................................................................... 51
12.3 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 52
12.4 Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................................................... 53
12.5 Prime and Seal ............................................................................................................................. 53
12.6 Construction Works .................................................................................................................... 53
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX A – SITE PHOTOS


APPENDIX B – BOREHOLE, TEST PIT & FOOTING PROBE LOGS
APPENDIX C – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

ii
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

1. INTRODUCTION
A geotechnical investigation and landslip risk assessment were conducted by Geotesta
for the proposed development at 33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza. The geotechnical
investigation work was authorized by Taylors.

This report provides information on the sub-surface soil profile, site classification, insitu
test results, result of landslip risk assessment, recommendations on trenching, allowable
bearing pressures for proposed footings, soil parameters for retaining wall & bored pier
design and pavement design.

1
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 Methodology

The site-specific geotechnical investigation was carried out between 1 June and 3 June
2020 and involved of drilling/excavating of six (6) boreholes, nine (9) test pits and seven
(7) footing probes. A site plan showing the approximate location of boreholes, test pits
and footing probes is presented on Figure 1.

Figure 1: Site Plan and Soil Test Locations

TP1

BH6
TP2

BH2

FP6
TP9
FP1
TP3 FP7 TP5

TP4
FP5 BH1
FP3
FP2
TP6
FP4

BH3
BH4
TP8
TP7

BH5

Denotes Approximate Borehole Location


Denotes Approximate Test Pit Location
Denotes Approximate Footing Probe Location

2
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

The drilling work was undertaken by Urban Drill Pty Ltd under full time supervision by
a Geotesta Geotechnical Engineer. The boreholes were drilled using continuous flight
solid auger driven by a track mounted GEO105 drill rig. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
was undertaken within the soil layer at 1.5m depth interval starting at 1.5m below the
existing ground level.

The test pits and footing probes were excavated by Ross Services Pty Ltd using a 5 tonne
backhoe excavator. Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) testing was also conducted at each
test pit and footing probe to determine the soil consistency or relative density.

Upon completion of the field work, all boreholes, test pits and footing probes were
backfilled with the excavated material. The soil profiles encountered were logged by
Geotesta Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with AS1726- 2017. The borehole, test pit
and footing probe logs are attached in Appendix B.

3
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

3. FINDINGS

3.1 Site Conditions and Topography

This 3.4 hectare site was a complex of hospital buildings at the northwest end of Jacksons
Road overlooking Canadian Bay. The site has been modified into terraces for the hospital
buildings that have been demolished except the former administration building, a two-
storey treatment ward and the chapel. Along the northwest boundary of the site is Mt
Eliza Foreshore Reserve. The contour map provided by the client is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Contour Map of the Site

3.2 Site Geology

The 1:63,360 scale Geological Survey Map of Victoria indicates that the site is underlain
by Tertiary Baxter Sandstone (Tb) comprising ferruginous sandstone, sand, sandy clay,
occasional gravel. The extract of the local geology map is shown in Figure 3.

4
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Figure 3: Geology Map of the Site

Subject Site

Geological Unit: Tertiary Baxter Sandstone (Tb)

3.3 Generalised Soil Profile

The soil type encountered in the boreholes and test pits and the associated consistency/
density are tabulated in Table 1. Water seepage was found in test pit TP6 at 1m depth
and footing probes FP1, FP3, FP5 and FP6 at 1.0m, 1.3m, 0.9m and 0.65m depths
respectively.

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Soil Profile

Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Density


Test Pit No.
BH1 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted
0.2-1.5 Sand with clay Medium dense
1.5-4.0 Sandy clay Very stiff
4.0-10.8 Silty clay with sand/ trace sand Very stiff to Hard
10.8-15.5 Clayey sand Very dense
BH2 0.0-0.3 Fill Well compacted
0.3-3.0 Sand with gravels and clay Medium dense

5
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Density


Test Pit No.
BH2 3.0-4.5 Sandy clay Very stiff
4.5-5.9 Silty clay with sand Hard
5.9-7.5 Clayey sand Very dense
7.5-9.5 Silty clay Very stiff
9.5-10.0 Clayey sand trace gravels Very dense
BH3 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted
0.2-0.8 Clayey sand Medium dense
0.8-1.4 Sandy silt Firm
1.4-2.5 Silty clay Stiff
2.5-4.5 Silty clay Very stiff
4.5-9.0 Silty clay Hard
9.0-10.0 Sandy clay Hard
BH4 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted
0.2-1.6 Sand Medium dense
1.6-2.0 Sandy clay Very stiff
2.0-3.0 Clayey sand Dense
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay Very stiff
4.5-5.5 Sandy clay Stiff
5.5-6.0 Sandy clay Very stiff
BH5 0.0-0.2 Sand trace clay Medium dense
0.2-3.0 Clayey sand Medium dense
3.0-3.2 Sandy clay Hard
3.2-4.5 Sand with clay/ clayey sand Very dense
4.5-5.5 Sandy clay Hard
5.5-6.0 Silty clay with sand Hard
BH6 0.0-0.15 Fill Well compacted
0.15-1.0 Sand trace clay Medium dense
1.0-3.0 Sandy clay Stiff
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay with silt Hard
4.5-5.5 Silty clay Hard
5.5-6.0 Sandy clay Hard

6
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Density


Test Pit No.
TP1 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted
0.2-0.6 Sandy clay Stiff
0.6-1.1 Silty clay Very stiff
1.1-1.7 Sandy clay with gravel Very stiff
1.7-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff
TP2 0.0-1.0 Fill Poorly compacted
1.0-2.8 Silty clay Very stiff
TP3 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted
0.2-3.0 Sand Dense
TP4 0.0-0.7 Fill Well compacted
0.7-1.7 Sand Medium dense
1.7-3.0 Sandy clay Very stiff
TP5 0.0-0.8 Fill Well compacted
0.8-1.4 Sand with clay Loose
1.4-1.6 Silty clay Stiff
1.6-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff
TP6 0.0-0.4 Fill Well compacted
0.4-1.0 Sand Medium dense
1.0-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff
TP7 0.0-0.5 Sand Loose
0.5-1.0 Sand Medium dense to dense
1.0-2.0 Silty clay Very stiff
TP8 0.0-0.4 Fill Well compacted
0.4-0.7 Sand with clay Dense
0.7-3.0 Sand with clay Very dense
TP9 0.0-0.3 Fill Poorly compacted
0.3-1.7 Sand trace clay Medium dense
1.7-3.3 Silty clay Very stiff

3.4 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples were sent to Geotesta laboratory (NATA Accreditation No.
19167) for the following laboratory testing:

7
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

• Moisture Content – 10 nos.

• Atterberg Limits – 3 nos.

• Particle Size Distribution (PSD) - 8 nos.

• California Bearing Ratio (CBR) – 4 nos.

The laboratory test results are summarised in Table 2. The test certificates are attached in
Appendix C.

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Depth LL PI Gravel Sand Silt/Clay MDD OMC CBR


ID Material Type MC% LS%
(m) % % % % % t/m3 % %

BH1 1.5-2.0 Sandy clay 19.3 - - - - - - - - -

BH1 3.0-3.5 Clayey sand 13.6 - - - - - - - - -

BH1 6.0-6.5 Silty clay 27.7 - - - - - - - - -

BH1 7.5-8.0 Silty clay - 74 52 10.5 - - - - - -


Clayey sand
BH1 15-15.3 - - - - 3 70 27 - - -
trace gravels
Sand with
BH2 1.5-2.0 gravels and - - - - 28 63 9 - - -
clay
BH2 3.0-3.5 Silty clay 25.4 - - - - - - - - -

BH2 4.5-5.0 Silty clay 21.1 - - - - - - - - -

BH2 6.0-6.5 Clayey sand 10.5 - - - - - - - - -


Clayey sand
BH2 9.5-10.0 - - - - 5 76 19 - - -
trace gravels
BH3 3.0-3.5 Silty clay 29.4 - - - - - - - - -

BH3 4.5-5.0 Silty clay - 91 68 14.5 - - - - - -

BH3 6.0-6.5 Silty clay 19.2 - - - - - - - - -

BH3 9.5-10.0 Silty clay 16.6 - - - - - - - - -

BH4 3.0-3.5 Sandy clay - - - - 1 58 41 - - -

BH4 4.5-5.0 Silty clay - 45 26 9 - - - - - -


Silty clay with
BH4 5.5-6.0 - - - - 2 39 59 - - -
sand
BH5 1.5-2.0 Clayey sand - - - - 0 71 29 - - -
Sandy clay
BH5 3.0-3.5 - - - - 13 50 37 - - -
trace gravels
BH5 5.5-6.0 Silty clay 18.0 - - - - - - - - -

BH6 3.0-3.5 Sandy clay - - - - 4 50 46 - - -


Sandy clay
TP1 0.5 - - - - - - - 1.758 16.2 6
trace gravels
TP4 1.0 Sand - - - - - - - 1.795 2.8 20

8
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Depth LL PI Gravel Sand Silt/Clay MDD OMC CBR


ID Material Type MC% LS%
(m) % % % % % t/m3 % %

TP7 0.5 Sand - - - - - - - 1.9 9.0 70

TP9 0.5 Sand with clay - - - - - - - 1.99 7.3 80

Note: MC – Natural Moisture Content, LL – Liquid Limit, PI – Plasticity Index, LS – Linear Shrinkage, MDD –
Maximum Dry Density; OMC – Optimum Moisture Content; CBR – California Bearing Ratio

3.5 Site Classification

After considering the area geology, the soil profile encountered in the boreholes, test pits,
footing probes and the climatic zone of the area (zone 2); the site is classified as CLASS
P, with respect to foundation construction (Australian Standard 2870-2011 Residential
Slabs and Footings) due to the removal of existing buildings and sloping site condition.

It has been estimated that the Characteristic Surface Movement (ys) of the underlying
natural soil material will be in the range of 40mm to 60mm provided the building site is
protected from “abnormal moisture conditions” and is drained as described in AS 2870.

It must be emphasized that the heave mentioned and recommendations referred to in this
report are based solely on the observed soil profile observed at the time of the
investigation for this report, without taking into account any abnormal moisture
conditions as defined in AS2870 – 2011, Clause 1.3.3 that might be created thereafter. With
abnormal moisture conditions, distresses will occur and may result in “nonacceptable
probabilities of serviceability and safety of the building during its design life”, as defined
in AS2870-2011, Clause 1.3.1. If these distresses are not acceptable to the builder, owner
or other relevant parties then further fieldwork and revised footing recommendations
must be carried out.

9
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

4. POTENTIAL MODES OF LANDSLIP

4.1 Proposed Site Development

It is proposed to construct new dwellings with a single level basement and the associated
access roads at the site. The cross sections of the proposed ground profiles are shown in
Figure 4. Based on the provided master plans, some of the construction activities related
to the slope conditions are:
• Construction of the proposed development and the effect of live loading from
machinery and materials during construction activities;
• Cutting and filling of the existing slope to create construction pads for the
proposed buildings and roads;
• Construction of retaining walls and basements;
• Modifying the surface and subsurface drainage;
• Change of surface runoff regime and clearance of existing vegetation.

4.2 Potential Modes of Instability

There are two main classes of potential failure hazards that may be caused by the
proposed development.

Mode 1: Shallow slump failure (earth slide or earth flow) involves retaining walls, cuts
and fill slopes with limited failure extent. It may also occur in the slopes and retaining
walls subject to poor maintenance or additional surcharge;

Mode 2: Deep seated failure (rotational or translational landslip) involves overall


integrity failure of over steep cut batters, uncontrolled fill embankments, poorly designed
or built retaining walls, unfavourable geological structures and geological processes in
natural slopes.
The sketch of the slope cross sections illustrating the potential mode of instability is
shown in Figure 4.

10
Figure 4 - Potential Modes of Failure (not to scale)
TITLE BOUNDARY

TITLE BOUNDARY
8M HEIGHT LIMIT

32.15 FL APT01-E-ROOF

31.00 FL APT01-W-ROOF

28.65 FL APT01-E-FIRST
BH1 TP4
ê
27.50 FL APT01-W-FIRST

ê
26.60 FL HB04-N-SECOND
NGL
25.15 FL APT01-E-GROUND

TP3
24.00 FL APT01-W-GROUND
23.10 FL HB04-N-FIRST HB02-N-ROOF FL 23.10

ê
21.75 FL APT01-E-BASEMENT 12480
20.80 FL APT01-W-BASEMENT

TP9
19.60 FL HB04-N-GROUND
TIRED GARDEN BED
HB02-N-FIRST FL 19.60 SETBACK
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
UO02-ROOF FL 17.50

ê
APT 01 EAST APT 01 WEST HB02-N-GROUND FL 16.10
ST-FIRST FL 16.40

BH6
BASEMENT UO02-FIRST FL 14.00

HB02-N-BASEMENT FL 12.90 ST-GROUND FL 12.90

ê
HYBRID VILLA 04 HYBRID VILLA 02 SINGLE STOREY UNIT UO02-GROUND FL 10.50

UNDER OVER 02
NGL

1 SECTION1 FOR GEOTECH


SK10-7 1 : 250

8M HEIGHT LIMIT

BH5
BH3 8M HEIGHT LIMIT

ê
21.75 FL APT03-W-ROOF

TP9
19.60 FL APT05-FIRST

ê
18.25 FL APT03-W-FIRST
NGL

ê
POOL HOUSE GROUND FL 16.50
16.10 FL APT05-GROUND

14.75 FL APT03-W-GROUND

12.60 FL APT05-BASEMENT 12.59 FL EX. MULTI HOUSE GROUND EX. MULTI HOUSE GROUND FL 12.59
11.55 FL APT03-W-BASEMENT
NGL

APT 03 APT 05 POOL HOUSE

2 SECTION2 FOR GEOTECH


SK10-7 1 : 250
TITLE BOUNDARY

11125
NORTH POINT
SETBACK
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
21.75 FL APT04-S-ROOF

2740 1780
JACKSONS ROAD
19.50 FL APT04-N-ROOF

TP6
18.25 FL APT04-S-FIRST

ê
U/O 01
16.00 FL APT04-N-FIRST HB 01 HB 03 HB 05

ê
3910

14.75 FL APT04-S-GROUND

12.50 FL APT04-N-GROUND
11.55 FL APT04-S-BASEMENT
NGL BH4 &TP8 U/O 02 HB 02 HB 04
APT 01
NGL
APT 04 NORTH EXISTING POOL HOUSE 1 1

MT.
2
APT 04 SOUTH

ELI
MT ELIZA
3 POOL 5

ZA
HOUSE T0
AP

FOR
HB 06
2
T0
AP

ESH
3 SECTION3 FOR GEOTECH T0
3

ORE
APT 04 AP
SK10-7 1 : 250 HB 0
7

RES
ERV
LEGENDS
2

PEL
3

ICA
N P
Shallow Failure

L
Deep Seated Failure

PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER DATE SCALE @A1 DRAWING TITLE DRAWING No. REV
viaarchitects.com.au / +61 3 8678 3300 BEACHLEIGH RETIREMENT 1910046 23/07/2020 As indicated SECTION FOR GEOTECH SK10-7
COMMUNITY
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

4.3 Past Landslips

There are no available records of landslip in this site. The site does not exist in any Erosion
Management Overlay (EMO).

12
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

5. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS


Two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis computer program SLOPE/W
is used to analyse the factor of safety against deep seated failure. It is assumed that the
shallow slump failure would be addressed by applying engineer designed retaining wall.
The location of cross-section selected for slope stability analysis is marked in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Location of Cross-section for Deep Seated Failure Stability Analysis

A A

5.1 Soil Parameters

Stability analysis on the selected cross section has been undertaken based on the
following:

• Slope profile based on the survey plan and master plans provided by the client
• Soil profile encountered in the test stations
• Interpretation of field test results and laboratory test results
• The groundwater table is estimated to be way below the potential failure line as
no groundwater was encountered in the boreholes and test pits along the section

The adopted geotechnical parameters for the stability analysis are listed in Table 3. 20kPa
surcharge is applied as the loading from the proposed double-storey building.

13
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Table 3: Adopted Geotechnical Parameters

Soil Material (from top to bottom) Unit Weight Effective Effective


(kN/m3) Cohesion, Friction
c’ (kPa) Angle, ’ (°)
#1 Fill 19 3 25
#2 Sand 19 0 30
#3 Sandy clay (stiff) 19 5 26
#4 Silty/Sandy clay (very stiff) 19 8 28

5.2 Result of Slope Stability Analysis

The assessed factor of safety against deep seated failure using Morgenstern-Price method
is in the order of 3.46. The result of the slope stability analysis is presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Result of Slope Stability Analysis


Section A-A

Sand Fill

Silty/sandy clay (very stiff)

14
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

6. LANDSLIP RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY LOSS


6.1 Risk Assessment Methodology

The risk assessment process is a qualitative process designed to enable ranking of the
sites identified as hazardous. This ranking is important to allow prioritizing sites for
either nomination to a hazard monitoring program or for hazard treatment. In this
qualitative process, risk has been assessed as the product of likelihood and consequence
criteria, determined by a matrix method in line with accepted risk management
principles.

The following table ‘Qualitative Measures of Likelihood’ (Table 4) is used to derive


likelihood.
Table 4: Qualitative Measures of Likelihood - Property Loss
Implied
Indicative Indicative
Descriptor Definition Level
Value Landslip
Recurrenc
e ALMOST The event is expected to occur over the
10-1 10 years A
CERTAIN design life
The event will probably occur under
10-2 100 years LIKELY B
adverse conditions over the design life
The event could occur under adverse
10-3 1000 years POSSIBLE C
conditions over the design life
10,000 The event might occur under very
10-4 UNLIKELY D
years adverse circumstances over the design life
100,000 The event is conceivable but only under
10-5 RARE exceptional circumstances over the design E
years
life
1,000,000 BARELY The event is inconceivable or fanciful over
10-6 F
years CREDIBLE the design life

The consequence rating is based on Table 5 ‘Qualitative Measures of Vulnerability and


Consequence’. The ‘Approximate Cost of Damage’ listed in Table 5 is expressed as a
percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected
property which includes the land plus the unaffected structures. It is an estimate of the
direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the
property (land plus structures), stabilisation work required to render the site to tolerable
risk level for the landslip which has occurred and professional design fees, and
consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary accommodation. It does not include
additional stabilisation works to address other landslips which may affect the property.

15
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Table 5: Qualitative Measures of Consequence to Property


Approx.
Cost of
damage Definition Descriptor Level
Indicative
Value
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or
large scale damage requiring major
200% CATASTROPHIC 1
engineering works for stabilisation. Could
cause at least one adjacent property major
Extensive
consequence damage
damageto most of structure, and/or
extending beyond site boundaries requiring
60% significant stabilisation works. Could cause at MAJOR 2
least one adjacent property medium
consequence damage
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or
significant part of site requiring large
20% MEDIUM 3
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one
adjacent property minor consequence damage
Limited damage to part of structure, and/or
5% part of site requiring some reinstatement MINOR 4
stabilisation works
Little damage. (Note for high probability
event (Almost Certain), this category may be
0.5% INSIGNIFICANT 5
subdivided at a national boundary of 0.1%.
See risk Matrix)

A qualitative risk rate is derived by using the standard form of risk analysis matrix as per
Table 6 below. This matrix assigns a four-fold risk level ranging from VH (very high), H
(high), M (moderate) to L (low).
Table 6: Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix – Level of Risk to Property
Indicative Consequences to Property
Value of
Likelihood Approximate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Annual Catastrophic Major Medium Minor Insignificant
Probability 200% 60% 20% 5% 0.5%
Almost
10-1 VH VH VH H M or L
Certain (A)

Likely (B) 10-2 VH VH H M L

Possible
10-3 VH H M M VL
(C)
Unlikely
10-4 H M L L VL
(D)

16
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Indicative Consequences to Property


Value of
Likelihood Approximate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Annual Catastrophic Major Medium Minor Insignificant
Probability 200% 60% 20% 5% 0.5%

Rare (E) 10-5 M L L VL VL

Barely
Credible 10-6 L VL VL VL VL
(F)
The implication of each risk level is listed in Table 7 below. These implications are only
given as a general guide as the implications for a particular site are often very site-
specific.
Table 7: Risk Level Implications
Risk Level Implications
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and
VH - Very research, planning and implementation of treatment options essential to
High reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely
to cost more than value of the property
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and
implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to Low.
H – High
Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the
property
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subjected to regulator’s
approval) but requires investigation, planning and implementation of
M – Moderate
treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce
to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to
L – Low
reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is required
VL – Very Low Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures

The risk assessment on property loss is carried out with reference to the guidelines set
out by the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) in “Practice Note Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management 2007” as published in the Australian Geomechanics Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 1, March 2007c.

6.2 Likelihood of Failure Event

The probability of a slope failure event has been estimated based on inspection of the site
and any indications of current or past events.

The following observations were important in estimating the indicative annual


probability of a slope instability event:

• The soil properties;

17
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

• Review of geotechnical data;


• The site topography;
• The surface run-off and groundwater conditions.

These observations can enable an estimation of indicative annual probability for both
small volume shallow slumps and deep seated failure.

6.2.1 Shallow Slump Failure Mode

Likelihood

The major factors which govern the likelihood of a shallow slump are the presence of:

• Unrestrained and over steepened man-made cut or fill;

• Alteration of soil moisture condition due to the removal of vegetation covers and the
installation of new surface and subsurface drainage;

• Additional pressure on the slope from the proposed structures and construction
machinery.

The likelihood of a shallow slump failure is considered “Possible” on any existing or


proposed cut or fill batter and retaining walls.

A design that incorporated a good surface and subsurface drainage system, limited the
number and extent of fill, incorporated placement of engineered fill and engineer
designed earth retaining structures would reduce the likelihood of a shallow slump
failure occurring to “Unlikely”.

Although it is acknowledged that the client cannot control development beyond the
boundaries of their site, good maintenance of the drain in the adjacent properties will
also be important to prevent over saturation of the slope.

If drainage of the site is not managed well, it could lead to saturation of the soil profile
and reducing the soil shear strength. The likelihood of a shallow slump failure would
therefore increase if the above factors eventuate. They can, of course, be offset by ensuring
good drainage and placement of engineered fill. Some mitigation options against the
slope instability are presented in section 8 of this report.

Consequences

The elements at risk on this site are the buildings and the associated access roads. A small
slump failure may cause “Minor” damage to the structures.

18
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

6.2.2 Deep Seated Failure Mode


Likelihood

A deep seated failure involving deeper soil profile is heavily dependent on the overall
slope angle and in the engineering properties of the soil mass. The common triggers that
initiate deep seated slope failure are excessive cutting or erosion and change in
groundwater conditions including saturation in the uppermost soil profile due to poor
surface drainage condition. A review of the geomorphology of this region indicates that
the likelihood of failure through the soil mass occurring at the site is “Rare”.

If the engineering recommendations suggested in this report are adopted and the works
do not involve excavation of any substantial cuttings or significant fill, as proposed, it is
considered that the impact of the proposed development with regards to this mode of
failure will be further reduced its likelihood of occurring.

Consequences

The deep seated failure occurring at the site may result in “Major” damage to the
buildings and the associated access roads. A construction strategy that improves the
surface and subsurface drainage conditions and minimises or prohibits deep excavation
undercutting slopes should be adopted.

6.3 Results of Risk Level Estimation

The estimated risk levels are listed in Table 8 below. It should be noted that the risk level
has been estimated based on the assumption that all the risk mitigation recommendations
given in this report are adopted.
Table 8: Risk Levels after Implementing Risk Mitigation Measures
Likelihood of
Mode of Failure Element at Risk Consequence Risk
Occurrence

Mode 1: Shallow Buildings and roads within


Unlikely Minor L
Slump Failure the lot

Mode 2: Deep Buildings and roads within


Rare Major L
Seated Failure the lot

Adopting an Important Level 2 ((Buildings and facilities below the limits set for
Importance Level 3) (NCC Volume 1, 2015), the suggested acceptable qualitative risk to
property criteria is “Low (L)”.

19
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

7. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO LIFE


7.1 Method of Assessment

The risk of loss of life has been estimated using the methodology outlined by the AGS,
2007, Section 7.

For loss of life, the individual risk can be calculated from:

R(LoL) = P(H) x P(S:H) x P(T:S) x V(D:T)

Where:

• R(LoL) is the risk (annual probability of loss of life (death) of an individual);

• P(H) is the annual probability of the landslip;

For shallow slump failure the assessed likelihood is unlikely, i.e. P(H)=10-4

For deep seated failure the assessed likelihood is rare, i.e. P(H)=10-5

• P(S:H) is the probability of spatial impact of the landslip impacting a building (location) taking
into account the travel distance and travel direction given the event.

The shallow slump failure may occur at any cut/fill and retaining walls that would be
required for the development. This failure is estimated to hit a part of the buildings
and roads in the lot. P(S:H) for shallow slump failure is estimated as 0.7. The deep
seated failure may also impact a part of the buildings and roads in the lot. Hence, the
P(S:H) for deep seated failure is estimated as 0.5.

• P(T:S) is the temporal spatial probability (e.g. of the building or location being occupied by the
individual) given the spatial impact and allowing for the possibility of evacuation given there
is warning of the landslip occurrence.

In this case it is assumed that the person most at risk stays on the roads on average 2
hours/day, 365 days per year, so P(S:T)=0.08. The person most at risk occupies the
buildings on average 20 hours/day, 365 days per year, so P(S:T) is 0.83.

• V(D:T) is the vulnerability of the individual (probability of loss of life of the individual given
the impact).

Vulnerability values of the person most at risk on the roads due to shallow slump
failure and deep seated failure are 0.3 and 0.7 respectively. Vulnerability value of the
person most at risk in the buildings due to shallow slump failure and deep seated
failure are 0.1 and 0.5. respectively.

Vulnerability is generally based on the guidelines contained in Appendix F of AGS, 2007


and refers to the probability of survival given the type of failure and its spatial impact on
the element at risk. Low value of vulnerability has been assigned to events that are

20
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

unlikely to cause any significant effect on the structures due to spatial distance and/or
low impact energy, such as a shallow slump.

7.2 Risk to Life

Based on the stated tolerable risks for loss of life of the AGS (2007) guidelines, a risk of
10-5 per annum for persons most at risk on new development is considered tolerable
provided that risk treatment options will be employed to maintain or reduce the level of
risk. Acceptable risks are usually considered to be one order of magnitude smaller than
tolerable risks (i.e. 10-6 per annum).
Table 9: Risk Estimate - Loss of Life

Probability of
Likelihood of

Vulnerability
Probability
Occurrence

Individual
Indicative

Temporal
Annual

Spatial
Impact

Factor

Risk
Mode of Failure

Mode 1: Shallow Slump Failure


- Buildings Unlikely 10-4 0.7 0.83 0.1 5.81x10-6
- Roads Unlikely 10-4 0.7 0.08 0.3 1.68x10-6
Mode 2: Deep Seated Failure
- Buildings Rare 10-5 0.5 0.83 0.5 2.08x10-6
- Roads Rare 10-5 0.5 0.08 0.7 2.80x10-7

An evaluation of the estimated risk levels against the adopted criteria indicates that the
risk of shallow slump is “Tolerable” for the person most at risk in the buildings and on
the roads within the lot. The risk of deep seated failure is “Acceptable” for the person
most at risk on the roads within the lot while the risk of deep seated failure is “Tolerable”
for the person most at risk in the buildings.

21
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

8. LANDSLIP RISK MANAGEMENT


8.1 Risk Mitigation

Based on the landslip risk assessment detailed in the preceding sections, the following
site-specific risk mitigation options have been considered in the preparation of this
document.

8.2 Risk Treatments

Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk assessment, the following


recommendations are made to reduce the risk to both properties and individuals at this
site.

8.2.1 Stabilisation of Slope

Additional control measures should be adopted to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
The work may involve the following scope of work:
• Review the existing surface stormwater drain. The surface runoff should be regulated
to prevent flow onto the slope.
• Installation of engineer designed retaining walls for any cut or fill batter higher than
1m or create a minimum batter of 2H:1V in unretained cut or engineered fill. The
retaining walls can be designed adopting the soil parameters listed in Table 10.
Table 10: Earth Pressure Coefficients & Soil Strength Parameters
Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Su c’ ’ 
Test Pit No. Density (kPa) (kPa) (deg) (kN/m3)

0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19


0.2-1.5 Sand with clay Medium dense - 0 33 19
BH1 1.5-4.0 Sandy clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
4.0-10.8 Silty clay with Very stiff 100 10 28 19
sand/ trace sand
10.8-15.5 Clayey sand Very dense 10 1 37 19
0.0-0.3 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
0.3-3.0 Sand trace clay/ Medium dense
Sand with gravels - 0 33 19
and clay
BH2 3.0-4.5 Sandy clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
4.5-5.9 Silty clay with Hard 200 20 30 19
sand
5.9-7.5 Clayey sand Very dense - 1 35 19
7.5-9.5 Silty clay Very stiff 150 10 28 19

22
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Su c’ ’ 


Test Pit No. Density (kPa) (kPa) (deg) (kN/m3)

9.5-10.0 Clayey sand trace Very dense - 1 35 19


gravels
0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
0.2-0.8 Clayey sand Medium dense - 1 30 19
0.8-1.4 Sandy silt Firm 40 4 24 18
BH3 1.4-2.5 Silty clay Stiff 70 5 26 19
2.5-4.5 Silty clay Very stiff 130 10 28 19
4.5-9.0 Silty clay Hard 200 20 30 19
9.0-10.0 Sandy clay Hard 200 20 30 19

0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19

0.2-1.6 Sand Dense - 0 35 19

1.6-2.0 Sandy clay Very stiff 130 10 28 19

BH4 2.0-3.0 Clayey sand Dense - 1 35 19

3.0-4.5 Sandy clay Very stiff 130 10 28 19

4.5-5.5 Sandy clay Stiff 70 5 26 19

5.5-6.0 Sandy clay Very stiff 150 10 28 19

0.0-0.2 Sand trace clay Medium dense - 0 30 19

0.2-3.0 Clayey sand Medium dense 10 1 30 19


BH5 3.0-3.2 Sandy clay Hard 200 20 30 19
3.2-4.5 Sand with clay/ Very dense - 1 35 19
clayey sand
4.5-5.5 Sandy clay Hard 200 20 30 19
5.5-6.0 Silty clay with Hard 200 20 30 19
sand
0.0-0.15 Fill Well compacted - 0 33 19
0.15-1.0 Sand trace clay Medium dense - 0 30 19
BH6 1.0-3.0 Sandy clay Stiff 70 5 26 19
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay with Hard 200 20 30 19
silt
4.5-5.5 Silty clay Hard 200 20 30 19

23
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole / Depth (m) Soil Type Consistency/ Su c’ ’ 


Test Pit No. Density (kPa) (kPa) (deg) (kN/m3)

5.5-6.0 Sandy clay Hard 200 20 30 19


TP1 0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
0.2-0.6 Sandy clay Stiff 70 5 26 19
0.6-1.1 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
TP1
1.1-1.7 Sandy clay with Very stiff 100 10 28 19
gravel
1.7-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-1.0 Fill Poorly
- 0 25 18
TP2 compacted
1.0-2.8 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-0.2 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
TP3
0.2-3.0 Sand Very dense - 0 35 19
0.0-0.7 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
TP4 0.7-1.7 Sand Medium dense - 0 30 19
1.7-3.0 Sandy clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-0.8 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
TP5 0.8-1.4 Sand with clay Loose - 0 27 17
1.4-1.6 Silty clay Stiff 70 5 26 19
1.6-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-0.4 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
TP6 0.4-1.0 Sand Medium dense - 0 30 19
1.0-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-0.5 Sand Loose - 0 27 17
TP7 0.5-1.0 Sand Dense - 0 35 19
1.0-2.0 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19
0.0-0.4 Fill Well compacted - 0 30 19
TP8
0.4-3.0 Clayey sand Dense - 1 35 19
0.0-0.3 Fill Poorly
- 0 25 18
compacted
TP9 0.3-1.7 Sand trace clay Medium dense - 0 30 19
1.7-3.0 Silty clay Very stiff 100 10 28 19

Note: Su= Undrained Shear Strength; c’= effective cohesion; ’=effective friction angle; = unit weight

24
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

For construction methods which minimise deflection and where restraint is applied via
struts, bracings or anchors, the temporary or short-term lateral earth pressure distribution
should be approximated as a trapezoidal distribution behind the retaining wall. A
maximum lateral earth pressure of 8H kPa is obtained at a depth of 0.25H, and where H
is the total depth of the excavation to be retained. For basement walls where wall
deflections are not critical, the maximum lateral earth pressure may be reduced to 6H kPa.

The above parameters assume that an effective drainage system exists over the full height
of the wall and that any adjacent surcharge loadings are superimposed using the “at rest”
earth pressure coefficient (K0) of 0.57 It must be emphasised that where adjoining footings
exist near the retaining walls, the “at rest” earth pressures must be maintained, and the
active design condition is not appropriate.

Anchored Soldier Pile Retention System

The use of anchored soldier piles in conjunction with reinforced shotcrete infill panels can
be adopted for this site. In considering such a retention system, the following aspects
should be taken into account in the design and construction of the proposed retaining
walls:

• The anchors should be considered with earth pressure “at rest” condition as the design
criteria.

• The soldier piles should be installed at maximum spacing of three times the pile
diameter prior to the commencement of the bulk excavation for the basement.

• Reinforced shotcrete should be applied to all the exposed faces of the basement
excavation prior to the commencement of the next level of excavation. Shotcrete should
be applied before the bulk excavation exceeds a depth of approximately 1.0 metre.
However, this may require review based on the encountered soil conditions and once
the levels of adjoining footings are known.

• Excavation for the basement level should not extend more than 0.5 metres below the
level of the ground anchors if they are used to maintain “at rest” earth pressures before
the anchors are installed and fully pre-stressed.

Ground Anchors

Ground anchors used in connection with the temporary support of any retention
structures should extend into the very stiff to hard clay, with the design being based on a
grout/ground bond strength of 25kPa (drilled using air flush or auger methods) above the
ground water table.

25
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

The free length of ground anchors should be sufficient to ensure that failure cannot occur
on a sliding wedge behind the retention wall structure. As a guide, it is therefore
recommended that the free length of the ground anchors should extend at least 1.5m
beyond the 45° line extending from the bottom of the basement excavation.

Generally, ground anchors should be installed at an angle of approximately 15° to 20°


below the horizontal and where possible the ground anchor bond length should not
exceed 12.0m to ensure adequate load transfer characteristics.

Estimated Wall Deflection and Ground Settlement

It is recommended that the proposed ground anchors be given sufficient capacity such
that additional stress can be applied throughout the construction sequence to limit wall
deflections, as required, based on regular monitoring of wall deflections. In addition, the
depth to the top row of anchors should not be greater than 1.5m below the ground surface
level.

The maximum wall deflection is estimated to lie in the range between 0.25% and 0.35% of
the excavation depth. Corresponding vertical settlements of between 0.20% and 0.25% of
the excavation depth can be anticipated directly behind the wall, with settlements
reducing to zero at a lateral distance approximately corresponding to the depth of the
basement excavation. When considering the influence of the anticipated settlements on
the existing adjoining structures, the founding depths of the existing footings should be
taken into account.

In addition to the inherent deformations which will take place within the proposed
basement excavation, there may be some minor delays between excavation and the
establishment of a suitable anchoring arrangement, during which time additional minor
lateral deflection may take place. A full dilapidation survey of any adjoining structures is
therefore recommended prior to the commencement of the basement excavation. This
should be followed by regular survey and monitoring during construction.

Drainage of Retention Systems

As seepage infiltration from perched water table is quite likely to be present in the zones
of influence during wet season, it is recommended that a suitable drainage system be
installed and maintained behind all retaining wall structures to ensure the dissipation of
any hydrostatic forces which may result from the accumulation of any seepage water
behind the wall structures. Such seepage water flows should readily be able to be
intercepted by the construction of a suitable sub-surface cut-off drain on the high side of
the subject site.

26
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Basement Floor Construction

Provided that the basement excavation does not intersect the groundwater table and no
hydrostatic pressures will be generated on the underside of the basement floor, the use of
a conventional concrete ground slab should perform satisfactorily in relation to the
proposed utilisation.

A suitable dewatering system (spears or sump pump) may be required to pump


groundwater in the unlikely event that the groundwater is encountered above the
basement level.

Based on the information derived from the borehole logs, the proposed basement floor
slab should be constructed on dense silty sand subgrade and may be designed using a
Modulus of Subgrade reaction of 40kPa/mm. In the unlikely event of rising ground water,
under-slab drainage should be provided to prevent hydrostatic build-up.

Preparation of the basement floor subgrade should consist of stripping to grade and proof
rolling the subgrade, ensuring that any localized soft spots are removed and made good
with clean granular filling compacted to a dry density not less than 98% of the maximum
dry density value determined by the Standard Compaction test in accordance with
Australian Standard AS1289 5.1.1 -2017.

8.2.2 Drainage

• It is important that drainage of the slope in the vicinity of the proposed development
is well managed. This may include ensuring that the surface stormwater drain is
regularly maintained and diverted away from the slope. If stormwater is collected
into a water storage tank, care must be taken to ensure that the overflow is discharged
into a legal point of discharge via a sealed pipe. No excess water should discharge
directly onto the slope.

• Surface water should be prevented from ponding anywhere on site. Install surface
spoon drains and subsurface drains as recommended and drain the collected water to
an appropriate legal point of discharge specified by the Council.

• The roof water of buildings should be discharged to an appropriate legal point of


discharge or stored for re-use via sealed pipework.

• The water from the swimming pool in the proposed pool house can be treated via a
solid settling tank or cartridge filter with the water recycled back into the pool.
Alternatively, the discharged water can be stored for re-use via sealed pipework.

27
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Any retaining wall structures should have adequate surface and subsurface drainage
installed behind the crest and at the toe of the wall to collect water and direct it to an
appropriate outlet point specified by Council. The subsurface drain aimed to prevent
surface soil saturation in the area behind the wall.

8.2.4 Cut and Fill

The following guidelines should be adopted for any earthwork that may be required at
the site:
• Any unrestrained fill on this site or during construction should be minimised to not
greater than 1.0m in height above the original ground surface level. Fill should be
placed in layers not exceeding 150mm loose thickness and compacted to achieve 95%
standard compaction dry density as per AS 3798 - 2007 “Guidelines on earthworks for
commercial and residential developments”. It is recommended that the backfill
material be tested to ensure it meets the required minimum compaction criteria;

• The existing material derived in-situ is considered suitable for fill material, except for
materials greater than 75mm, such as large cobbles or boulders;

• All topsoil and any unsuitable material must be removed to ensure subgrade is free
from material that may inhabit or prevent the satisfactory placement of subsequent
fill layers.

• Key any fill into the natural slope. The existing slope should be excavated to a
minimum depth of 0.3m prior to the placement of fill. All vegetation and topsoil
should be removed before placing fill;

• The unrestrained cut and fill slope should not be steeper than 2H:1V;

• Any retaining walls should be constructed with appropriate drainage that is


incorporated into the overall site stormwater management plan. Where possible,
batters above retained cut batters should be revegetated.

• Any retaining structures higher than 1m should be designed by a qualified engineer


and should adopt the guidelines as recommended in AS 4678 - 2002 “Earth Retaining
Structures”.

8.2.5 Vegetation

Revegetation of bare patches resulting from any construction works is essential for
limiting the effects of erosion. Revegetating reshaped batters is integral to maintain
surface stability and balance water in the soils.

28
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

8.2.6 Construction Supervision and Site Maintenance

• It is recommended that the detailed drainage and structural designs be reviewed by


a Geotechnical Engineer.

• It is recommended that a suitably qualified engineer be engaged to design and oversee


construction of foundation and earthwork.

• The property owner should engage a Geotechnical Engineer to inspect the site in the
first year after the construction of the development is completed. The inspection
should include visual observation of the slope condition in the vicinity of the
proposed development.

This assessment has been determined on the assumption that recommendations


contained in this report are adopted in their entirety for the final design and that the
construction phase of the project is supervised by an appropriately qualified geotechnical
engineer.
To ensure that the risk does not increase to unsatisfactory levels, it is strongly
recommended that ongoing site maintenance be undertaken. Maintaining site drainage
and monitoring the site for evidence of deterioration in slope stability are key
components of any ongoing maintenance program for this site.
Figure 7 summarises the appropriate engineering measures to be implemented in order
to ensure slope stability is maintained.

29
Figure 7: Proposed Landslip Risk Mitigation Measures
TITLE BOUNDARY
Drain and discharge the roof
water to the water tank or a

TITLE BOUNDARY
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
legal point of discharge.
32.15 FL APT01-E-ROOF

31.00 FL APT01-W-ROOF

28.65 FL APT01-E-FIRST

27.50 FL APT01-W-FIRST
26.60 FL HB04-N-SECOND
NGL
25.15 FL APT01-E-GROUND

24.00 FL APT01-W-GROUND
23.10 FL HB04-N-FIRST HB02-N-ROOF FL 23.10

21.75 FL APT01-E-BASEMENT 12480


20.80 FL APT01-W-BASEMENT

19.60 FL HB04-N-GROUND
TIRED GARDEN BED
HB02-N-FIRST FL 19.60 SETBACK
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
UO02-ROOF FL 17.50

APT 01 EAST APT 01 WEST HB02-N-GROUND FL 16.10


ST-FIRST FL 16.40

BASEMENT UO02-FIRST FL 14.00

HB02-N-BASEMENT FL 12.90 ST-GROUND FL 12.90

HYBRID VILLA 04 HYBRID VILLA 02 SINGLE STOREY UNIT UO02-GROUND FL 10.50

UNDER OVER 02

Install engineer designed retaining wall NGL

1 SECTION1 FOR GEOTECH with AGI drain behind the retaining wall
SK10-7 1 : 250

The water from the proposed pool house can


8M HEIGHT LIMIT
be treated via a solid settling tank or cartridge
filter with the water recycled back into the
pool. Alternatively, the discharged water can
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
21.75 FL APT03-W-ROOF

be stored for re-use via sealed pipework.


19.60 FL APT05-FIRST

18.25 FL APT03-W-FIRST
NGL
POOL HOUSE GROUND FL 16.50
16.10 FL APT05-GROUND

14.75 FL APT03-W-GROUND

12.60 FL APT05-BASEMENT 12.59 FL EX. MULTI HOUSE GROUND EX. MULTI HOUSE GROUND FL 12.59
11.55 FL APT03-W-BASEMENT
NGL

APT 03 APT 05 POOL HOUSE

2 SECTION2 FOR GEOTECH


SK10-7 1 : 250
TITLE BOUNDARY

11125
NORTH POINT
SETBACK
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
8M HEIGHT LIMIT
21.75 FL APT04-S-ROOF

2740 1780
JACKSONS ROAD
19.50 FL APT04-N-ROOF

18.25 FL APT04-S-FIRST

U/O 01
16.00 FL APT04-N-FIRST HB 01 HB 03 HB 05
3910

14.75 FL APT04-S-GROUND

12.50 FL APT04-N-GROUND NGL U/O 02 HB 02 HB 04


11.55 FL APT04-S-BASEMENT APT 01
NGL
APT 04 NORTH EXISTING POOL HOUSE 1 1

MT.
2
APT 04 SOUTH

ELI
MT ELIZA
3 POOL 5

ZA
HOUSE T0
AP

FOR
HB 06
2
T0
AP

ESH
3 SECTION3 FOR GEOTECH T0
3

ORE
APT 04 AP
SK10-7 1 : 250 HB 0
7

RES
ERV
2

PEL
3

ICA
N P
L
PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER DATE SCALE @A1 DRAWING TITLE DRAWING No. REV
viaarchitects.com.au / +61 3 8678 3300 BEACHLEIGH RETIREMENT 1910046 23/07/2020 As indicated SECTION FOR GEOTECH SK10-7
COMMUNITY
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

9. FOOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Any proposed buildings on this site can be founded on strip/pad footings or slab on
ground footings or bored piers.

9.1 Strip/Pad Footing System

Based on site observations, subsurface investigations and the size and type of the
proposed development, it is considered that the site should be assigned a Class P
classification (slope stability), in accordance with AS 2870 - 2011. We recommend that the
designing engineer refer to AS2870-2011 to ensure design compliance to this document.

The strip footings should be founded in the natural soil layer and penetrate through any
fill material, tree roots and founded at least 100mm into the recommended founding
material. As a guide with information obtained from the bores, the actual founding depth
for strip/pad footings at the test locations should be as follow:

Table 11: Geotechnical Parameters for Strip/Pad Footings


Borehole Founding Depth Founding material Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Location (m)
Strip Pad
0.7 Sand with clay 150 180
1.0 Sand with clay 200 250
BH1
1.5 Sandy clay 250 300
3.0 Sandy clay 300 350
0.7 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 150 180
gravels and clay
1.0 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 200 250
gravels and clay
BH2
1.5 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 250 300
gravels and clay
3.0 Sand with gravel/ Sandy 300 350
clay
0.7 Clayey sand 100 120
1.0 Sandy silt 115 145
BH3
1.5 Silty clay 150 180
3.0 Silty clay 250 300
0.7 Sand 150 180
1.0 Sand 200 250
BH4
1.5 Sand 250 300
3.0 Clayey sand/ Sandy clay 250 300
0.7 Clayey sand 150 180
BH5
1.0 Clayey sand 200 250

31
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole Founding Depth Founding material Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)


Location (m)
Strip Pad
1.5 Clayey sand 250 300
3.0 Clayey sand/ Sandy clay 300 350
0.7 Sand 100 120
1.0 Sandy clay 120 150
BH6
1.5 Sandy clay 140 160
3.0 Sandy clay 300 350
0.7 Silty clay 150 180
TP1 1.0 Silty clay 200 250
1.5 Sandy clay with gravel 250 300
1.1 Silty clay 200 250
TP2 1.5 Silty clay 250 300
2.0 Silty clay 300 360
0.7 Sand 200 250
TP3 1.0 Sand 250 300
1.5 Sand 300 360
0.8 Sand 100 120
TP4 1.0 Sand 150 180
1.5 Sand 200 250
1.0 Sand with clay 60 80
TP5 1.5 Silty clay 100 120
2.0 Silty clay 200 250
0.7 Sand 100 120
TP6 1.0 Silty clay 200 250
1.5 Silty clay 250 300
0.7 Sand 150 180
TP7 1.0 Silty clay 200 250
1.5 Silty clay 250 300
0.7 Clayey sand 150 180
TP8 1.0 Clayey sand 200 250
1.5 Clayey sand 250 300
0.7 Sand trace clay 100 120
TP9 1.0 Sand trace clay 200 250
1.5 Sand trace clay 250 300

It should be noted that the soil profile may vary across the site. The foundation depths
quoted in this report are measured from the surface during our testing and may vary
accordingly if any filling or excavation works are carried out. It is recommended that a
geotechnical engineer be engaged during footing excavation stage to confirm the
founding depth and founding material.

32
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

9.2 Slab on Ground

It is recommended that an engineer designed slab on ground footing system for a class
H1 site be used on this site. We recommend that the designing engineer refer to AS2870-
2011 to ensure design compliance to this document.

The edge and load bearing beams for the slab footings should be founded in the natural
soil layer and penetrate through any fill material, tree roots and founded at least 100 mm
into the recommended founding material. As a guide with information obtained from the
bores, the founding depth for edge and load bearing beams at the test locations should
be as follow:

Table 12: Geotechnical Parameters for Edge and Load Bearing Beams
Borehole Founding Depth (m) Founding Material Allowable Bearing
Location Capacity (kPa)
0.7 Sand with clay 150
1.0 Sand with clay 200
BH1
1.5 Sandy clay 250
3.0 Sandy clay 300
0.7 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 150
gravels and clay
1.0 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 200
BH2 gravels and clay
1.5 Sand trace clay/ Sand with 250
gravels and clay
3.0 Sand with gravel/ Sandy clay 300
0.7 Clayey sand 100
1.0 Sandy silt 115
BH3
1.5 Silty clay 150
3.0 Silty clay 250
0.7 Sand 150
1.0 Sand 200
BH4
1.5 Sand 250
3.0 Clayey sand/ Sandy clay 250
0.7 Clayey sand 150
1.0 Clayey sand 200
BH5
1.5 Clayey sand 250
3.0 Clayey sand/ Sandy clay 300
0.7 Sand 100
1.0 Sandy clay 120
BH6
1.5 Sandy clay 140
3.0 Sandy clay 300
0.7 Silty clay 150
TP1 1.0 Silty clay 200
1.5 Sandy clay with gravel 250

33
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Borehole Founding Depth (m) Founding Material Allowable Bearing


Location Capacity (kPa)
1.1 Silty clay 200
TP2 1.5 Silty clay 250
2.0 Silty clay 300
0.7 Sand 200
TP3 1.0 Sand 250
1.5 Sand 300
0.8 Sand 100
TP4 1.0 Sand 150
1.5 Sand 200
1.0 Sand with clay 60
TP5 1.5 Sand with clay 100
2.0 Silty clay 200
0.7 Sand 100
TP6 1.0 Silty clay 200
1.5 Silty clay 250
0.7 Sand 150
TP7 1.0 Silty clay 200
1.5 Silty clay 250
0.7 Clayey sand 150
TP8 1.0 Clayey sand 200
1.5 Clayey sand 250
0.7 Sand trace clay 100
TP9 1.0 Sand trace clay 200
1.5 Sand trace clay 250

It should be noted that the soil profile may vary across the site. The foundation depths
quoted in this report are measured from the surface during our testing and may vary
accordingly if any filling or excavation works are carried out. It is recommended that a
geotechnical engineer be engaged during footing excavation stage to confirm the
founding depth and founding material.

Slab panels and internal beams can be founded in the natural soil profile or in compacted
surface filling and/or as required in the design by engineering principles. Compacted
filling used to raise levels beneath panels must be placed and compacted as per
specifications for controlled or rolled fill.

Controlled fill is material that has been placed and compacted in layers by compaction
equipment within a defined moisture range to a defined density requirement. Except as
provided below, controlled fill shall be placed in accordance with AS 3798.

If more than 400mm of CLAY FILL or 800mm of SAND FILL, imported or site derived,
including existing FILL material, is required, then the slab must be designed as a

34
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

suspended slab and supported by a grid of beams founded through any fill material in
accordance with the above edge beam recommendations.

9.3 Bored Piers

Any proposed buildings can be supported on bored piers. Bored piers shall be founded
at minimum 2.0m depth below finish ground level. The carrying capacity of bored piers
can be estimated adopting the following parameters:

Table 13: Geotechnical Parameters for Bored Piers


Geotechnical Geotechnical
Depth Below
Bore Design Unit Design End
Existing Ground Soil Type
No. Skin Friction Bearing Capacity
Level (m)
(kPa) (kPa)
BH1 0.0-0.2 Fill - -
0.2-1.5 Sand with clay 5 -
1.5-2.0 Sandy clay 20 300
2.0–4.0 Sandy clay 30 400
4.0–6.0 Silty clay 30 400
6.0-8.0 Silty clay 35 450
8.0-10.8 Silty clay with sand/ trace
35 450
sand
10.8-12.5 Clayey sand 30 900
10.8-15.5 Clayey sand 30 900
BH2 0.0-0.3 Fill - -
0.3-2.0 Sand trace clay/ Sand with
5 200
gravels and clay
2.0-3.0 Sand with gravels and clay 10 250
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay 30 400
4.5-5.9 Silty clay with sand 40 550
5.9-7.5 Clayey sand 20 550
7.5-9.5 Silty clay 40 550
9.5-10.0 Clayey sand trace gravels 30 750
BH3 0.0-0.2 Fill - -
0.2-0.8 Clayey sand 5 -
0.8-1.4 Sandy silt 10 -
1.4-2.0 Silty clay 15 200
2.0-4.5 Silty clay 20 300
4.5-6.0 Silty clay 40 500

35
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Geotechnical Geotechnical
Depth Below
Bore Design Unit Design End
Existing Ground Soil Type
No. Skin Friction Bearing Capacity
Level (m)
(kPa) (kPa)
BH3 6.0-9.0 Silty clay 50 600
9.0-10.0 Sandy clay 50 750
BH4 0.0-0.2 Fill - -
0.2-1.6 Sand 5 -
1.6-2.0 Sandy clay 15 250
2.0-3.0 Clayey sand 20 300
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay 20 250
4.5-5.5 Sandy clay 15 210
5.5-6.0 Sandy clay 30 360
BH5 0.0-0.2 Sand trace clay 5 -
0.2-2.0 Clayey sand 10 250
2.0-3.2 Clayey sand/ Sandy clay 20 350
3.2-4.5 Sand with clay/ clayey sand 25 450
4.5-6.0 Sandy clay/ Silty clay 50 600
BH6 0.0-0.15 Fill - -
0.15-1.0 Sand trace clay 5 -
1.0-2.0 Sandy clay 15 200
2.0-3.0 Sandy clay 20 250
3.0-4.5 Sandy clay with silt 40 500
4.5-6.0 Silty clay/ Sandy clay 40 600

The geotechnical end bearing capacities above have been estimated based on the
geotechnical parameter at the bottom of each corresponding soil layer. A geotechnical
engineer should be engaged during bored pier excavation stage to confirm the founding
depth and founding material.

Groundwater was not encountered in all boreholes during investigation. However, water
was found flowing into test pit TP6 and footing probes FP1, FP3, FP5 and FP6. Installation
of bored piers below ground/perch water table may require casing to protect the soil from
collapsing.

36
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRENCHING

10.1 Excavation Influence Zone

Any footings that are close to the proposed trench excavation and within the excavation
influence zone should be protected from potential collapse and undermining. The
excavation influence zone is measured from the base of the excavation at an angle of 45°
to the horizontal as shown in Figure 8 below.

For example, if a structure adjacent to the excavation is founded on 0.6m deep strip
footings and the extent of the pressure distribution below the footing is equal to 3B (B is
the width of the footing, assuming 0.6m), the influence zone below a footing should be
measured at a depth of 1.8m below the base of the footing. Assuming an influence zone
below a footing extends 45° to the horizontal and allowing for construction tolerances of
up to 0.2m, the clear horizontal distance between any structural footing and the proposed
trench excavation should be greater than 2.0m.

The above recommendations are subject to all unsupported temporary excavation work
being undertaken during dry weather conditions and excavations not left open for an
extended period of time. Timely excavation, pipe placement and backfilling are
important as the excavated natural silty clay tends to weaken over time.
Figure 8: Excavation Zones of Influence

45°
Excavation
Excavation
Zone of
Excavation Zone of
Influence
Influence

45° 45°

It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer be engaged to review and provide a more


specific assessment on the proposed trenching method and foundation supports once
detailed pipe design and proposed construction methods for the site are available.

37
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

10.2 Trench Excavation

Selection of the most appropriate installation technique at any location along the
proposed trenches should take into account as a minimum:

• Proximity to existing services;


• Soil type including strength;
• Depth to the pipe invert;
• Presence of groundwater; and
• Land use.

10.2.1 Open Cut Trenching


The result of the ground investigation suggested that the subsurface materials can be
excavated with a backhoe down to 3m depth, except at test pits TP2 and TP7. Refusal was
encountered at 2.8m and 2.0m depths at test pits TP2 and TP7 respectively.

Open trenching is deemed appropriate to enable placement of the pipeline. Excavation


in the natural stiff to very stiff silty/sandy clay can be undertaken to 1.5m depth without
battering back the sides of the trench provided that no personnel enters into the trenches.
If the open trenches exceed 1.5m in depth, progressive shielding shall be used or the
trenches shall be battered back at 1.5H:1V.

Temporary excavation into the compacted clay fill material can be undertaken in a similar
manner to that used for the natural soil. The temporary excavation batter in sandy or
gravelly soil or poorly compacted fill should be no steeper than 1H:1V.

The above recommendations are based on the assumption that there is no existing
structure adjacent to the excavation area. Even at the above cut batters it should be noted
that following rainy periods, some degree of fretting and minor slumping could be
anticipated.

Water seepage was found in test pit TP6 at 1.0m depth and in footing probes FP1, FP3,
FP5 and FP6 at 1.0m, 1.3m, 0.9m and 0.65m depths respectively. A suitable dewatering
system (spears or sump pump) may be required to pump groundwater in the event that
the groundwater is encountered above the pipe invert level.

10.2.2 Trench Shields


Progressive shielding should be used in the following instances:
• Trenches cannot be suitably battered back due to width restrictions created by land
use or local services

38
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

• The trench sidewalls are likely to collapse.


Shields should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. The geotechnical parameters
for design are listed in Table 10 of Section 8.2.1.

10.2.3 Drainage Pipeline Embedment


Material Requirements
Embedment material is defined as earth material that does not contain any organic
materials and satisfies the grading requirements presented in Table 14 as published in
WSA 02-1999.
Table 14: Embedment Material – Grading Requirements

Sieve size (mm) Required percentage passing for bedding


material (%)

4.75 100

2.36 50-100

0.600 10-50

0.150 0-20

0.075 0-5
To prevent concentrated point loading on the pipe from the embedment material and to
ensure uniform support around the pipeline; the maximum particle size shall not be
greater than that specified in Table 15 (adapted from AS/NZS 2566.1:1998, Table C1).
Table 15: Maximum Particle Size

Nominal pipe diameter size range (mm) Maximum particle size (mm)

<100 10

100-150 14

>150 20

Testing Requirements
It is recommended that a number of grading tests be carried out on the embedment
material before placing the pipeline. Suitability for use as an embedment material should
be based on the above tables. Tests for grading characteristics should be undertaken at a
minimum frequency of one test per 45 metres.

39
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

10.3 Trench Backfill

10.3.1 Trafficable Areas


There are two different types of trench locations which shall be treated differently:
Type R Locations - Those locations that receive frequent traffic
These locations include:
• The full width of any existing or proposed road carriageway plus shoulders and kerb,
• The full width of driveways and car parks,
• Any other areas that vehicles are likely to travel (eg: access tracks),

Type F Locations- Those locations that receive occasional or rare traffic and those areas
that require additional support to protect existing assets, such as houses, pavement, etc.
These locations include:
• In the side easement of private property within 3m of a building or building envelope,
• The ground next to the back of kerb equal in width to the main’s cover to a maximum
of 1m,
• The ground next to driveways and car parks equal in width to the main’s cover to a
maximum of 1m,
• The full length of any constructed footpath (including, but not limited to concrete,
asphalt, crushed rock footpaths).
• The ground next to footpaths equal in width to the main’s cover to a maximum of 1m,
• The full width of any median strip,
• Within 1.5m of a sewer maintenance structure, shaft or riser (jump up) which is
located in a non-trafficable area,
• Within 400mm of a pressure main surface fitting (hydrant riser and cover, valve
spindle and cover) which is located in a non-trafficable area,
• Any other areas where controlled compaction is required to minimise the potential of
subsidence.
Where part of the trench’s width is located within the above mentioned zone(s), the full
width of the trench then needs to be backfilled to the higher specification. Typically, only
assets which have less 1.5m cover can be located in the nature strip while still using Non-
Trafficable backfill. It is usually not possible to wholly contain deeper trenches within the
narrow Non-Trafficable part of the nature strip.

Material Specification
All trafficable backfill material shall be as per Table 16:

40
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Table 16: Trafficable Backfill Material Standards

Material Specification
20mm Class 2 or 4 Fine Crushed Rock (FCR) VicRoads Standard 812
20mm Class 4 Crushed Scoria (not acceptable for CWW VicRoads Standard 818
water supply projects)

20mm Class 4 Crushed Concrete VicRoads Standard 820

Backfill material shall comply with the following:


Type R Locations:
• For trenches less than 1.5metres deep, the backfill shall be 20mm Class 2 Plant
Mixed Wet Mix backfill for the full depth.
• For trenches 1.5 metres deep or greater, the backfill shall be:
o 20mm Class 2 Plant Mixed Wet Mix backfill for the top 600mm.
o 20mm Class 4 (or better) Water Agency approved backfill for the remainder.

Type F Locations:
Water Agency approved 20mm Class 4 (or better).

Density Specification
The required densities for trench fill under all trafficable areas including footpaths are
summarised in Table 6. Using the Modified Compaction test (AS1289.5.2.1) the minimum
dry density ratio (AS1289.5.4.1) required shall be as per Table 17:
Table 17: Minimum Trafficable Density Requirements

Layer Minimum Density


Top Pavement (eg: concrete & asphalt, to min 98% SDDR
depth of 100mm)

Crushed Rock Layer between 100mm and 300mm 95% SDDR


deep (sub-base) - if relevant

Below 300mm;
If Crushed Rock: 95% SDDR

If Sand (Special dispensation from the road owner 80% (minimum density index) or 10
and/ or Water Agency would be required): blows/300mm (Perth Sand
Penetrometer)
Note: SDDR: standard dry density ratio

41
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

10.3.2 Non-Trafficable Areas


Non-trafficable areas are those other than that defined in section 10.3.1.

Material Specification
Trench backfill for non-trafficable areas may comprise of suitable site derived or
imported material.

The in-situ material is considered to be appropriate to be used as trench backfill in most


areas, provided that suitable control is maintained in the selection, placement and
compaction of the fill and organic material is excluded.

Where imported fill is used it should have the following properties; no organic material,
a plasticity index of greater than 7, maximum particle size of 75 mm and contain at least
12% fines (particles less than 0.075 mm).

If rock is encountered during excavations, care should be taken to remove oversized rock
material prior to backfilling. Ordinary or selected fill shall be limited to a depth of 4m or
not used (if the risk is deemed to be unacceptable). Backfill at depths deeper than this
shall utilise granular material.

Some ordinary fill may behave essentially as cohesive material, but may contain greater
than 20% of rock material which is coarser than 37.5 mm. Such material may be
acceptable as backfill but cannot be tested using the methods of AS1289. As compaction
testing is not possible, special dispensation will be required from the Water Agency to
use this material and more rigorous risk controls (eg: higher level of auditing) will need
to be adopted.

Cohesionless Soils

Cohesionless soils will typically be clean sands or silty sands.

Backfill shall be compacted to achieve Minimum Density Index of 60% in terms of Density
Index (AS 1289.5.6.1) or Minimum PSP penetration resistance of 7 blows per 300 mm
using a Perth Sand Penetrometer (PSP) (AS 1289.6.3.3). The surface soils may be loosened
by the process with sands compacted using mechanical means. Testing of the penultimate
layer is often required to assess compliance. The final layers will then require additional
attention to achieve compliance, often with static rolling compaction.

Place the fill in layers with uniform thickness and mechanically compact it to achieve the
designated performance criteria. Backfill below a depth of 4m shall be granular.

42
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Cohesive Soil
In-situ silty clay or sandy clay material can be used as backfill material. The required
specification of cohesive backfill material and compaction control are summarized in the
Table 18.

Table 18: Material Specification and Compaction Control

Specification Upper Depth Lower Depth Range


Range (if required)

Depth Range 4.0m to surface Main depth to 4.0m

Optimum Backfill Material Description In-situ or imported Class 4


sandy clay/silty clay

Backfill Material Requirements <20% rock fraction Vicroads 812


<75mm rock size

Soil classification as per Appendix D, Section M (Moderate) N/A


2 and Section C2 of AS2870-2011

High Risk Factors Likely to be Found Perched water/collapse of Perched water/collapse


sandy material of sandy material

Compaction Type Padfoot roller Vibrating Plate

Loose Layer Thickness <200mm <200mm

Moisture Limits 90%-110% of optimum 85%-115% of optimum

Max time to stockpile (dry & temp b/w 20 48 hours 48 hours


& 30°C)

Max time to stockpile (dry & temp >30 °C) 24 hours 24 hours

Non-trafficable cohesive soil backfill shall be placed to achieve the minimum compaction
levels described in Table 19.
Table 19: Non-Trafficable Density Ratio Requirements (modified)

Within Trench fill Zone and : Minimum SDDR


In the 600mm layer below the finished surface level 95% (minimum)

Deeper than 600mm below the finished surface level 90% (minimum)

43
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Compaction Requirements
Compaction of both backfill and embedment material is required to ensure that excessive
surface settlement does not occur.

The required minimum frequency of testing for compaction control as detailed in AS


3798-1996 are summarized in Table 20. Testing should be undertaken in accordance with
AS 1289.5.

Table 20: Compaction Testing Regime

Material Area Testing Frequency

Site Derived Traffic Area 1 test per layer per 25m or 3 tests per
(Embedment Only) layer, or 3 tests per visit

Non-traffic Area 1 test per 2 layers per 40m

Imported Traffic Area 1 test per layer per 25m or 3 tests per
layer, or 3 tests per visit whichever is
greater

Non-traffic Area 1 test per 2 layers per 40m

Tested layers that do not satisfy the outlined criteria shall be stripped, replaced, re-
compacted and retested to achieve the minimum compaction requirement specified for
back fill.

Testing of compaction density should be undertaken by a suitably qualified geotechnical


testing company. Representative samples of the controlled fill should be regularly tested.

10.4 Trenchless Excavation

Subject to the final detailed design of the proposed trenches, installation of the pipeline
can be undertaken by either trench or trenchless techniques.

Three common trenchless excavation methods described in Table 21 can be used as a


preliminary guide to select the most appropriate technique for this site. The selected
method is subject to further assessment based on the contractor’s experience with similar
materials.

44
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Table 21: Trenchless Excavation Methods


Method Description Construction requirements Shaft
General requirement
Pipe Jacking Pipe pushed through ground using Jacking/receiving pits required 2.5m to 6m in
hydraulic jacks from a jacking pit. (will require dewatering) diameter.
Forward end of the operation utilizes Jacking distance dependant on
a tunnelling machine or shield with a pipe material and provisions
cutting edge. Up to 1000m dependent to reduce jacking force (e.g.
on pipe material and provisions to bentonite, polymers)
reduce jacking force; Installed
diameter typically > 900mm.

Auger Form of pipe jacking where spoil at Jacking/receiving pits required 2.5m to 6m in
boring/ leading edge of pipe is excavated and (will require dewatering); diameter.
directional removed using an auger. Up to 60m Jacking distance dependant on
drilling long. Typical pipe diameter from 200 pipe material and provisions
to 1500mm. to reduce jacking force (e.g.
bentonite, polymers)

Micro Form of pipe jacking where spoil is Jacking/receiving pits required Approx. 4m by
tunnelling excavated using miniature TBM; (will require dewatering) 2m for 450mm
from 100 to 200m long. Typical pipe φ installation
diameter from 300mm to 1500mm

The method of construction and temporary works designed for trenchless excavation
should be selected by an experienced specialist contractor and be provided to the design
engineer for review.

45
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

11. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EARTH WORKS

11.1 Site Stripping & Clearing

Unless otherwise specified, grass, uncontrolled fill material and other unsuitable
materials shall be removed from the site. All trees and stumps are to be similarly
removed, such areas backfilled and compacted as per Australian Standards AS3798-2007,
Guideline earthworks for commercial and residential developments. As an indication
from site observation and boreholes, at least the uppermost 300mm thick topsoil should
be stripped off prior to placement of any fill.

11.2 Earthworks

Where it is necessary to raise the levels of all or part of the subdivision area, such filled
material should be free of organic and/or unsuitable material and shall be placed in layers
not exceeding 250mm loose thickness. Each layer will be suitably compacted prior to the
laying of the next layer, to a minimum 95% of maximum dry density of standard
compaction. The water content of the fill should be reduced by aeration or increased by
adding water as necessary to achieve this required compaction. Silty Sand or Sand fill
material should be used for earthworks if any fill placing is proposed over the existing
silty sand layer. Otherwise existing silty sand layer should be removed prior to use any
clay fill material.

11.3 Drainage of Retention Systems

As seepage infiltration from perched groundwater table is quite likely to be present in


the zones of influence during wet season, it is recommended that a suitable drainage
system be installed and maintained behind all retaining wall structures to ensure the
dissipation of any hydrostatic forces which may result from the accumulation of any
seepage water behind the wall structures. Such seepage water flows should readily be
able to be intercepted by the construction of a suitable sub-surface cut-off drain on the
high side of the subject site.

11.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

Erosion and sediment control plan should be implemented before commencing any
earthworks for the proposed development. Below are some general guidelines to be taken
into considerations:

• Establish a single entry/exit point when construction work starts

46
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

• Minimized area to be cleared and provide as much as vegetation as possible


• Install sediment fences along the low side of the site before work begins
• Ensure the imported fill material/topsoil within the sediment-controlled plan
• Fill in and compact all trenches immediately after services have been laid
• Divert water around the work site and stabilized channels
• A silt trap to be installed around the site perimeter during construction.
• Provide temporary earth drain around the proposed site if possible, to prevent
water logging within the site Stabilized exposed earth banks/embankment

11.5 Trafficability During Wet Season

Trafficability during wet season may be difficult due to presence of silty sand/ sandy silt
material at ground level. Temporary ground improvement together with improving
surface and subsurface drainage may be required on site to improve the site trafficability
during wet season.

11.6 Selected Fill Material

Selected fill material should have little volume change with changes in moisture content.
Suitable material types of low reactivity, including sandy clay, silty clay, clayey sand,
silty sand and highly to moderately weathered siltstone and sandstone.

11.7 Material Selection

Imported structural fill may comprise one of the following imported materials:

• Ripped weathered siltstone (low to medium strength)


• Type A fill as defined by VicRoads
• Class 4 crushed rock as defined by VicRoads

Selected fill material should have the following characteristics:

• Free of rock greater than 75mm in any direction.


• Free of topsoil, organic soil and root matter.
• The material shall have Emerson Class Number of 4 or greater in accordance with
AS1289 3.8.1. Otherwise, if fill material is exposed to surface runoff or standing water,
appropriate erosion protection should be provided.
• The material coarser than 37.5mm shall be less than 20%.
• Clay from site derived material can be used as fill material.

47
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

• When compacted, the moisture content limit should be between -1% and +3% of the
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for standard compactive efforts (in accordance
with AS1289.5.1.1) with dry Density Ratio of at least 98% of the maximum dry density
achieved in the Standard Compaction Test or a Hilf density ratio of 98% in accordance
with AS1289. Exception to the above moisture content criteria should be applicable to
high plasticity clay.

11.8 Pre-treatment Prior to Filling

Prior to filling the allotment with the selected fill material, we recommend the following:

• Remove all the vegetation, topsoil and fill. As an indication from site observation and
boreholes drilling, at least the uppermost 300mm thick topsoil should be removed.

• For the top 200mm of exposed clay layer, the recommended minimum compaction is
a dry density ratio of 98% of the Standard Compaction in accordance with
AS1289.5.1.1 and 5.4.1 or 5.7.1 at moisture content within 3% of the optimum moisture
content.

• Any weak or unstable areas identified during the above compaction process and
which do not improve with further rolling should be excavated and replaced with
compacted select fill. The fill should be placed in uniform horizontal layers not
exceeding 250mm loose thickness. The recommended minimum compaction for each
layer is a dry density ratio of 98% of the standard compaction in accordance with
AS1289.5.1.1 and 5.4.1 or 5.7.1 at moisture content within 3% of the optimum moisture
content.

It is recommended that subgrade preparation and the placement of fill and compaction
be undertaken under Level-1 supervision. Testing should be undertaken in accordance
with the test methods specified in the Australian Standards AS1289 (Method of Testing
Soils for Engineering Purposes) and AS3798 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial
and Residential Developments).

11.9 Compaction Requirements

Compaction of both backfill material and embedment material is required to ensure that
excessive surface settlement does not occur. The required backfill density and minimum
frequency of testing for compaction control as detailed in AS 3798-2007 are summarized
below:

- 1 test per layer per material type per 2500 m2.

48
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

- 1 test per 500 m3 distributed evenly throughout full depth and area.
- 3 tests per site.

Testing should be undertaken in accordance with AS 1289.5. Tested layers that do not
satisfy the outlined criteria shall be stripped, replaced, recompacted and retested to
achieve the minimum compaction requirement mentioned above.

Testing of compaction density should be undertaken by a suitably qualified geotechnical


testing company. Representative samples of the controlled fill should be regularly tested.

49
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

12. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATION

12.1 Traffic Data

The following design traffic loads have been considered in the pavement analysis
according to Austroad’s Pavement Structural Design (2008): Part 2 Pavement Structural
Design and Victorian Planning Authority (2019): Engineering Design and Construction
Manual for Subdivision in Growth Areas.

Table 22: Traffic Loading Design Parameters


Description Adopted Value
Road Type Access Place Access Lane
Design Life 20 Years 20 Years
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 1,000vpd 250vpd
Direction Factor 0.5 0.5
Lane Distribution Factor 1.0 1.0
Percentage of Heavy vehicle 6% 4%
Heavy Vehicle Growth Rate 1.0% 0.5%
NHVAG 2.15 2.05
ESA/HVAG 0.35 0.25

Design Traffic Load (DESAs) 1.8x105 1.9x104

12.2 Design CBR Value and Pavement Design

Field and laboratory CBR values indicate that the pavements can be designed based on
subgrade CBR of 5.0%.

In considering the design CBR value, the in-situ geology of the site has also been assessed.
Where encountered, soft silty clay material should be removed to reveal the underlying
stiff silty clay material prior to construction of the roads

50
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

12.2.1 Pavement Composition


Access Place
Type A: Flexible Asphalt Pavement
The following pavement composition is based on the VPA (2019) guideline and
AUSTROADS (2008) Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
(2008).

Wearing Course 30mm size 10mm Type L Class C320 Asphalt


Base Course 30mm size 10mm Type N Class C320 Asphalt
Inter Layer Prime or Primer seal
Base 130mm size 20mm Class 2 Crushed rock, compacted to not less than
98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Upper Subbase 100mm size 20mm Class 3 Crushed rock, compacted to not less than
98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Lower Subbase 110mm reclaimed existing crushed rock OR size 20mm Class 4
Crushed rock, compacted to not less than 98% of modified
compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Subgrade Material as found, Sand/Clayey Sand/Silty Clay/Sandy Clay,
compacted to a minimum density ratio 98% (Standard) AS1289, 5.1.1.

Access Lane
Type B: Flexible Asphalt Pavement
The following pavement composition is based on the GAA (2011) guideline and
AUSTROADS (2008) Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
(2008).

Wearing Course 20mm size 7mm Type L Class C320 Asphalt


Base Course 30mm size 10mm Type N Class C320 Asphalt
Inter Layer Prime or Primer seal
Base 140mm size 20mm Class 2 Crushed rock, compacted to not less than
98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Subbase 110mm size 20mm Class 3 Crushed rock, compacted to not less than
98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Subgrade Material as found, Sand/Clayey Sand/Silty Clay/Sandy Clay,
compacted to a minimum density ratio 98% (Standard) AS1289, 5.1.1.

51
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Rigid Concrete Pavement

Without Shoulder

Base 170mm thick reinforced concrete (SL82 mesh) with a 28-day


characteristic comprehensive strength of not less than 32MPa
Subbase 100mm thick size 20mm Class 3 Crushed Rock, compacted to not less
than 98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Subgrade Material as found, Sand/Clayey Sand/Silty Clay/Sandy Clay,
compacted to a minimum density ratio 98% (Standard) AS1289, 5.1.1.

With Shoulder

A concrete shoulder should have at least the same strength as the concrete base and is
defined as:
• A keyed and tied shoulder with a minimum width of 1.5 m from the edge of the
trafficked lane; or
• A 600-mm integrally cast widening of a trafficked lane (this may include integral
channel or kerb and channel).
Note: extruded kerb and channel, even if well tied to the base, is not considered equivalent to a
shoulder for design purposes due to its lower strength. However, a compacted slip-formed kerb and
channel can be considered as a shoulder.

Base 150mm thick reinforced concrete (SL82 mesh) with a 28-day


characteristic comprehensive strength of not less than 32MPa
Subbase 100mm thick size 20mm Class 3 Crushed Rock, compacted to not less
than 98% of modified compaction AS 1289.5.2.1
Subgrade Material as found, Sand/Clayey Sand/Silty Clay/Sandy Clay,
compacted to a minimum density ratio 98% (Standard) AS1289, 5.1.1.

12.3 Subgrade Preparation

As an indication from site observation and borehole/test pit excavations, at least the
uppermost 300mm thick topsoil should be removed to reveal the proposed pavement
subgrade. It is anticipated that subgrade preparation may be difficult in wet season in
lower ground areas. Hence, it is recommended that construction should be carried out in
dry season with improved site drainage condition.

It is recommended that any unsuitable subgrade material such as clayey silt, uncontrolled
fill material or soft spots encountered in the proposed subgrade be removed to reveal
firm ground. The removed section of the subgrade shall be backfilled with site derived
clay material compacted at least 98% (characteristic) of maximum dry density of standard
compaction (AS 1289.5.1.1) with moisture condition at the equilibrium moisture content

52
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

or -1% to +3% of the optimum for clay subgrade. Proof rolling of the subgrade level
should then be undertaken to reveal any soft spots.

12.4 Subsurface Drainage

It should be noted that the pavement construction must be accompanied by improvement


of the subsurface and surface drainage of the road.

Subsurface drainage may also be complemented by the use of table or spoon drains on
both sides of the pavement, or just on the inside of the pavement if kerb and channel is
to be constructed on the lower side. Careful consideration should be given to minimize
the potential for the water in the table drain to infiltrate the pavement subgrade. It is
recommended that some form of erosion protection is provided to the table drains if these
are to be utilized on the outer side of the road shoulders. To improve the trafficability of
the site and to minimize any construction delays, adequate drainage of whole site during
construction should be provided. No pooling of water at the surface should be allowed.
The pavement should be constructed with a minimum of 3% cross fall subject to further
design consideration by the Design Engineers.

12.5 Prime and Seal

A prime and seal is recommended as a minimum treatment prior to the application of the
new asphalt over the fine crushed rock base. The main functions of the prime and seal
would be to cope with surface dust, strengthen pavement material near the surface, and
provide a better bond between the base layer and the asphalt.

When delays in the application of the asphalt occurs, significant construction savings
may be realised, especially during the winter months, where a primer seal can help to
prevent moisture ingress and potential damage to the pavement. Note that the primer
seal should not be trafficked for longer than six months, twelve months at the extreme.

12.6 Construction Works

It is recommended that Geotesta be engaged to provide a site inspection during the early
stage of construction to confirm that the ground conditions of the subgrade along the
proposed road construction are consistent with the assumptions or findings in this report.

DOCUMENT CONTROL
Date: Version: Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:
27 July 2020 GE7586-20 Ben Pang Shan Nirmalan
BSc (Hons) MSc(Eng) MIEAust BScEng MEng MIEAust CPEng
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

53
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

REFERENCES

• GeoVic, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources,


Victoria, Australia, 2020.

• AS 1289 “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes”, Standards Australia,


2017

• AS 1726 “Geotechnical site investigations”, Standards Australia, 2017

• AS 3727.1 “Pavements Part 1: Residential”, Standards Australia, 2016

• AS 3798 “Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments”,


Standards Australia, 2007

• “Guide to Residential Streets and Paths”, Cement and Concrete Association of


Australia, 2004

• AUSTROADS (2017), Guide to Pavement Technology, Part 2: Pavement Structural


Design, Austroads Ltd, Sydney.

• Victorian Planning Authority (2019) Engineering Design and Construction Manual for
Subdivision in Growth Areas, previously known as Growth Area Authority (GAA)

• Vicroads (2018), Code of Practice for selection and design of pavements and surfacing;
RC 500.22

• Visualising Victoria’s Groundwater (VVG) website, accessed March 2020

54
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Information about this Report

The report contains the results of a geotechnical investigation conducted for a specific purpose
and client. The results should not be used by other parties, or for other purposes, as they may
contain neither adequate nor appropriate information. In particular, the investigation does not
cover contamination issues unless specifically required to do so by the client.

Test Hole Logging

The information on the test hole logs (boreholes, test pits, exposures etc.) is based on a visual and
tactile assessment, except at the discrete locations where test information is available (field and/or
laboratory results). The test hole logs include both factual data and inferred information.

Groundwater

Unless otherwise indicated, the water levels presented on the test hole logs are the levels of free
water or seepage in the test hole recorded at the given time of measuring. The actual groundwater
level may differ from this recorded level depending on material permeability (i.e. depending on
response time of the measuring instrument). Further, variations of this level could occur with
time due to such effects as seasonal, environmental and tidal fluctuations or construction
activities. Confirmation of groundwater levels, phreatic surfaces or piezometric pressures can
only be made by appropriate instrumentation techniques and monitoring programmes.

Interpretation of Results

The discussion or recommendations contained within this report normally are based on a site
evaluation from discrete test hole data. Generalized, idealized or inferred subsurface conditions
(including any geotechnical cross-sections) have been assumed or prepared by interpolation
and/or extrapolation of these data. As such these conditions are an interpretation and must be
considered as a guide only.

Change in Conditions

Local variations or anomalies in the generalized ground conditions do occur in the natural
environment, particularly between discrete test hole locations. Additionally, certain design or
construction procedures may have been assumed in assessing the soil-structure interaction
behaviour of the site. Furthermore, conditions may change at the site from those encountered at
the time of the geotechnical investigation through construction activities and constantly changing
natural forces.

Any change in design, in construction methods, or in ground conditions as noted during


construction, from those assumed or reported should be referred to GEOTESTA for appropriate
assessment and comment.

55
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Geotechnical Verification

Verification of the geotechnical assumptions and/or model is an integral part of the design
process - investigation, construction verification, and performance monitoring. Variability is a
feature of the natural environment and, in many instances, verification of soil or rock quality, or
foundation levels, is required. There may be a requirement to extend foundation depths, to
modify a foundation system or to conduct monitoring as a result of this natural variability.
Allowance for verification by geotechnical personnel accordingly should be recognized and
programmed during construction.

Reproduction of Reports

Where it is desired to reproduce the information contained in our geotechnical report, or other
technical information, for the inclusion in contract documents or engineering specification of the
subject development, such reproductions should include at least all of the relevant test hole and
test data, together with the appropriate standard description sheets and remarks made in the
written report of a factual or descriptive nature. Reports are the subject of copyright and shall not
be reproduced either totally or in part without the express permission of Geotesta.

56
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

57
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Borehole BH1; looking northwest

Location of Borehole BH2; looking southeast

58
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Borehole BH3; looking northeast

Location of Borehole BH4; looking west

59
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Borehole BH5; looking southeast

Location of Borehole BH6; looking west

60
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Test Pit TP1; looking north

Location of Test Pit TP2; looking northeast

61
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Test Pit TP3; looking north

Location of Test Pit TP4; looking northeast

62
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Test Pit TP5; looking northeast

Location of Test Pit TP6; looking south

63
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Test Pit TP7; looking southeast

Location of Test Pit TP8; looking north

64
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Test Pit TP9; looking southwest

Location of Footing Probe FP1; looking northwest

65
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Footing Probe FP2; looking northeast

Location of Footing Probe FP3; looking northwest

66
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Footing Probe FP4; looking southeast

Location of Footing Probe FP5; looking east

67
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

Location of Footing Probe FP6; looking southeast

Location of Footing Probe FP7; looking southeast

68
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE, TEST PIT & FOOTING PROBE LOGS

69
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH1 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 4

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 01-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 01-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 15.50 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL Sandy Gravel, Fine to Medium, Grey, Moist, Well Compacted M WC #DIV/0!

## 0.20 #DIV/0!

## SC SAND With Clay, Fine to Medium, Brown- Grey, Dry to Moist, D/M MD #DIV/0!

## Medium Dense #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 1.50 #DIV/0!


1.50
## CI Sandy CLAY, Brown - Orange, Dry to Moist, Very Stiff, D/M VST 21 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.5m
## Sand is medium #DIV/0!
5/8/13
Continuous Flight Auger

## #DIV/0!
N=21
## #DIV/0!
PP>4.5kg/cm2
2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 2.50 #DIV/0!


2.50
## Grades: Pale Brown, Mottled Pale Grey #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## CI Sandy CLAY, Pale Brown/Red Mottled Pale Grey with Cementation D/M VST #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## bands (Red, with gravel), Dry to Moist, Very Stiff, Gravel is fine, 27 #DIV/0! 6/13/14
## angular of Ironstone #DIV/0!
N=27
## #DIV/0!
PP>4.5kg/cm2
3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 4.00 #DIV/0!


4.00
## CH Silty CLAY with Sand, Pale Grey, Dry to Moist, Very Stiff, D/M VST #DIV/0!

## Cementration Bands, Red, with Gravel, Gravel is fine, #DIV/0!

## angular of Ironstone #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## Grades: Very Stiff to Hard 32 #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## NB: SPT n-blows elevated by a presence of iron bands #DIV/0!
6/12/20
## #DIV/0!
N=32
## #DIV/0!
PP>4.5kg/cm2
5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH1 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 4

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 01-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 01-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 15.50 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
## CH Silty CLAY with Sand, Pale Grey, Dry to Moist, Very Stiff, D/M VST #DIV/0!

## with Cementation Bands, Red, with Gravel, Gravel is fine, #DIV/0!

## angular of Ironstone #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.50 #DIV/0!
5.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

6.00 6.00 #DIV/0!


6.00
## Grades: Trace Sand #DIV/0!
SPT at 6.0m
## 26 #DIV/0!
5/9/17
## #DIV/0!
N=26
## #DIV/0!
PP>4.5kg/cm2
6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
## #DIV/0!
Continuous Flight Auger

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

7.50 7.50 #DIV/0!


7.50
## Grades: Moist M 29 #DIV/0!
SPT at 7.5m
## #DIV/0!
14/14/15
## #DIV/0!
N=29
## #DIV/0!
PP=4.5kg/cm2
8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

9.00 9.00 #DIV/0!


9.00
## Grades: Trace sand, hard H #DIV/0!
SPT at 9.0m
## 43 #DIV/0! 9/19/24
## #DIV/0!
N=43
## #DIV/0!

9.50 #DIV/0!
9.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
NMLC

## 9.90 #DIV/0!

#### Grades: Cemented band of Ironstone, with Sand (fine) D #DIV/0!


10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH1 (3)
SHEET: 3 OF 4

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 01-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 01-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 15.50 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
10.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10.00
0.10 Cemented band of Ironstone, with Sand (fine), Low Strength D #DIV/0!

0.20 Extremely Weathered #DIV/0!

0.30 10.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey Mottled Pale Brown, Moist, Very Stiff M VST #DIV/0!

10.50 #DIV/0!
10.50
0.60 #DIV/0!

0.70 #DIV/0!

0.80 10.80 #DIV/0!

0.90 SC Clayey SAND, Medium to Coarse, Red - Orange Mottled Dark Grey M VD #DIV/0!

11.00 Moist, Very Dense, medium spaced bands of ferruginized Sand #DIV/0!
11.00
1.10 #DIV/0!

1.20 #DIV/0!

1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

11.50 #DIV/0!
11.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 11.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 Grades: Low recovery #DIV/0!

12.00 #DIV/0!
12.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!

2.30 #DIV/0!
CORING NMLC

2.40 #DIV/0!

12.50 #DIV/0!
12.50
2.60 #DIV/0!

2.70 #DIV/0!

2.80 #DIV/0!

2.90 #DIV/0!

13.00 #DIV/0!
13.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

13.50 #DIV/0!
13.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

14.00 #DIV/0!
14.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

14.50 #DIV/0!
14.50
4.60 #DIV/0!

4.70 #DIV/0!

4.80 #DIV/0!

4.90 #DIV/0!

15.00 #DIV/0!
15.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH1 (4)
SHEET: 4 OF 4

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 01-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 01-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 15.50 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
15.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 15.00
0.10 SC Clayey SAND, Medium to Coarse, Red - Orange Mottled Dark Grey, M VD #DIV/0! SPT at 15.0m
Moist, Very Dense, medium spaced bands of ferruginized Sand 10/32/ 8/15mm
SPT test

0.20 #DIV/0!

0.30 #DIV/0!
SPT refusal
0.40 #DIV/0!

15.50 #DIV/0!
15.50
0.60 END OF BOREHOLE AT 15.50m #DIV/0!

0.70 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

0.80 #DIV/0!

0.90 #DIV/0!

16.00 #DIV/0!
16.00
1.10 #DIV/0!

1.20 #DIV/0!

1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

16.50 #DIV/0!
16.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

17.00 #DIV/0!
17.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

17.50 #DIV/0!
17.50
2.60 #DIV/0!

2.70 #DIV/0!

2.80 #DIV/0!

2.90 #DIV/0!

18.00 #DIV/0!
18.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

18.50 #DIV/0!
18.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

19.00 #DIV/0!
19.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

19.50 #DIV/0!
19.50
4.60 #DIV/0!

4.70 #DIV/0!

4.80 #DIV/0!

4.90 #DIV/0!

20.00 #DIV/0!
20.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH2 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 1-2/6/2020
DATE DRILLED: 1-2/6/2020 HOLE DEPTH: 10.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL Crushed Rock : Gravel with Sand, Fine , Grey, Moist, Well M WC #DIV/0!

## Compacted #DIV/0!

## 0.30 #DIV/0!

## SP SAND trace Clay, Fine, Brown, Moist, Medium Dense M MD #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 1.00 #DIV/0!


1.00
## Grades: Grey #DIV/0! D
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## 1.60 14 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.5m
## SC SAND with gravels and clay, Brown- Grey, Mottled Red M MD #DIV/0!
2/6/8
Continuous Flight Auger

## (where cemented) with iron cementations, Medium Dense, Moist #DIV/0!


N=14
## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## CL/CI Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey (White) Mottled Red (where cemented) D/M VST #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## with iron cementations, Dry To Moist, Very Stiff 25 #DIV/0! 8/13/12
## #DIV/0!
N=25
## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## CI Silty CLAY with Sand, Pale Grey Mottled Pale Brown, D/M H 47 #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## with iron cementations, Dry To Moist, Hard #DIV/0!
12/22/25
## #DIV/0!
N=47
## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH2 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 10.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
0.10 CI Silty CLAY with Sand, Pale Grey Mottled Pale Brown, D/M H #DIV/0!

0.20 with iron cementations, Dry To Moist, Hard #DIV/0!

0.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 #DIV/0!

5.50 #DIV/0!
5.50
0.60 #DIV/0!

0.70 #DIV/0!

0.80 #DIV/0!

0.90 5.90 #DIV/0!

6.00 SC Clayey SAND, Medium to Coarse, Red, with occasional M VD #DIV/0!


6.00
1.10 lenses of CH Silty CLAY, Moist, Very Dense #DIV/0!
SPT at 6.0m
1.20 with some cementation bands (ferruginized) >50 #DIV/0!
Refusal
1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!
Continuous Flight Auger

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

7.50 7.50 #DIV/0!


7.50
2.60 CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey Mottled Pale Brown - Orange, Dry to Moist, M VST 30 #DIV/0!
SPT at 7.5m
2.70 Very Stiff, occasional lenses of sand with cementation bands #DIV/0!
5/10/20
2.80 (ferruginized) #DIV/0!
N=30
2.90 #DIV/0!

8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

9.00 #DIV/0!
9.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

9.50 9.50 #DIV/0!


9.50
4.60 SC Clayey SAND trace gravels, Medium to Coarse, Brown- Red, Moist, M VD 62 55.0 SPT at 9.5m
4.70 Very Dense, Lenses of white CH silty Clay, #DIV/0!
17/25/37
4.80 #DIV/0!
N=62
4.90 END OF BOREHOLE AT 10.00m #DIV/0!

10.00 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!


10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH3 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 10.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL SAND, Fine to Medium, trace Clay, Dark Brown, Moist, Well M WC #DIV/0!

## 0.20 Compacted, with Grass #DIV/0!

## SC Clayey SAND, Fine to Medium, Grey, Moist, Medium Dense M MD #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 0.80 #DIV/0!

## SM Sandy SILT - Silty SAND mixture, Dark Grey, Moist to Wet, M/W F #DIV/0!

1.00 Firm #DIV/0!


1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 1.40 #DIV/0!

1.50 CI Silty CLAY, Pale Brown Mottled Grey, with Sandy Clay lenses M ST #DIV/0!
1.50
## Moist, Stiff, occasionally with roots 12 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.50m
## #DIV/0!
2/3/9
Continuous Flight Auger

## #DIV/0!
N=12
## #DIV/0!
PP = 4.0/4.5
2.00 #DIV/0!
kg/cm2 2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 2.50 #DIV/0!


2.50
## CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey, Mottled Brown - Orange, Moist, M VST #DIV/0!

## Very Stiff, with cemented Red bands (ferruginized) #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## 19 #DIV/0! 3/8/11
## #DIV/0!
N=19
## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
PP> 4.5kg/cm2 3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## Grades: Hard H 33 #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## #DIV/0!
10/15/18
## #DIV/0!
N=33
## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
PP> 4.5kg/cm2 5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH3 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 10.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
0.10 CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey, Mottled Brown - Orange, Moist, Hard M H #DIV/0!

0.20 with cemented Red bands (ferruginized) #DIV/0!

0.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 #DIV/0!

5.50 #DIV/0!
5.50
0.60 #DIV/0!

0.70 #DIV/0!

0.80 #DIV/0!

0.90 #DIV/0!

6.00 #DIV/0!
6.00
1.10 #DIV/0!
SPT at 6.0m
1.20 39 #DIV/0!
10/16/23
1.30 #DIV/0!
N=39
1.40 #DIV/0!

6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!
Continuous Flight Auger

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

7.50 #DIV/0!
7.50
2.60 #DIV/0!
SPT at 7.5m
2.70 #DIV/0!
12/22/ 13/45mm
2.80 #DIV/0!
SPT refusal
2.90 #DIV/0!
(H.B)
8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

9.00 9.00 #DIV/0!


9.00
4.10 CI Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey, Mottled Pale Brown, Moist, Hard, M H #DIV/0!

4.20 Sand is Medium, with cemented Red bands (ferruginized) #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

9.50 #DIV/0!
9.50
4.60 >50 #DIV/0!
SPT at 9.5m
4.70 #DIV/0!
15/24/ 21/110mm
4.80 #DIV/0!
SPT refusal
4.90 END OF BOREHOLE AT 10.0m #DIV/0!
(H.B)
10.00 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!
10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH4 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL Crushed Rock : Gravel with Sand, Fine , Grey, Moist, Well M WC #DIV/0!

## 0.20 Compacted #DIV/0!

## SP SAND, Fine to Medium, Grey-Brown, Dry to Moist, Medium Dense D/M MD #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## 1.60 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.50m
## CI Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey Mottled Orange Brown, Dry to Moist, D/M VST #DIV/0!
5/8/11
Continuous Flight Auger

## Vey Stiff, Sand is Fine to Medium, occasional lenses of red 19 #DIV/0!


N=19
## Clayey Sand #DIV/0!
PP = 4.0/4.25/4.5

2.00 2.00 #DIV/0!


kg/cm2 2.00
## SC Clayey SAND, Fine to Medium, trace Gravel, Pale Brown, Orange, D/M D #DIV/0!

## Mottled Pale Grey, Dry To Moist, Dense #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## CL Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey, Brown, Moist, Very Stiff, M VST #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## Sand is Medium to Coarse 19 #DIV/0! 9/10/9
## #DIV/0!
N=19
## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
PP> 4.5kg/cm2 3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## Grades: Stiff ST #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## #DIV/0!
3/6/9
## 12 #DIV/0!
N=12
## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
PP= 3.5kg/cm2 5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH4 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
0.10 CL Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey, Brown, Moist, Stiff, M ST #DIV/0!

0.20 Sand is Medium to Coarse #DIV/0!


Continuous Flight Auger

0.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 #DIV/0!

5.50 5.50 #DIV/0!


5.50
0.60 Grades: Very Stiff VST 24 #DIV/0! SPT at 5.5m
0.70 #DIV/0!
6/11/13
0.80 #DIV/0!
N=24
0.90 #DIV/0!

6.00 6.00 #DIV/0!


6.00
1.10 END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.00m #DIV/0!

1.20 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

7.50 #DIV/0!
7.50
2.60 #DIV/0!

2.70 #DIV/0!

2.80 #DIV/0!

2.90 #DIV/0!

8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

9.00 #DIV/0!
9.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

9.50 #DIV/0!
9.50
4.60 #DIV/0!

4.70 #DIV/0!

4.80 #DIV/0!

4.90 #DIV/0!

10.00 #DIV/0!
10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH5 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## SP SAND, Fine to Medium, trace Clay, Dark Brown, Moist, M MD #DIV/0!

## 0.20 Medium Dense, with Grass #DIV/0!

## SC Clayey SAND, Fine to Medium, Grey, Moist, Medium Dense M MD #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 0.80 #DIV/0!

## Grades: Brown Orange, Mottled Pale Grey #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 1.50 #DIV/0!


1.50
## Grades: Brown Red with Grey Sandy Clay pockets, Sand is D/M 12 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.50m
## Fine to Medium, Dry to Moist #DIV/0!
6/6/6
Continuous Flight Auger

## #DIV/0!
N=12
## #DIV/0!
PP = 1.5/1.25
2.00 #DIV/0!
kg/cm2 2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 2.80 #DIV/0!

## Grades: red, ferruginous bands observed #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## CL Sandy CLAY, White- Pale Grey, with grey Silty Clay pockets D/M H #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## 3.20 Dry To Moist, Hard (partly cemented), Sand is fine 58 #DIV/0! 19/29/29
## SC SAND with Clay, White, Pale Grey, Dry To Moist, Very Dense, D/M VD #DIV/0!
N=58
## poorly cemented #DIV/0!

3.50 3.50 #DIV/0!


3.50
## Grades: Clayey Sand, Red, occasionally white sand pockets #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## CI Sandy CLAY, White to Pale Grey, Moist, Hard, with red M H 47 #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## ferruginized bands, Sand is Fine #DIV/0!
19/22/25
## #DIV/0!
N=47
## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH5 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
0.10 CI Sandy CLAY, White to Pale Grey, Moist, Hard with red M H #DIV/0!

0.20 ferruginized bands, Sand is Fine #DIV/0!


Continuous Flight Auger

0.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 #DIV/0!

5.50 5.50 #DIV/0!


5.50
0.60 CH Silty CLAY, with Sand, Pale Grey, with red cementations bands, M H >50 #DIV/0! SPT at 5.5m
0.70 Moist, Hard #DIV/0!
16/20/ 20/80mm
0.80 #DIV/0!
H.B
0.90 #DIV/0!

6.00 6.00 #DIV/0!


6.00
1.10 END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.00m #DIV/0!

1.20 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

7.50 #DIV/0!
7.50
2.60 #DIV/0!

2.70 #DIV/0!

2.80 #DIV/0!

2.90 #DIV/0!

8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

9.00 #DIV/0!
9.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

9.50 #DIV/0!
9.50
4.60 #DIV/0!

4.70 #DIV/0!

4.80 #DIV/0!

4.90 #DIV/0!

10.00 #DIV/0!
10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH6 (1)
SHEET: 1 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL Gravel with Sand (Crushed Rock), Grey, Moist, Well Compacted M WC #DIV/0!

## 0.15 #DIV/0!

## SP SAND, Fine to Medium, trace Clay, Dark Brown, Moist, M MD #DIV/0!

## Medium Dense, with Grass #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 1.00 #DIV/0!


1.00
## CI Sandy CLAY, Orange Brown, Moist, Stiff M ST #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 1.50 #DIV/0!


1.50
## CI/CH Sandy CLAY, Grey-Brown, Moist, Stiff, M ST 11 #DIV/0!
SPT at 1.50m
## Occasional roots, Slightly Organic #DIV/0!
3/4/7
Continuous Flight Auger

## #DIV/0!
N=11
## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## 2.20 #DIV/0!

## Grades: Pale Brown - Orange #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 2.90 #DIV/0!

3.00 Grades: cemented sand bands (fine) white #DIV/0!


3.00
## CL Sandy CLAY, with Silt, White, Mottled Pale Grey, Dry, Hard D H #DIV/0!
SPT at 3.0m
## Sand is Fine, thinly bedded >50 #DIV/0! 6/18/ 12/30mm
## #DIV/0!
H.B
## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 3.80 #DIV/0!

## Grades: Brown #DIV/0!

4.00 4.00 #DIV/0!


4.00
## Grades: White - with Red pockets #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 4.50 #DIV/0!


4.50
## CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey, Moist, Hard, Red cementation bands M H 32 #DIV/0!
SPT at 4.5m
## with pockets of CL/CI Sandy Clay #DIV/0!
6/15/17
## #DIV/0!
N=32
## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
PP= 4.5kg/cm2 5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
BOREHOLE LOG BORE NO.: BH6 (2)
SHEET: 2 OF 2

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING CO.: URBAN DRILLING NORTHING: AS PER PLAN


PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: GEO 105 EASTING: AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: THOMAS GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 02-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

SPT BLOWS PER 300mm


MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5.00
0.10 CH Silty CLAY, Pale Grey, Moist, Hard, Red cementation bands M H #DIV/0!

0.20 with pockets of CL/CI Sandy Clay #DIV/0!


Continuous Flight Auger

0.30 #DIV/0!

0.40 #DIV/0!

5.50 5.50 #DIV/0!


5.50
0.60 CI/CH Sandy CLAY, Pale Grey, Moist, Hard, Sand is Medium M H 36 #DIV/0! SPT at 5.5m
0.70 occasional red cementation bands , occasionally pockets of #DIV/0!
9/14/22
0.80 CL/CI Sandy Clay #DIV/0!
N=36
0.90 #DIV/0!

6.00 6.00 #DIV/0!


6.00
1.10 END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.00m #DIV/0!

1.20 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

1.30 #DIV/0!

1.40 #DIV/0!

6.50 #DIV/0!
6.50
1.60 #DIV/0!

1.70 #DIV/0!

1.80 #DIV/0!

1.90 #DIV/0!

7.00 #DIV/0!
7.00
2.10 #DIV/0!

2.20 #DIV/0!

2.30 #DIV/0!

2.40 #DIV/0!

7.50 #DIV/0!
7.50
2.60 #DIV/0!

2.70 #DIV/0!

2.80 #DIV/0!

2.90 #DIV/0!

8.00 #DIV/0!
8.00
3.10 #DIV/0!

3.20 #DIV/0!

3.30 #DIV/0!

3.40 #DIV/0!

8.50 #DIV/0!
8.50
3.60 #DIV/0!

3.70 #DIV/0!

3.80 #DIV/0!

3.90 #DIV/0!

9.00 #DIV/0!
9.00
4.10 #DIV/0!

4.20 #DIV/0!

4.30 #DIV/0!

4.40 #DIV/0!

9.50 #DIV/0!
9.50
4.60 #DIV/0!

4.70 #DIV/0!

4.80 #DIV/0!

4.90 #DIV/0!

10.00 #DIV/0!
10.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: SAMPLING/ IN-SITU TESTING: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP1
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, brown, well compacted, M WC 2 3.6

## 0.20 moist 1 1.6


## CL Sandy CLAY, grey, low plasticity, stiff, moist M ST 3 5.7
## 3 5.7
0.50 2 3.6 0.50
## 0.60 3 5.7

## CI Silty CLAY, yellow-brown, medium plasticity, very stiff, moist M VST 5 10.2

## 3 5.7
## 9 20.0

1.00 5 10.2 1.00


## 1.10 8 17.5

## CL Sandy CLAY with gravel, dark grey, low plasticity, very stiff, M VST 8 17.5 B
## moist 6 12.6
EXCAVATOR

## 6 12.6

1.50 9 20.0 1.50


## 12 27.8

## 1.70 #DIV/0!

## CI Silty CLAY, grey brown, medium plasticity, very stiff, moist M VST #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP1 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP2
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 2.8m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with roots, brown, poorly compacted, moist M PC 1 1.6

## 3 5.7
## 4 7.9
## 1 1.6
0.50 2 3.6 0.50
## 2 3.6

## 1 1.6
## 1 1.6
## 2 3.6
1.00 1.00 2 3.6 1.00
## CI Silty CLAY, pale grey, medium plasticity, very stiff, moist M VST 7 15.0

## 8 17.5
EXCAVATOR

## 11 25.2

## 9 20.0

1.50 1.50 10 22.6 1.50


## grades dark grey 8 17.5

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## 2.10 #DIV/0!

## grades pale grey #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 2.80 #DIV/0!

## TEST PIT TP2 ENDED AT 2.8m DEPTH DUE TO REFUSAL #DIV/0!

3.00 NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!


3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP3
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, yellow brown, well compacted, M WC 22 55.0

## 0.20 moist 16 38.6

## SP SAND, pale grey mottled orange, cemented, dense, moist M D 19 47.0

## 16 38.6

0.50 14 33.1 0.50


## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
EXCAVATOR

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP3 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP4
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, yellow brown, well compacted, M WC 8 17.5

## moist 20 49.9

## 20 49.9

## 13 30.5

0.50 grades moderately compacted 4 7.9 0.50


## 2 3.6

## 0.70 3 5.7
## SP SAND, pale grey, loose to medium dense, moist M L-MD 3 5.7
## 2 3.6
1.00 3 5.7 1.00
## 2 3.6 B
## 2 3.6
## 3 5.7
EXCAVATOR

## 3 5.7
1.50 2 3.6 1.50
## 7 15.0

## 1.70 #DIV/0!

## CL Sandy CLAY, brown mottled pale grey, low plasticity, very stiff M VST #DIV/0!

## moist #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP4 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP5
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, yellow brown, well compacted, M WC 2 3.6

## moist 5 10.2

## 7 15.0

## 5 10.2

0.50 3 5.7 0.50


## 5 10.2

## 3 5.7
## 0.80 3 5.7
## CS SAND with clay, grey, loose, moist M L 1 1.6
1.00 1.00 1 1.6 1.00
## grades brown 2 3.6
## 1 1.6
## 1 1.6
EXCAVATOR

## 1.40 1 1.6
1.50 CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, stiff, M ST 4 7.9 1.50
## 1.60 moist 4 7.9
## grades very stiff VST 6 12.6

## 7 15.0

## 10 22.6

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP5 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP6
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, yellow brown, well compacted, M WC 8 17.5

## moist 15 35.9

## 8 17.5

## 0.40 4 7.9
0.50 SP SAND, grey, medium dense, moist M MD 3 5.7 0.50
## 3 5.7

## 2 3.6
## 2 3.6
## 3 5.7
1.00 1.00 5 10.2 1.00
## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, very stiff, M VST 8 17.5

## moist 10 22.6

## 11 25.2
EXCAVATOR

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP6 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## PERCHED WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 1m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP7
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 2m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## SP SAND, dark grey, loose, moist M L 1 1.6

## 1 1.6
## 1 1.6
## 2 3.6
0.50 0.50 2 3.6 0.50
## grades pale grey, medium dense to dense MD 5 10.2

## D 12 27.8

## 15 35.9
EXCAVATOR

## #DIV/0!

1.00 1.00 #DIV/0! B 1.00


## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled orange, medium plasticity, very stiff, M VST #DIV/0!

## moist #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 2.00 #DIV/0!


2.00
## TEST PIT TP7 ENDED AT 2.0m DEPTH DUE TO REFUSAL #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP8
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: Clayey SAND, dark grey, well compacted, moist M WC 7 15.0

## 5 10.2

## 8 17.5

## 0.40 9 20.0

0.50 SC Clayey SAND, pale grey mottled orange, dense, moist M D 5 10.2 0.50
## 7 15.0

## 7 15.0

## grades very dense VD 8 17.5

## 9 20.0

1.00 10 22.6 1.00


## 15 35.9

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
EXCAVATOR

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 3.00 #DIV/0!


3.00
## TEST PIT TP8 ENDED AT 3.0m DEPTH #DIV/0!

## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO.: TP9
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 3.3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND, brown, poorly compacted, moist M PC 1 1.6

## 1 1.6
## 0.30 1 1.6
## SP SAND trace clay, pale grey mottled orange, medium dense, M MD 3 5.7
0.50 moist 3 5.7 0.50
## 3 5.7 B
## 3 5.7
## 3 5.7
## 15 35.9

1.00 X #VALUE!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
EXCAVATOR

## #DIV/0!

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## 1.70 #DIV/0!

## CI Silty CLAY,dark brown, medium plasticity, very stiff, moist M VST #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 3.30 #DIV/0!

## TEST PIT TP9 ENDED AT 3.3m DEPTH #DIV/0!

3.50 NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED #DIV/0!


3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP1
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: MK DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1.3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## 0.100 Concrete #DIV/0!

## FILL FILL: Clayey SAND with Gravel, Brown - Grey, Moist, Well M WC #DIV/0!

## 0.25 Compacted #DIV/0!

## Grades: Clay pipe encoutnered at 0.25m (diameter 160mm) #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
Excavator

## #DIV/0!

## 0.70 #DIV/0!

## CI Sandy CLAY, Brown to orange, Moist to Wet, Stiff to Very M/W ST/VST #DIV/0!

## Stiff #DIV/0!
Groundwater @
q 1.00 1.00 #DIV/0!
1m 1.00
## Grades: Groundwater encountered (Perched), Very Stiff M VST 4 7.9
## 3 5.7
## 1.30 4 7.9
## FOOTING PROBE FP1 ENDED AT 1.3m DEPTH 6 12.6

1.50 PERCHED WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 1.0m 9 20.0 1.50


## x #VALUE!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP2
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1.00 m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with crushed rock, brown, well compacted, M WC #DIV/0!

## moist #DIV/0!

## 0.30 #DIV/0!

## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, stiff, M ST


Excavator

#DIV/0!

0.50 moist #DIV/0!


0.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 1.00 #DIV/0!


1.00
## FOOTING PROBE FP2 ENDED AT 1m DEPTH 4 7.9
## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED 4 7.9
## 6 12.6

## 7 15.0

1.50 8 17.5 1.50


## 12 27.8

## Existing 14 33.1

## Building #DIV/0!

## Existing Ground Level #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
0.2m
## 0.3m FILL #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

##
0.25m concrete
1m #DIV/0!

## Silty CLAY #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## End of Footing Probe #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP3
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1.5m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## 0.100 Concrete, grey, dry #DIV/0!

## FILL FILL: SAND, brown, well compacted, moist M WC #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 #DIV/0!
0.50
## #DIV/0!
Excavator

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## 1.10 #DIV/0!

## SP SAND, brown, moist, medium dense M MD #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
Groundwater @
## #DIV/0!
1.3m
1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## FOOTING PROBE FP3 ENDED AT 1.5m DEPTH 15 35.9

## PERCHED WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 1.3m DEPTH 12 27.8

## 11 25.2

## Existing 8 17.5

2.00 Existing Ground Level Building 10 22.6 2.00


## 0.1m thick concrete #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

2.50 #DIV/0!
2.50
##
1m FILL 0.9m #DIV/0!

## 1.5m #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

##
0.15m #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## concrete
0.15m #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## SAND #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 End of Footing Probe #DIV/0!


3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP4
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1.4m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with roots, dark grey, poorly compacted, moist M PC #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 0.50 #DIV/0!


0.50
## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, stiff, M ST #DIV/0!
Excavator

## moist #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 1.40 #DIV/0!

1.50 FOOTING PROBE FP4 ENDED AT 1.4m DEPTH 2 3.6 1.50


## NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED 8 17.5

## 11 25.2

## 13 30.5

## #DIV/0!

2.00 #DIV/0!
2.00
## concrete #DIV/0!

## Existing Ground Level retaining #DIV/0!

## wall #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
0.4m
2.50 0.5m #DIV/0!
2.50
## FILL 0.8m #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

##
0.5m concrete
1.4m #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## Silty CLAY #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## End of Footing Probe #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP5
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with roots, dark grey, poorly compacted, moist M PC 1 1.6

## 1 1.6
## 1 1.6
## 1 1.6
Excavator

0.50 3 5.7 0.50


## 4 7.9

## 2 3.6
## 0.80 1 1.6 Groundwater @
## SP SAND, grey, wet, loose W L 1 1.6 0.9m
1.00 1.00 2 3.6 1.00
## FOOTING PROBE FP5 ENDED AT 1m DEPTH 3 5.7
## PERCHED WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 0.9m DEPTH 8 17.5

## 9 20.0

## 8 17.5

1.50 #DIV/0!
1.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## concrete #DIV/0!

## retaining #DIV/0!

2.00 Existing Ground Level wall #DIV/0!


2.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
0.65m
## FILL
1m 0.8m
#DIV/0!

2.50 2.50
0.1m #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!
0.15m concrete
## #DIV/0!

## SAND #DIV/0!

3.00 End of Footing Probe #DIV/0!


3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP6
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 2-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 02-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 0.7m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## 0.100 FILL FILL: SAND with roots, dark grey, poorly compacted, moist M PC
## grades: concrete, grey
Excavator

## 0.30
## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, stiff, M ST 5
0.50 moist 4 0.50
## 4
## 0.70 8 Groundwater @
## FOOTING PROBE FP6 ENDED AT 0.7m DEPTH 8 0.65m
## PERCHED WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 0.65m DEPTH
1.00 1.00
##

##

##

##

1.50 concrete 1.50


## retaining
## Existing Ground Level wall
## 0.1m thick fill
##
0.2m thick concrete 0.4m
2.00 2.00
##
0.7m
## Silty CLAY
##

## End of Footing Probe


2.50 2.50
##

##

##

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 #DIV/0!
3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
FOOTING PROBE LOG NO.: FP7
SHEET: 1 OF 1

CLIENT: TAYLORS DRILLING COM.: ROSS SERVICES PTY LTD NORTHING AS PER PLAN
PROJECT: 33 JACKSONS ROAD DRILL RIG: 5 TON EXCAVATOR EASTING AS PER PLAN
JOB NO.: GE7586-20 DRILLER: MB GRID REF.:
LOCATION: Mt ELIZA INCLINATION: Vertical LOGGED: BP DATE: 3-06-20
DATE DRILLED: 03-06-2020 HOLE DEPTH: 1.3m CHECKED: SN DATE: 30-06-20

MOISTURE CONDITION

DCP BLOWS PER 100mm


DPSH BLOWS PER 200mm
DRILLING METHOD

GROUP SYMBOL

CONSISTENCY
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTING AND ADDITIONAL NOTES
DEPTH (m)

SAMPLING
DEPTH (m)

DENSITY
WATER

CBR (%)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00
## FILL FILL: SAND with roots, dark grey, poorly compacted, moist M PC #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

0.50 0.50 #DIV/0!


0.50
Excavator

## CI Silty CLAY, brown mottled grey, medium plasticity, stiff, M ST #DIV/0!

## moist #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

1.00 #DIV/0!
1.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 1.30 #DIV/0!

## FOOTING PROBE FP7 ENDED AT 1.3m DEPTH 4 7.9


1.50 NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED 6 12.6 1.50
## 7 15.0

## 8 17.5

## 8 17.5

## 11 25.2

2.00 concrete 10 22.6 2.00


## retaining #DIV/0!

## Existing Ground Level wall #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## 0.3m #DIV/0!

2.50 FILL 0.5m 0.8m #DIV/0!


2.50
## #DIV/0!

##
0.4m #DIV/0!

##
1.3m #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.00 #DIV/0!
3.00
## Silty CLAY #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

3.50 End of footing probe #DIV/0!


3.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.00 #DIV/0!
4.00
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

4.50 #DIV/0!
4.50
## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

## #DIV/0!

5.00 #DIV/0!
5.00
STANDARD: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-2017

CONSISTENCY: RELATIVE DENSITY: COMPACTION: WATER:


STANDARD
VS VERY SOFT VL VERY LOOSE WC WELL COMPACTED INTACT CORE WATER LEVEL
PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLE
S SOFT L LOOSE MC MODERATELY COMPACTED (SPT)
F FIRM MD MEDIUM DENSE PC POORLY COMPACTED WATER LEVEL
RISEN TO
ST STIFF D DENSE INTACT TUBE HSV FIELD VANE SHEAR
T SAMPLE TEST
VST VERY STIFF VD VERY DENSE MOISTURE: (UNCORRECTED) WATER INFLOW
H HARD D DRY
M MOIST D DISTURBED SAMPLE DCP DYNAMIC CONE
PENETRATION TEST
W WET B DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE WATER LOSS
H.B. HAMMER BOUNCING
PP POCKET PENETROMETER CPT CONTINOUOS CONE
PENETRATION TEST
33 Jacksons Road, Mt. Eliza GE7586-20

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

70
Geotesta Pty Ltd

TEST REPORT 17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168


T. 03 9562 9135
E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Tested in accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS1289.5.1.1, AS 1289.6.1.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: L1698


PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No.: 6234
LOCATION: [email protected] DATE: 19/06/2020
TEST ITEM: Sandy CLAY trace Gravels REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

SOAKED

COMPACTIVE EFFORT USED: STANDARD


Rammer Mass (kg): 2.7
Drop Height (mm): 300
No. Layers: 3
No. Blows/Layer: 62

MOISTURE CONTENTS:
At Compaction: 16.3 % - 100.5 % OMC
After Soaking: 17.5 % - 108 % OMC
After Penetration:
Top 30 mm 18.0 %
Remaining Depth: 16.4 %

DRY DENSITY:
At Compaction: 1.77 t/m³ - 100.5% MDD
After Soaking 1.77 t/m³ - 100.0% MDD

SWELL / SOAKING PERIOD 0.0 % - 4 Days

SURCHARGE (kg): 4.545

MAXIMUM STANDARD DRY DENSITY: 1.76 t/m³

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 16.2 %

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 6% @ 5.0mm Penetration

RETAINED 19.0mm (%) 0

Notes: Maximum Penetration: 12.5mm

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167


Client Address: Level 1 , 7 Business Drv , Notting Hill 3168

Worksheet v2 WS014 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd

TEST REPORT 17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168


T. 03 9562 9135
E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Tested in accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS1289.5.1.1, AS 1289.6.1.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: L1698


PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No.: 6235
LOCATION: TP4@1 DATE: 19/06/2020
TEST ITEM: SAND, Reddish Brown REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

SOAKED

COMPACTIVE EFFORT USED: STANDARD


Rammer Mass (kg): 2.7
Drop Height (mm): 300
No. Layers: 3
No. Blows/Layer: 68

MOISTURE CONTENTS:
At Compaction: 2.8 % - 99.5 % OMC
After Soaking: 15.0 %
After Penetration:
Top 30 mm 15.1 %
Remaining Depth: 14.5 %

DRY DENSITY:
At Compaction: 1.80 t/m³ - 100.5% MDD
After Soaking 1.80 t/m³ - 100.0% MDD

SWELL / SOAKING PERIOD 0.0 % - 4 Days

SURCHARGE (kg): 4.547

MAXIMUM STANDARD DRY DENSITY: 1.80 t/m³

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 2.8 %

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 20% @ 5.0mm Penetration

RETAINED 19.0mm (%) 0

Notes: Maximum Penetration: 12.5mm

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167


Client Address: Level 1 , 7 Business Drv , Notting Hill 3168

Worksheet v2 WS014 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd

TEST REPORT 17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168


T. 03 9562 9135
E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Tested in accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS1289.5.1.1, AS 1289.6.1.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: L1698


PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No.: 6236
LOCATION: [email protected] DATE: 19/08/2020
TEST ITEM: SAND, Light Grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

SOAKED

COMPACTIVE EFFORT USED: STANDARD


Rammer Mass (kg): 2.7
Drop Height (mm): 300
No. Layers: 3
No. Blows/Layer: 60

MOISTURE CONTENTS:
At Compaction: 8.9 % - 99.5 % OMC
After Soaking: 11.5 % - 128 % OMC
After Penetration:
Top 30 mm 12.0 %
Remaining Depth: 11.1 %

DRY DENSITY:
At Compaction: 1.90 t/m³ - 100.0% MDD
After Soaking 1.91 t/m³ - 100.0% MDD

SWELL / SOAKING PERIOD 0.0 % - 4 Days

SURCHARGE (kg): 4.547

MAXIMUM STANDARD DRY DENSITY: 1.90 t/m³

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 9.0 %

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 70% @ 2.5mm Penetration

RETAINED 19.0mm (%) 0

Notes: Maximum Penetration: 12.5mm

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167


Client Address: Level 1 , 7 Business Drv , Notting Hill 3168

Worksheet v2 WS014 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd

TEST REPORT 17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168


T. 03 9562 9135
E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Tested in accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS1289.5.1.1, AS 1289.6.1.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: L1698


PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No.: 6237
LOCATION: [email protected] DATE: 19/06/2020
TEST ITEM: SAND with Clay, Light Brown REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

SOAKED

COMPACTIVE EFFORT USED: STANDARD


Rammer Mass (kg): 2.7
Drop Height (mm): 300
No. Layers: 3
No. Blows/Layer: 60

MOISTURE CONTENTS:
At Compaction: 7.3 % - 99.5 % OMC
After Soaking: 9.5 % - 130 % OMC
After Penetration:
Top 30 mm 9.2 %
Remaining Depth: 8.6 %

DRY DENSITY:
At Compaction: 2.01 t/m³ - 101.0% MDD
After Soaking 2.01 t/m³ - 101.0% MDD

SWELL / SOAKING PERIOD 0.0 % - 4 Days

SURCHARGE (kg): 4.594

MAXIMUM STANDARD DRY DENSITY: 1.99 t/m³

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 7.3 %

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 80% @ 2.5mm Penetration

RETAINED 19.0mm (%) 0

Notes: Maximum Penetration: 12.5mm

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167


Client Address: Level 1 , 7 Business Drv , Notting Hill 3168

Worksheet v2 WS014 Date 09/10/2019 1


GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Compaction Test Report Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory


17 Redwood Drive
Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Laboratory Geotesta Project Geotechnical Investigation Client Geotesta

Report No L1698-6230 Project No GE7586 Client ID -


Sample ID 6230 Location Address Lvl 1, 7 Business Park
33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza Drive, Nottinghill VIC
Borehole ID [email protected] 3168

Sample Description Sandy CLAY trace Gravels


Sample submitted by Client AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

Test method: AS 1289 5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum dry density: 1.758 t/m3

Optimum moisture content at maximum dry density: 16.2 %

1.79

1.77

1.75
Dry Density (t/m3)

Data
0 % Voids for PD = 2.7
1.73
0 % Voids for PD = 2.6
0 % Voids for PD = 2.5
1.71 0 % Voids for PD = 2.4
Curve

1.69

1.67

1.65
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Moisture Content (w%)

Comments

Material retained on the 19.0 mm sieve 4.168 %


Material retained on the 37.5 mm sieve 1.56 %

Accredited for compliance with Report issued by: Owen Timothy


ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Date issued: 26/06/2020
The results of the tests included
in this document are traceable to
Australian and national standards. Compaction V6 Page 1 of 1
GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Compaction Test Report Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory


17 Redwood Drive
Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Laboratory Geotesta Project Geotechnical Investigation Client Geotesta

Report No L1698-6231 Project No GE7586 Client ID -


Sample ID 6231 Location Address Lvl 1, 7 Business Park
33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza Drive, Nottinghill VIC
Borehole ID [email protected] 3168

Sample Description SAND, Reddish Brown


Sample submitted by Client AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

Test method: AS 1289 5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum dry density: 1.795 t/m3

Optimum moisture content at maximum dry density: 2.8 %


1.80

1.79
Dry Density (t/m3)

Data
1.78
0 % Voids for PD = 2.2
0 % Voids for PD = 2.1
0 % Voids for PD = 2.0
1.77 0 % Voids for PD = 1.9
Curve

1.76

1.75
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Moisture Content (w%)

Comments

Material retained on the 19.0 mm sieve 0 %


Material retained on the 37.5 mm sieve 0 %

Accredited for compliance with Report issued by: Owen Timothy


ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Date issued: 26/06/2020
The results of the tests included
in this document are traceable to
Australian and national standards. Compaction V6 Page 1 of 1
GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Compaction Test Report Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory


17 Redwood Drive
Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Laboratory Geotesta Project Geotechnical Investigation Client Geotesta

Report No L1698-6232 Project No GE7586 Client ID -


Sample ID 6232 Location Address Lvl 1, 7 Business Park
33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza Drive, Nottinghill VIC
Borehole ID [email protected] 3168

Sample Description SAND, Light Grey


Sample submitted by Client AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

Test method: AS 1289 5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum dry density: 1.9 t/m3

Optimum moisture content at maximum dry density: 9.0 %


1.92

1.90

1.88
Dry Density (t/m3)

Data
0 % Voids for PD = 2.7

1.86 0 % Voids for PD = 2.6


0 % Voids for PD = 2.5
0 % Voids for PD = 2.4

1.84 Curve

1.82

1.80
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Moisture Content (w%)

Comments

Material retained on the 19.0 mm sieve 0 %


Material retained on the 37.5 mm sieve 0 %

Accredited for compliance with Report issued by: Owen Timothy


ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Date issued: 26/06/2020
The results of the tests included
in this document are traceable to
Australian and national standards. Compaction V6 Page 1 of 1
GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Compaction Test Report Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory


17 Redwood Drive
Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Laboratory Geotesta Project Geotechnical Investigation Client Geotesta

Report No L1698-6233 Project No GE7586 Client ID -


Sample ID 6233 Location Address Lvl 1, 7 Business Park
33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza Drive, Nottinghill VIC
Borehole ID [email protected] 3168

Sample Description SAND with Clay, Light Brown


Sample submitted by Client AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

Test method: AS 1289 5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum dry density: 1.99 t/m3

Optimum moisture content at maximum dry density: 7.3 %


2.00

1.98
Dry Density (t/m3)

Data
1.96
0 % Voids for PD = 2.7
0 % Voids for PD = 2.6
0 % Voids for PD = 2.5
1.94 0 % Voids for PD = 2.4
Curve

1.92

1.90
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Moisture Content (w%)

Comments

Material retained on the 19.0 mm sieve 0 %


Material retained on the 37.5 mm sieve 0 %

Accredited for compliance with Report issued by: Owen Timothy


ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing
Date issued: 26/06/2020
The results of the tests included
in this document are traceable to
Australian and national standards. Compaction V6 Page 1 of 1
GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Moisture Content Report Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory


17 Redwood Drive
Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Laboratory Geotesta Project Geotech Client Geotesta

Report No L1698 Project No GE7586 Client ID -

Sample ID As below Location 33 Jacksons Rd Address Level 1, 7 Business Drive

Borehole ID As below Mt Eliza Notting Hill VIC 3168

Sample submitted by client Tested as received

Test method: AS1289.2.1.1 - Oven Drying Method

Sample ID Location/Depth Sample Description Moisture Content (%)


6209 [email protected] Sandy CLAY 19.3
6210 [email protected] Clayey SAND 13.6
6211 [email protected] Silty CLAY 27.7
6212 [email protected] Silty CLAY 25.4
6213 [email protected] Silty CLAY 21.1
6214 [email protected] Clayey SAND 10.5
6215 [email protected] Silty CLAY 29.4
6216 [email protected] Silty CLAY 19.2
6217 [email protected] Silty CLAY 16.6
6218 [email protected] Silty CLAY 18.0

Comments
Test method: AS 1289.2.1.1

Accredited for compliance with


ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing

The results of the tests included in Report issued by: Owen Timothy
this document are traceable to
Australian and national standards. Date issued: 26/06/2020

Document: Moisture Content V2 Page 1 of 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


PLASTICITY INDEX & LINEAR SHRINKAGE OF A SOIL
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.3.1.2, AS 1289.3.2.1, AS 1289.3.3.1, AS 1289.3.4.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6219

LOCATION: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 24/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Silty CLAY, Reddish Brown REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

LIQUID LIMIT:SINGLE POINT CASAGRANDE METHOD

LIQUID LIMIT (%) 74


AS 1289.3.1.2

PLASTIC LIMIT (%) 22


AS 1289.3.2.1

PLASTICITY INDEX (%) 52


AS 1289.3.3.1

NATURE OF SHRINKAGE

LINEAR SHRINKAGE (%) 10.5 FLAT


AS 1289.3.4.1

Sample Preparation:
DRY SEIVED
OVEN-DRIED ≤ 50 ⁰C

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Lvl 1, 7 Business Park Drive, Nottinghill VIC 3168

Worksheet WS002 v3 Date 09/10/2019 1]


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


PLASTICITY INDEX & LINEAR SHRINKAGE OF A SOIL
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.3.1.2, AS 1289.3.2.1, AS 1289.3.3.1, AS 1289.3.4.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6220

LOCATION: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 24/08/2020

TEST ITEM: Silty CLAY, Reddish Brown REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

LIQUID LIMIT:SINGLE POINT CASAGRANDE METHOD

LIQUID LIMIT (%) 91


AS 1289.3.1.2

PLASTIC LIMIT (%) 23


AS 1289.3.2.1

PLASTICITY INDEX (%) 68


AS 1289.3.3.1

NATURE OF SHRINKAGE

LINEAR SHRINKAGE (%) 14.5 CURLING


AS 1289.3.4.1

Sample Preparation:
DRY SEIVED
OVEN-DRIED ≤ 50 ⁰C

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Lvl 1, 7 Business Park Drive, Nottinghill VIC 3168

Worksheet WS002 v3 Date 09/10/2019 1]


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD


PLASTICITY INDEX & LINEAR SHRINKAGE OF A SOIL
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.3.1.2, AS 1289.3.2.1, AS 1289.3.3.1, AS 1289.3.4.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6221

LOCATION: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 24/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Silty CLAY, Light Brown REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

LIQUID LIMIT:SINGLE POINT CASAGRANDE METHOD

LIQUID LIMIT (%) 45


AS 1289.3.1.2

PLASTIC LIMIT (%) 19


AS 1289.3.2.1

PLASTICITY INDEX (%) 26


AS 1289.3.3.1

NATURE OF SHRINKAGE

LINEAR SHRINKAGE (%) 9 CRACKED


AS 1289.3.4.1

Sample Preparation:
DRY SEIVED
OVEN-DRIED ≤ 50 ⁰C

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Lvl 1, 7 Business Park Drive, Nottinghill VIC 3168

Worksheet WS002 v3 Date 09/10/2019 1]


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.2)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6222


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 22/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Clayey SAND trace Gravels REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 90
0.600 73
0.425 64
9.5 100 0.300 57
4.75 100 0.150 32
2.36 97 0.075 27

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.2)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6223


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 22/06/2020

TEST ITEM: SAND with Gravels and Clay REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 70
0.600 63
19.0 100 0.425 47
9.5 92 0.300 35
4.75 78 0.150 17
2.36 72 0.075 9

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6224


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 22/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Clayey SAND trace Gravels, Light Grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 80
0.600 54
19.0 100 0.425 46
9.5 99 0.300 41
4.75 98 0.150 25
2.36 95 0.075 19

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6225


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 23/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Sandy CLAY, Light Grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 99
0.600 97
0.425 92
9.5 100 0.300 83
4.75 100 0.150 58
2.36 99 0.075 41

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6226


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 23/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Sandy CLAY trace Gravels REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 97
0.600 90
0.425 87
9.5 100 0.300 85
4.75 99 0.150 67
2.36 98 0.075 59

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6227


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 23/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Clayey SAND, brown red with grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 99
0.600 95
0.425 84
0.300 72
4.75 100 0.150 41
2.36 100 0.075 29

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6228


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 23/05/2020

TEST ITEM: Sandy CLAY trace Gravels, Light Grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 85
26.0 100 0.600 78
19.0 94 0.425 75
9.5 91 0.300 73
4.75 88 0.150 48
2.36 87 0.075 37

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1


Geotesta Pty Ltd
17 Redwood Drive,Notting Hill,VIC 3168

TEST REPORT T. 03 9562 9135


E. [email protected]

GEOTESTA PTY LTD ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS LABORTATORY


PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tested in Accordance with AS 1289.2.1.1 & AS 1289.3.6.1
Sampled in accordance with AS 1289.1.2.1 (6.5.3)

CLIENT: Geotesta JOB No.: GE7586

PROJECT: 33 Jacksons Rd , Mt Eliza SAMPLE No: 6229


BH Location: [email protected] DATE TESTED: 23/06/2020

TEST ITEM: Sandy CLAY, Light Grey REPORT No.: L1698 _Issue 1

Particle Size Distribution


100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Particle Size (mm)

SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE (mm) PERCENT PASSING

1.18 94
0.600 92
19.0 100 0.425 91
9.5 99 0.300 89
4.75 97 0.150 58
2.36 96 0.075 46

Notes:

Approved Signatory: (Owen Timothy) Date: 26/06/2020

Accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025


The results of this test and/or measurements included
in this document are traceable to Australian National Standards

Accreditation No. 19167

Client's Address: Level 1, 7 Business Drive, Notting Hill Vic 3168

Worksheet v2 WS003 Date 09/10/2019 1

You might also like