SITE RISK ASSESSMENT

LOT 2SP130834 CUMNER RD (SCHOOL SITE), WHITE ROCK

Department of Housing and Public Works

REPORT NO. 2533R100B

16 August 2018

REV DATE COMMENTS AUTHOR REVIEWED AUTHORISED

A 8 Aug 2018 Final to client RM / DWL BL BL

B 16 Aug 2018 Final to client RM / DWL BL BL
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Report Scope and Structure ..............................................................................................................1
1.1 References ..............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................................................1
2. Current Investigations ...............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Investigation Activities .............................................................................................................................3
2.2 Regional Geology ..................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Site Description/Geological Findings ..................................................................................................4
2.4 Subsurface conditions encountered ...................................................................................................4
3. Correlation with Geophysical Data ..........................................................................................................6
3.1 Comparative Location of Boreholes to Geophysical Survey............................................................6
3.2 Comparison of Resistivity Data to encountered Logged Material Units .........................................7
3.3 Interpretation of Geophysical Data based on Borehole Profiles ......................................................9
3.4 Nature of Fault Materials ................................................................................................................... 11
4. Engineering Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 12
5. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 15
Important Information about your FSG Report ........................................................................................ 16

Appendix A Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

Appendix B Geotechnical Borehole Logs

2533R100B 16 August 2018 i

1. Introduction
Department of Housing and Public Works (HPW) has engaged Foundation Specialists Group (FSG) to
perform a geotechnical investigation as part of the requirement for geotechnical risk assessment required
at Lot 2 / SP130834 (adjacent Cumner Rd) in White Rock for the proposed development at Ripley.
This technical memorandum provides the assessment based on the information gathered during the field
works as detailed in section 1.1.

1.1 Report Scope and Structure

The scope of works covered in this geotechnical report includes:
• Details of the current investigations undertaken; and
• Review of available information gained from the completed geophysical survey of the site
(resistivity investigation method); and
• Assessment of the ‘risk’ associated with the proposed site development from information obtained
from these additional Boreholes and the geophysical data provided.
Where this report is to be used by contractors for tendering purposes, refer to the attached notes relating to
geotechnical reports and their limitations. The assessment and recommendations contained within this
report are based on available information at the time of writing. Should any modifications be made to the
current design, the information contained within may become inaccurate or void.
This report covers 2 boreholes used to correlate with the geophysical investigation carried out by others.

1.1 References
Information contained within the following documents have been used for the completion of this report
detailed herein:
[1] Geophysical mapping of the fault structures, white Rock, QLD. Project 17088MORE, Gap Geophyiscs
Australia Pty Ltd, dated 18th February 2018
[2] Drawings 21930B, Ground Survey Drawings 40 Sheets, B&P Surveys Consulting Surveyors, dated 4th
April 2017
[3] Drawings RD2 105, Draft RAL Concept, White Rock Ripley, Yarrabilba, QLD, Rev [B]

1.2 Project Background

Prior to the site investigation FSG completed an initial review of the provided report – Geophysical mapping
of the fault structures, White Rock, QLD, prepared by Gap Geophysics Australia Pty. Ltd. For Intrapac
Property Pty. Ltd. (Document reference: 17088MORE_Prelim_Report_ERI_180116, dated January 2018).
The report details the geophysical survey of the site via Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) survey
techniques, completed in three (3) phases between August 2017 and January 2018. It is understood that the
majority of the survey lines were completed in approximately parallel lines orientated SW / NE, with two (2)
longer ‘tie lines’ (designated lines 11 & 12) orientated.
From our review, the major items relating to the assessment of geotechnical conditions identified within the
provided geophysical survey report include:
• The presence of a series of near-vertical dipping geological fault structures.
o Ten faults (identified as “Fault B” through “Fault F”) are orientated approximately parallel to each
other and run approximately NW / SE across the site.
o Interpreted fault nature included varying vertical displacement of between 0 and 20 m of similar
material units
• The subsurface profile appears to include:
o Comparatively high resistivity – high strength (silicified) SANDSTONE rock

2533R100B 16 August 2018 1

 o Low resistivity units – interpreted as being ‘alluvial’ or “Soil like” (Clay / Shale / Silty material)
conditions – at depths of between (especially in the Eastern portions of the site
o Discontinuity of, and varying layering order / thickness between, the high and low resistivity units
was observed throughout the site
However, it is noted that the report states, especially for the ‘tie-in’ survey lines, that there is “little correlation
between the models which has made interpretation very difficult”. This lack of correlation has been largely
attributed to the very low apparent dip angle of the materials present at the site. The major recommendation
of the geophysical report regarding further work is that “field geology mapping be undertaken, as well as
some boreholes be developed to assess the presence and nature of the interpreted fault traces presented in
this report.”
It is also noted that the provided report references previous work / studies of the site that have not been
reviewed by FSG. Similarly, the exact extents of the site were not identified in the reviewed report.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 2

2. Current Investigations
Test locations for this investigation were positioned along fault F and fault E at the southern boundary of
the proposed school site. The objectives of the investigation were:
• Characterisation of subsurface conditions; and
• Provision of the factual data to assist the interpretation of the geophysical data.

2.1 Investigation Activities

The field works for the project was undertaken between 14th and 18th June 2018 under the supervision of an
experienced FSG Geotechnical Engineer. The investigations were carried out in general accordance with
approved FSG environmental, health and safety management plans and AS1726-2017 “Geotechnical Site
Investigations” with works comprising of 2 boreholes to depths varied between 14 and 17.6m below ground
level with SPTs samples taken at 1.5m intervals in suitable strata. Where rock was encountered NMLC
coring was undertaken to the required depth as stated in the brief. The boreholes were drilled to the
nominated depth in the brief using a truck mounted Hydrapower scout.
Due to access limitations for the drilling rig, and existing trees, target positions had to be adjusted
accordingly. The 2 BHs drilled are positioned on the interpreted geophysical fault lines provided to FSG.
The stratigraphy of the boreholes was logged, noting changes in consistency, colour of differing stratum
along with other relevant properties. Borehole logs are contained in Appendix B.

2.2 Regional Geology

Reference to the Geoldata - Queensland geological mapping (polygonised vector) data owned by The
State of Queensland as represented by the Department of Employment, Economic Development and
Innovation (DEEDI) indicates that the alignment is primarily underlain by Ripley Road Sandstone Group
Figure 2-1 illustrates the geological formation at BH1 and BH2 location.

RJbwr, Ripley Road Sandstone

Qa, Alluvium

Figure 2-1 Geological Map

2533R100B 16 August 2018 3

Table 2-1 Description for Figure 2-1

Unit Dominant Rock Symbol Age Description

Ripley Road
Sandstone Triassic -
Arenite RJbwr Sublabile To Quartzose Sandstone, Minor Mudstone
Jurassic

Qa-Qld (Qa) Quaternary Alluvium Qa Quaternary Clay, silt, sand and gravel; flood-plain alluvium

2.3 Site Description/Geological Findings

The site is located at White Rock, Queensland to the south of Centenary Highway. The general
topography along the site southern boundary is gentle sloping terrain (i.e. 4% grade) falling from east to
west.
The general topography in vicinity of both locations was generally comprising flat area at the time
investigation. No free groundwater was observed during the course of the field work. However, seepage
may be encountered following periods of wet weather, particularly along the clay/gravel interfaces. It should
be noted during the investigation no water return was observed at BH02 location at approximately 6.70 m
below ground level.
BH1 was drilled to the south west of the proposed school site, approximately where Fault E is positioned
and between geological survey line of 7A and 8.
BH2 was drilled to the south east of the proposed school site, approximately where Fault F is positioned
and between geological survey line of 8 and 8A.
The coordinates presented on the logs were recorded using handheld GPS.

2.4 Subsurface conditions encountered

Detailed descriptions of the subsoils are presented in the borehole logs appended. The following sections
describe in general the subsurface conditions encountered across the various areas of the site.

2.4.1 Topsoil
Topsoil consisted of medium dense grey brown Silty SAND encountered to about 0.7 m below ground level
(BGL) in the borehole drilled in this area.

2.4.2 Residual soil

The residual material generally comprised of Brown/grey sandy CLAY and Silty/Clayey SAND. Generally,
very stiff sandy residual CLAY or medium dense silty residual SAND were intersected in the boreholes at
approximately 0.7 m BGL. The residual soil is inferred to underlay Topsoil soil. The residual soil overlies
the weathered Sandstone bedrock.

2.4.3 Bedrock
Weathered bedrock was intersected in all the boreholes at depths ranging from 2.5 to 4.0m BGL. The
bedrock encountered during the investigation include sandstone from slightly to extremely weathered and
extremely low to very high strength rock to the limits of the boreholes, the deepest being BH01, which was
terminated at 17.58 BGL.
Based on the results of the boreholes, the stratigraphy at borehole location has been determined and is
summarised in Table 2-2.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 4

Table 2-2 Summary of Generalised Subsurface material encountered at BH1 and BH2

Depth
BH ID Material Strength
From To
0- 0.7 Topsoil Loose - Medium Dense
0.7-1.3 Sandy CLAY/ Clayey SAND Firm - Stiff / Medium Dense
BH01-18 1.3-4.0 Silty SAND Medium Dense
4.0-11.2 XW*- HW* SANDSTONE ELS*- VLS* Strength
11.2-17.58 SW*- FR* SANDSTONE MS*- HS* Strength
0- 0.7 Topsoil Loose - Medium Dense
BH02-18 0.7-2.5 Sandy CLAY/ Clayey SAND Hard / Medium Dense
2.5-14.0 XW*- HW* SANDSTONE with Mudstone layering ELS*- VLS* Strength
*XW; Extremely Weathered, HW; Highly Weathered, SW; Slightly Weathered, FR: Fresh

ELS=Extremely Low Strength, VLS= Very Low Strength, MS= Medium Strength, HS= High Strength

2533R100B 16 August 2018 5

3. Correlation with Geophysical Data
The site under consideration was traversed by a geophysical (electrical resistivity) survey undertaken by Gap
Geophysics Australia Pty Ltd between August 2017 and January 2018. Partial results of this survey were
supplied to FSG by the Client in electronic format, in which the data had been processed and inverted as per
the geophysical consultant’s methodology. FSG has reviewed the provided geophysical data and correlated
the factual geophysical information with the subsurface profile encountered within each borehole.
This chapter of the report details the methodology undertaken to correlate the results of both the geophysical
and borehole site investigations, and the extrapolation of the available information to make interpretations
regarding the likely subsurface profile across the HPW site.

3.1 Comparative Location of Boreholes to Geophysical Survey

The borehole locations were situated approximately on the previously completed geophysical survey lines
as shown in Figure 3-1. Based on this overlay, the following offsets were estimated between the borehole
locations, the nearest geophysical survey lines and the faults inferred by the provided geophysical data
interpretation:
• Borehole BH01-18:
o Borehole located directly upon ‘Fault E’
o Located approximately 37 m offset from Survey Line 8, perpendicular to approximately Ch.
162 m of the survey line (i.e. nearest geophysical survey line)
o Located approximately 78 m offset from Survey Line 7A, perpendicular to approximately
Ch. 60 m of the geophysical survey line
o Located approximately 78 m offset from Survey Line 11, perpendicular to approximately
Ch. 350 m of the geophysical survey line
• Borehole BH02-18:
o Borehole located directly upon ‘Fault F’
o Located approximately 54 m offset from Survey Line 8, perpendicular to approximately Ch.
305 m of the geophysical survey line (i.e. nearest geophysical survey line)
o Located approximately 70 m offset from Survey Line 8A, perpendicular to approximately
Ch. 275 m of the survey line
o Located approximately 80 m offset from Survey Line 11, perpendicular to approximately
Ch. 260 m of the geophysical survey line

Figure 3-1 Location of completed borehole overlaid upon geophysical survey lines (underlying imagery taken
from Ref. 1)

2533R100B 16 August 2018 6

3.2 Comparison of Resistivity Data to encountered Logged Material Units
The subsurface profiles observed within each borehole were overlaid upon the provided geophysical sections
that demonstrated the resistivity (in W.m units) along each geophysical survey line. As shown in Figure 3-2,
the interpreted material units were placed at the relative location of the borehole upon the survey line.

Figure 3-2 Example of borehole location and extents projected onto nearby geophysical survey lines (Survey
Line 08 shown)

In the electronic format supplied to FSG, the geophysical data processed for each 2-D cross section provided
as an individual data file. Data points provided as regular gridded points on an approximately 0.35 x 0.35 m
grid, with resistivity levels reported at regular depth intervals varying between 0.3 and 0.35 m. FSG have
isolated the data within 5.0 m of the projected borehole location (i.e. 2.5 m either side of the projected
borehole location), and overlaid the depth interval of the logged material units onto the resistivity data. From
this data isolation and assessment, the reported resistivity was extracted for each material unit logged within
the completed borehole, as summarised in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 for BH01-18 and BH02-18 respectively.

Table 3-1 BH01-18 – Comparison between logged material profile and available Resistivity Data

Geophysical Resistivity (W.m)

Borehole Material Unit and description (Consistency,
Depth Interval Survey Line /
ID Strength weathering) Range Average CoV
Chainage

0.0 – 0.7 m Topsoil (Granular) – Loose to Medium Dense 50.1 – 98.4 88.5 17.2 %
0.7 – 1.3 m Sandy CLAY (Residual) – Firm to Stiff 49.2 – 98.4 88.1 17.9 %
1.3 – 4.0 m Silty SAND (Residual) – Medium Dense 45.2 – 98.4 86.2 18.6 %
SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND) – Extremely Survey Line 8
4.0 – 10.0 m 17.0 – 92.8 52.8 44.5 %
Weathered, Extremely Low Strength (Offset ~37 m)
BH01-18
SANDSTONE – Highly Weathered, Very Low – Ch. 159.5 to
10.0 – 11.2 m Ch. 164.5 m 16.1 – 25.9 21.8 10.7 %
Strength
SANDSTONE – Moderately Weathered,
11.2 – 12.0 m 14.1 – 20.0 17.3 8.8 %
Medium Strength
SANDSTONE – Slightly Weathered to Fresh,
12.0 – 17.58 m 14.0 – 24.0 17.3 12.8 %
High Strength
0.0 – 0.7 m Topsoil (Granular) – Loose to Medium Dense 36.1 – 44.1 40.2 7.9 %
0.7 – 1.3 m Sandy CLAY (Residual) – Firm to Stiff 36.8 – 44.0 40.5 7.6 %
1.3 – 4.0 m Silty SAND (Residual) – Medium Dense 37.0 – 44.0 41.2 6.1 %
SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND) – Extremely
4.0 – 10.0 m Survey Line 7A 40.4 – 47.0 44.1 2.1 %
Weathered, Extremely Low Strength
BH01-18 (Offset ~78 m)
SANDSTONE – Highly Weathered, Very Low – Ch. 57.5 to
10.0 – 11.2 m 45.2 – 54.0 48.6 4.9 %
Strength Ch. 62.5 m
SANDSTONE – Moderately Weathered,
11.2 – 12.0 m 47.1 – 58.6 52.0 6.1 %
Medium Strength
SANDSTONE – Slightly Weathered to Fresh,
12.0 – 17.58 m 49.9 – 74.3 65.0 10.2 %
High Strength

2533R100B 16 August 2018 7

Table 3-2 BH02-18 – Comparison between logged material profile and available Resistivity Data

Geophysical Resistivity (W.m)

Borehole Material Unit and description
Depth Interval Survey Line /
ID (Consistency, Strength weathering) Range Average CoV
Chainage
Topsoil (Granular) – Loose to Medium
0.0 – 0.7 m Survey Line 8 66.2 – 77.5 74.5 4.2 %
Dense
BH02-18 0.7 – 2.5 m Sandy CLAY (Residual) – Hard (Offset ~54 m) 66.6 – 77.6 74.7 4.0 %
– Ch. 302.5 to
SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND) – Extremely Ch. 307.5 m
2.5 – 14.0 m 67.3 – 214.3 108.8 38.9 %
Weathered, Extremely Low Strength
Topsoil (Granular) – Loose to Medium
0.0 – 0.7 m Survey Line 8A 170.9 – 177.8 173.9 1.4 %
Dense
BH02-18 0.7 – 2.5 m Sandy CLAY (Residual) – Hard (Offset ~70 m) 170.9 – 177.7 173.7 1.3 %
– Ch. 272.5 to
SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND) – Extremely Ch. 277.5 m
2.5 – 14.0 m 5.7 – 165.2 54.7 87.9 %
Weathered, Extremely Low Strength

The table highlights (in red) the high coefficient of variation (COV) for the resistivity results for the
SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND) – Extremely Weathered, Extremely Low Strength. The high COV is indicative
of results which lack precision and therefore subject to variable interpretation.
Graphical comparisons between the logged materials recovered during the borehole drilling and the
individual resistivity profiles of the available geophysical lines are presented in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 for
each of the completed boreholes, showing the variation and average resistivity profile overlaid upon the
logged subsurface profile.

Figure 3-3 BH01-18 – Resistivity profiles (average and envelope) overlaid upon logged sub-surface profile

2533R100B 16 August 2018 8

 Figure 3-4 BH02-18 – Resistivity profiles (average and envelope) overlaid upon logged sub-surface profile

3.3 Interpretation of Geophysical Data based on Borehole Profiles

As can be seen from the completed comparison, there was no consistent relationship developed between
the logged material unit and strength and the resistivity test results. Specifically, there appears to be:
• No consistent increase in resistivity values when rock materials were encountered (i.e. soil vs. rock
materials):
o The residual soil profile overlying a weathered rock profile was encountered in both boreholes,
which would be expected to produce a gradational increase in the resistivity value due to the likely
decreasing clay content and increasing material density with depth.
o However, from the available results the only borehole-resistivity comparison that resulted in the
expected resistivity improvement with depth was BH01-18 compared to the nearest point of
geophysical survey line 07A.
o At other locations, the resistivity values associated with the soil material component of the
subsurface (i.e. top 4.0 m and 2.5 m depth interval in BH01-18 and BH02-18 respectively) were
higher than that observed at depths were extremely weathered rock materials were encountered.
• No consistent increase in resistivity values as SANDSTONE rock strength improved / weathering state
decreased –
o Rock materials were encountered in all boreholes, with BH01-18 encountering both extremely
weathered / extremely low strength rock overlying slightly weathered / high strength
SANDSTONE. In BH02-18, only extremely weathered / extremely low strength rock was
encountered. It would be expected that the resistivity value would increase as the rock strength
increased / weathering effects of rock mass decreased.
o In both boreholes, a heavily broken rock mass (RQD = 0) was encountered until moderately
weathered, medium strength materials were intersected. Accordingly, the resistivity value would
be expected to increase as the rock strength improves due to decreased infill (clay), existence of
fractures and weathering effects.
o However, the expected response was only observed when the BH01-18 data was projected onto
the 07A geophysical survey line, in which there was an approximate 50% increase in the resistivity
values associated between slightly weathered, high strength SANDSTONE and extremely
weathered, extremely low strength SANDSTONE materials.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 9

 o Although geophysical survey line 08 was situated closer to the location of BH01-18 than the 07A
geophysical line, an inverse of the expected response was noted, whereby extremely low
resistivity values (< 25 W.m) were located at the same depth as slightly weathered, high strength
rock materials were encountered within the borehole. A similar response was observed when
BH02-18 was compared to the 08A geophysical survey line, in which extremely low resistivity
values (< 25 W.m) were observed at depths in which extremely low SANDSTONE rock mass was
encountered.
o Borehole BH02-18 compared to the nearest geophysical survey line (Line 08) showed a
significant increase in resistivity value with depth (126% increase), however the distinct depth of
increase did not match a logged material unit change (e.g. logged rock strength increases or
weathering state change). This may be due to the variation in rock weathering depth across the
site resulting in a mismatch of rock material profiles when the borehole data is projected onto the
geophysical survey data.
• No consistent or unique resistivity value / ranges returned for specific soil and/or rock material units –
o The resistivity values attributable to each material unit logged during the borehole site
investigation – range and average values, as detailed in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 – does not
appear to be consistent for any particular material unit. Typically, average resistivity values within
a specific material unit appear to vary by an order of approximately 2, as shown in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-5 Average resistivity value observed from each comparison, categorised by material unit
o The resistivity values attributed to each logged material unit show significant overlap, based on
the range of values observed within each geophysical survey line and borehole. This is consistent
with the recommendations previously provided in [Ref. 1] in which the proposed range of resistivity
values associated with “Quaternary Alluvium” and the “Ripley Road Sandstone” should significant
overlap to values between 100 and 1,000 W.m. The following notes are made in terms of the
correlation current borehole investigation and previous recommendations:
▪ Quaternary Alluvium – not specifically encountered during completion of boreholes, so no
validation can be made with previous recommendations
▪ Ripley Road SANDSTONE – previous recommendation suggested a resistivity range of 100
to 1,500 W.m. Current borehole investigations have suggested a much lower bound (e.g.
approx. 20 W.m) would be applicable to such material units
▪ Residual Soils (Sandy CLAY & Silty SAND) – A range of between 40 and 175 W.m was
observed throughout the correlations. Such a range significantly overlaps the values
associated with the Ripley Road SANDSTONE unit, due to the lack of a consistent resistivity
response of the SANDSTONE being observed onsite (as previously detailed).

2533R100B 16 August 2018 10

This disparity between borehole recovered materials and the typical resistivity values in the adjacent
geophysical survey lines could be due to the distance between the boreholes and the geophysical survey
lines, and the presence of geological structures and changes in the nature of the rock mass between the
data sets being compared.
However, due to such variation being observed and the lack of a clear correlation between resistivity values
and the borehole logged near-surface material units, then further extrapolation of inferred subsurface units
across the footprint of the school site based on the results of geophysical data alone is considered
inappropriate. This assessment is considered consistent with [Ref. 1] in which it was found the lack of
“correlation between the models [resistivity 2D sections)] … makes interpretation very difficult.”

3.4 Nature of Fault Materials

Although the resistivity data cannot be explicitly matched to specific material units and thus extrapolated
across the proposed school site, some observations regarding the nature of the fault materials can be
assessed based on the recovered materials.
BH01-18 was located directly on the location of ‘Fault E’, which had been designated a ‘major fault’ by the
initial interpretation of the geophysical survey results [Ref. 1]. When projected onto the nearest geophysical
survey line (Line 08), the borehole location appears to extended through an initial ~5 m depth interval of
comparatively high resistivity (~85 W.m) prior to intersecting a zone of low resistivity (< 30 W.m, to a depth
of approx. 20m). However, the borehole drilling encountered a typical residual soil (4.0 m thick) and
SANDSTONE rock weathering profile, where extremely weathered (extremely low strength) rock extended
to a depth of 10.0 m prior to encountering a high strength material to the end of the borehole (17.58 m
depth).
BH02-18 was located directly on the expected alignment of ‘Fault F’, also a ‘major fault’ as identified by the
geophysical test results [Ref. 1]. The borehole was extended to 14 m depth, and encountered a typical
residual soil profile (2.5 m thick) overlying and extended depth of extremely weathered, extremely low
strength SANDSTONE.
Both boreholes were completed on the location / alignment of ‘major faults’ and both boreholes
encountered SANDSTONE rock materials once a depth of no more than 4.0 m was drilled. Although a very
fragmented and very low strength rock mass was noted to exist at these locations, there was no identified
fault gouge or evidence of recent material movement (e.g. slicken-sided defect surfaces).
Accordingly, based on the results of the borehole drilling of the major fault locations at the boundary of the
school site, it is expected the nature of the identified faults is largely be confined to a heavily defected /
fragmented, extremely low strength rock mass. Such materials would be expected to be easily excavated
due to their heavily fractured nature. If cuttings of significant vertical height were required at the site, slope
stability issues may be experienced if unfavourable joint sets are encountered. However, it would be
expected that surface treatments of exposed cutting surfaces would suitably control such issues.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 11

4. Engineering Assessment
This section of the report includes general recommendations and risk assessment for construction on this
land (that may impact on the cost of development and building design) given the data provided in this
report. Specifically, the following is outlined:
• Reliability of geophysical measurements
• Trafficability and Excavation Characteristics
• Foundations
• Requirements for further investigation

The borehole data does not indicate any unusual ground conditions that would limit the use of this site for “usual”
construction activities. Overall this site has competent bearing. Certain deep areas are “hard” rock which may have
excavatability issues but development is unlikely to reach that depth. Additional site investigation is required when details
of type of structures and loads are known.

4.1 Electrical Resistivity background

The following is taken directly from the web sites shown to provide an over view of the electrical properties
of various materials, and states resistivity is a variable measurement. This variability is supported by the
lack of direct correlation from the 2 boreholes drilled. The geophysical survey showed resistivity values of
100 to 500 Ωm which suggests values typical of the sandstone rock according to the below figures. Yet the
bore logs observed extremely weathered sandstone rock at resistivity values of 20 Ωm.
There is a significant risk of ground mis-interpretation if resistivity is used to directly/only to evaluate the
site. Boreholes and/or test pits should be used to evaluate the foundation conditions

https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/ubcgif/iag/foundations/properties/resistivity.htm

However, it would be prudent to consider any electrical resistivity values in the 100 to 500 Ωm as indicative
of less weathered rock which would need to be confirmed by borehole testing. These possible stronger
areas are generally about 10m depth, but with possible local higher-level areas (Refer Figure 3-2 and
geophysical report).
Additionally, while fault lines were identified in the geophysical survey, the 2 boreholes drilled a 10-metre
minimum of overlying crust of soils and extremely weathered rock. This crust provides a significant “cover”
for any fault at depth. Note these 2 boreholes were drilled at the location of the inferred fault – but did not

2533R100B 16 August 2018 12

intersect any fault line to the depths drilled. This suggests at the very least the inferred fault lines from the
geophysical survey may not be at these positions, and/or are not “major” or may not even be present.

4.2 Trafficability
At the time of the field investigation, trafficability was considered to be adequate.
However, where loose silty sands overlie clays, as is the situation on site, seepage may occur through the
sands and along the sand/clay interface resulting in a subsequent loss of strength. This may limit
trafficability and create difficulties for earthworks operations. This situation would be more pronounced if
rainfall followed initial clearing, stripping and grubbing.
Problems may also arise from disturbance of the upper level soil fabric with removal of vegetation.
Depressions could be formed resulting in water traps and potential softening of adjacent and underlying
soils.
Problems with trafficability could also arise from disturbance of the upper soil layers as a result of removal
of vegetation i.e. tree roots and underground elements such as services, footings etc. Resulting
depressions could also cause ponding of water and softening of adjacent and underlying soils.

4.3 Excavation Characteristics

When auguring, the bits are attached to the flight auger.
The limit of the ‘TC’ bit is indicative of the limit of excavations of a medium sized dozer in bulk excavation
(Cat D 7E, D8) or a large excavator in trench excavation (Kato or Hymac). At the 2 boreholes drilled at this
site, the TC-Bit limit was reached at 2.5m depth.
Generally, below the ‘TC’ bit limit, compressor driven pneumatic tools or hydraulic rock breakers would be
required for excavation.
Ripping depths can be significantly increased when the rock is bedded, laminated and highly jointed. The
nature of the rock and inherent planes of weakness therefore play an important part in rock excavation
assessment.
At this site an extremely weathered rock profile to 10m and 14m (end of borehole) depth was observed at
BHs 1 and 2, respectively.
It is considered that excavations could be carried out to the depths of the ‘TC’ bit limit using the appropriate
plant as indicated above. Below the depth of the ’TC” bit limit, larger plant or specialised attachments e.g.
rock breakers may be required for the proposed construction. Some budgeting should be allocated for the
possibility of encountering zones of stronger rock.
It should be noted that the ability to drill piers in the weathered rock material is not only dependent on
material characteristics but also the type (power and size) of the bored pier drilling rig, drilling teeth, size of
pier, etc. It is recommended that the drilling contractors are consulted on this matter.

4.4 Building Foundations

Given the subsurface profile encountered, a high-level strip or pad footing would generally be acceptable
for buildings.
Foundations on the stiff residual clays would have an allowable bearing capacity of over 100 kPa. This
generally improves with depth.
The extremely weathered sandstone rock would have an allowable bearing capacity of over 500 kPa.

4.5 Additional Site Investigation

A site classification in accordance with AS 2870 “Residential Slabs and Footings” relates to residential type
construction and is not directly applicable for this development, but, however, is a valuable method of site
classification. Shrink-swell index testing should be carried out when details of the building types and
foundations are known.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 13

Cut and fill requirements are not known at this stage, but expected to be minor.
At the building locations, boreholes and/or test pits should be carried out every 30m to 40m spacing. If the
footings are known, then the depth of investigation should be below the expected founding level to a further
exploratory depth of 4 X width of shallow footing. If details of building loads and footing depths are
unknown then the minimum depth of investigation should extend to TC drill bit refusal or 1 metre into the
weathered sandstone, whichever is the greater.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 14

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Two boreholes were completed at the nominate locations proposed by Department of Housing and Public
Works and borehole logs are attached. The geology and ground capacities vary between the 2 sites.
A correlation between the subsurface material unit encountered during borehole drilling and the nearest
available geophysical resistivity survey data has been attempted. The variation in the magnitude of
resistivity response is fully detailed herein, however the significant variation in the resistivity vs. depth
datasets provided did not consistently reflect the logged variation in the subsurface profile applicable to
each borehole. Accordingly, a reinterpretation of the geophysical dataset to classify the subsurface across
the extents of the proposed school site was not considered to be appropriate based on the ambiguity of the
resistivity vs. borehole logged material unit dataset.
The boreholes were completed directly upon the alignment of two (2) of the major faults that traverse the
proposed school site. However, both boreholes presented a subsurface profile comprised of a residual soil
overlying extremely weather SANDSTONE rock materials. Although the rock materials were found to be
highly fragmented and of extremely low strength to significant depths (> 10 m from current ground surface),
no significant evidence of recent material movement or separation between rock units (i.e. fault gauge or
soil materials) was observed within the extents of the boreholes.
At these 2 borehole locations, the resistivity measurements suggest a material change / decrease in
strength or weathering at the lower depths. This is not evident in the 2 boreholes with no strength /
weathering or material inversion logged.
We therefore do not recommend using the resistivity information directly as an indication of the above
properties. The “global” highs and lows shown in the resistivity tests may be used for preliminary
assessment of likely material differences change but any detailed assessment must be calibrated with
borehole information targeting those extreme locations.
Note that the boreholes did not extend through any areas of extremely high resistivity (max. encountered ~
200 W.m), and accordingly no assessment of the condition of the likely high strength, massive rock
materials associated with such resistivity values (up to 1,500 W.m) has been made during the site work
completed and detailed herein.
An overview of the reliability of electrical resistivity measurement and an engineering assessment based on
the borehole data was provided.

We draw your attention to attached Important Information about your FSG Report, which contains some
important information about your FSG Report.
Finally, we draw your attention to the attached Important Information about your FSG report.
Please contact the undersigned if any further information or clarification is required.

Regards,

David Lacey Burt Look

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal

2533R100B 16 August 2018 15

Important Information about your FSG Report
Deep foundation and geotechnical engineering problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims and
disputes. The following information is provided to help you to understand this report and its limitations and manage your risks.

Scope and Applicability of this Report

This report has been prepared for a specific purpose and scope and its applicability is limited. FSG cannot accept any responsibility
for the use of this report outside of the stated scope and purpose. If a service has not been explicitly included in the scope, it must be
assumed that it has not been provided. Assessment of soil or groundwater contamination does not form part of this geotechnical
report and any reference to any potential site contamination is for information only. If you are uncertain about the applicability of the
results for any particular purpose, you should consult FSG to avoid any misunderstanding or miss-application.

This report has been prepared for the nominated Client and project only and should not be relied upon by other parties, or for other
purposes, without consulting FSG. Any party relying on this report beyond its specific purpose and scope does so entirely at their own
risk and responsibility. FSG does not take responsibility for the use of this document by any other person or party than the Client.

Project Details and Information Provided

This report has been based on project details as provided to us at the time of the commission. We have assumed that the information
supplied to FSG by the client or other external sources on behalf of the client, is correct unless explicitly stated so. FSG does not
accept any responsibility for incomplete or inaccurate data provided by others.

If any project details change during the course of the project or observed conditions are considered to differ from those expected or
assumed, FSG should be notified in order to investigate if and how changes in project details affect the conclusions and
recommendations in our report. If FSG is not consulted when changes are made to the initial project details, we cannot accept any
responsibility for problems arising from these changes.

Geotechnical Information and Interpretation

Site investigations only sample discrete parts of the ground, and that extrapolation and interpolation of collected information can be
used with varying degrees of risk and uncertainty depending on the extent and quality of the site investigation, the variability of the
subsurface conditions and the consequences to the proposed works.

The analyses and recommendations in this report rely on the results of site investigation information, and other reported geotechnical
information that is relevant to the works. This may include the results of pile load testing, other geotechnical testing, and inspections
and observations from studies that have been performed as part of the works or in the vicinity of the works previously.

We have endeavoured to incorporate the available information into an appropriate geotechnical model based on our interpretation of
the likely subsurface conditions. This process, and the geotechnical analysis and interpretation based on that model, is an inexact
science, as a model is but a simplification of reality to derive a geotechnical solution. While we endeavour to incorporate realistic
model parameters, our models, interpretations and the outcomes or our work generally may differ from reality for a range of reasons
including:
• Spatial Variability: Geotechnical and geological variability across the site which may not have been captured in the site
investigation works that have been used in our works. Geotechnical site investigations are very limited in the extent of
physical investigation compared to the size of the entire site. No site investigation, no matter how comprehensive, can
reveal all subsurface details and anomalies and conditions that differ from those observed in the site investigation will occur;
• Temporal Variability: Subsurface conditions can change with time due to man-made events such as cutting or filling or any
construction works on or adjacent to the site which can also affect the site drainage and hence underlying properties; or by
natural events such as floods or groundwater fluctuations.
• Variability in Mechanical Properties: Normal geotechnical variability in the inferred properties of materials represented in the
boreholes, the performance of foundations or other elements that are tested or observed, and the performance of structures
that are in contact with the ground in general. The data collected is only directly relevant to the exact location where the
investigation was undertaken. The subsurface conditions between test locations have been inferred based on judgement
and experience with the facts available at that time and related to the relative position of the proposed works;
• Testing Limitations: Uncertainty associated with geotechnical testing, design correlations associated with those tests or
material descriptions, and case histories from which geotechnical parameters may have been inferred or in design and/or
analysis methods that have been adopted;
• Construction Effects: Variability in the performance of construction equipment, such as hammers, cushions, guides and
associated equipment for piling, construction effects that may influence the way structures interact with the ground, as well
as inaccuracies in data measurement and testing methods that may have been used to record construction processes.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 16

The results provided should be considered as indicative of the best estimate of likely outcomes (or range thereof), and should not be
considered to be definitive or absolute, or represent the full range of possible outcomes at this site. Caution and prudence should be
exercised when making decisions with significant implications for your project. The limitations of this report as outlined herein should
be incorporated in decision making, and appropriate contingencies should be put in place to accommodate unexpected variability in
relation to the works

Geotechnical Modelling
Model parameters that are used may vary in nature depending on the purpose of the analysis. Where it is necessary to make a
realistic evaluation of the soil model, we would normally describe this as a ‘best estimate’ (BE). Depending on the particular
application, it may be important to understand the sensitivity of the solution to soil model changes. We may then also define an
‘upper-bound’ (UB) soil model and a ‘lower-bound’ soil model, being estimates of the likely, strongest and weakest soil conditions
which are anticipated based on the available geotechnical information and inferred geotechnical parameters. In certain
circumstances, such as cases where the ground conditions appear to extremely uncertain or variable, we may also define ‘extreme
upper bound’ (XUB) and ‘extreme lower bound’ (XLB) parameters which are intended to represent the likely extremes of the site
conditions. In all cases, these models are inferred using engineering judgement from the available information and actual conditions
and associated outcomes may differ from those assumed or given in our report, due to the inherent unpredictability of the ground, as
outlined in the preceding section.

It should be noted that depending on the particular application either upper-bound or lower-bound analyses could be deemed
conservative.

Disclaimer
The results, opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by FSG in order to carry
out the work. FSG specifically disclaims responsibility: arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions or the
nature of the proposed works including change in position of the structure or proposed works relative to the available data; to update
this report if the site conditions or project details change or if the report is used after a protracted delay; and for liability arising from
any of the assumptions that have been made or information provided being incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate.

Subject to the terms of an Agreement for Professional Services between FSG and the client, and to the maximum extent permitted by
law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services provided by FSG and this report are excluded.

Closure
Unless otherwise documented by way of a signed agreement for the services provided, all services in preparing this report have been
provided under FSG’s standard Terms and Conditions which are referenced in our fee proposal. The report is specific to the brief
provided with its associated time and cost constraints.

Should you require any further information or clarification in relation to this report, please contact FSG.

2533R100B 16 August 2018 17

 Appendix A
Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

2533R100B 16 August 2018

 Geotechnical Investigation
Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

Introduction
The terms and abbreviations used are generally in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1726–2017 and the
Unified Soil Classification System. Soil and rock descriptions using established field techniques have been recorded
independent of any laboratory test results. As far as is practical the data contained on the log sheets is factual. Some
interpretation is inevitable in the assessment of conditions between samples and of the origin of the materials. Standard
colour charts have not been used.
Assessment of potential site contamination does not form part of this geotechnical report. Any reference to potential
contaminants is for information only, and does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater
contamination.

Secondary and Minor Components

Coarse Grained Soils Fine Grained Soils
Soil Description % Fines Modifier % Coarse Modifier
Soils are generally described on the Engineering Log using the ≤5 ‘trace’ ≤ 15 ‘trace’
following sequence of terms:- >5 to ≤12 ‘with’ >15 to ≤ 30 ‘with’
[Secondary prefix] PRIMARY COMPONENT (USC Symbol): > 12 prefix soil type > 30 prefix soil type
Colour, Plasticity / Particle characteristics, Secondary and minor
components, Moisture, Strength, Structure, Origin.
Colour
Soil Type and Particle Size Described using simple terms. Modified as necessary by ‘pale’,
‘dark’ or ‘mottled.’
Particle
Major Division Sub Division
Size (mm)
Plasticity
Boulders - > 200
Liquid Limit
Cobbles - 63 – 200
Term Field Identification
Coarse 20 – 63 Clay Silt
Coarse Grained Gravel Medium 6 – 20 Cannot be rolled into threads when
Low ≤ 35 ≤ 50
(< 63 mm and Fine 2.36 – 6 moist
> 75 m). Total dry mass of
Coarse 0.6 – 2.36 Medium
>35 to
N/A Rolls into threads when moist
coarse fraction exceeds ≤ 50
65% Sand Medium 0.2 – 0.6
Rolls into threads when moist,
Fine 0.075 – 0.2
High > 50 > 50 greasy, considerable shrinkage on
Fine Grained.35% of total Silt 2 – 75 m drying, cracks when dry
dry mass < 75 m Clay < 2 m
Angularity
Unified Soil Classification (USC) Symbol
Soil Type Symbol Description
GW Well graded gravels, < 5% fines Rounded Sub-rounded Sub-angular Angular
GP Poorly graded gravels, < 5% fines
Gravel Coarse Grained Descriptors
GM Silty gravels, > 12 % fines
GC Clayey gravels, > 12 % fines Term Description

SW Well graded sands, < 5% fines Well graded Having good representation of all sizes

SP Poorly graded sands, < 5% fines Poorly graded One or more sizes poorly represented
Sand
SM Silty sands, > 12 % fines Gap graded With one or more intermediate sizes absent

SC Clayey sands, > 12 % fines Uniformly Essentially of one size

ML Inorganic silt, low plasticity

Silt Moisture Content
MH Inorganic silt, high plasticity
CL Inorganic clay, low plasticity Term Symbol Field Identification
Clay Looks and feels dry, cohesive soils
CH Inorganic clay, high plasticity Dry D
hard and friable
OL Organic silt/clays, low plasticity
Soil feels cool, darkened in colour,
Organic OH Organic silt/clays, high plasticity Moist M
tends to cohere
PT Peat, primarily organic matter Wet W Free water on remoulding

QMS-6020-B Sheet: 1 of 4
 Geotechnical Investigation
Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

Moisture Condition Soil Structure

Term Description Applicable Term for Soil Type
Field Identification
w < PL Moist, dry of plastic limit, hard, friable or powdery Coarse Fine Organic
w ≈ PL Moist, near plastic limit, can be moulded Heterogeneous A mixture of types
w > PL Moist, wet of plastic limit, weakened Deposit consists of
Homogeneous x
essentially of one type
w ≈ LL Wet, near liquid limit
Alternating layers of
w > LL Wet, wet of liquid limit
varying types or with
Interbedded x
bands or lenses of other
Strength of Fine Grained Soils materials

Term Shear x Intact x No fissures

Field Identification
(Symbol) Strength (kPa) Breaks into polyhedral
x Fissured x
fragments
Very Soft Exudes between fingers when
< 12 Polished and striated
(VS) squeezed Slicken-
x x defects caused by motion
Easily moulded by light finger sided
Soft (S) 12 – 25 of adjacent material
pressure
Totally decomposed rock;
Moulded with strong finger
Firm (F) 25 – 50 Residual Soils x no identifiable parent rock
pressure
structure
Readily indented by thumb but
Stiff (St) 50 – 100 Plant remains
cannot be moulded by fingers
x x Fibrous recognizable; retains
Very Stiff some strength
100 – 200 Readily indented by thumb nail
(VSt)
Amor- No recognisable plant
x x
Indented with difficulty by phous remains
Hard (H) > 200
thumb nail, brittle

Friable (Fr) -
Easily crumble or broken into Soil Origin
small pieces by hand
Term Description

Strength of Coarse Grained Soils Mantle of surface/near-surface soil

Top Soil supporting plant life often defined by
Density high level of organic material
Term SPT N Field
Index
(Symbol) value Identification Deposited by man. May be significantly
(%)
more variable than natural deposits.
Fill
Very Loose (VL) ≤ 15 0–4 Foot imprints easily Can be soil, rock, domestic or
industrial.
Loose (L) 15 – 35 4 – 10 Shovels easily
Transported by water. Pronounced
Medium Dense Alluvium
35 – 65 10 – 30 Shovelling difficult stratification. Gravels are rounded.
(MD)
Transported by water. Deposited in
Dense (D) 65 – 85 30 – 50 Pick required Marine
ocean, bays, beaches and estuaries.
Very Dense (VD) > 85 > 50 Pick difficult
Transported by gravity. Heterogeneous
Colluvium
Cemented, with a range of sizes.
Cemented (C) N/A > 50 indurated or large
Weathered in place. Structure and
particle sizes Residual Soil
fabric of parent rock not visible.
Extremely Weathered in place. Structure and
Condition of soil, cementation Weathered Material fabric of parent rock visible.
Term Description Other classifications may also occur.
Weakly Easily disaggregate by hand in air or water
Cemented Pavement
Moderately Effort is required to be disaggregated by hand
Term Description
cemented in air or water
CBR California Bearing Ratio
Mass properties of soil, zoning SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt

Term Description OG Open Graded Asphalt

Layers Continuous zone across the sample/exposure AC Dense Graded Asphalt

Discontinuous layers of different material with CMB Cementitiously Modified Base

Lens
lenticular shape
Pockets Irregular inclusion of different material

QMS-6020-B Sheet: 2 of 4
 Geotechnical Investigation
Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

Weathering Classification
Rock Description
Term
Rocks are generally described on the Engineering Log using the Description
following sequence of terms:- (Symbol)
Soil developed from insitu rock
[Drilling information, Rock Quality Designation]; [Weathering];
weathering. The mass structure
[ROCK TYPE: Colour, Grain size, Structure and Texture]; Residual Soil (RS)*
and fabric are no longer evident.
[Strength]; [Defect Spacing, Defect Description] No significant transportation.
Material weathered to such an
Colour
extent that it has soil properties.
Described in the moist condition using simple terms. Modified as Extremely Weathered Disintegrates or can be remoulded
necessary by ‘pale’, ‘dark’ or ‘mottled.’ (XW)* in water. Mass structure and
material texture and fabric of
Grain Size original rock are still visible
For metamorphic and igneous rocks, the typical grain size is Secondary minerals often
recorded in millimetres (when visible). weathered to clay. Staining of most
Highly
grain boundaries and some
For sedimentary rocks, the following descriptors can be used:- Weathered
disintegration due to weakening of
(HW)
- Sand terms for sandstone grain bonds. Rock strength is
- Gravel terms for conglomerate and breccia Distinctly changed.
- No description of grain size is required for fine grained rocks Weathered
(DW)** Staining and pitting of most
e.g. mudstone, siltstone, shale etc. secondary minerals and other
Moderately
grain boundaries. May be highly
Structure and Texture Weathered
discoloured, often by iron staining.
(MW)
Little to no loss of strength from
Rock Type Term Description Fresh.
Sedimentary Bedded Bedding planes visible Secondary minerals are stained
Small scale sequence of fine Slightly Weathered but not pitted, slight staining at
Sedimentary Laminated (SW) some grain boundaries. Little to no
layers (similar to bedding)
loss of strength from Fresh.
Sedimentary, Effectively homogeneous and
Massive Rock shows no sign of
Igneous isotropic
Fresh (FR) decomposition or staining.
Flow Bands or layers formed from Relatively strong.
Igneous
Banded molten rock
Distinct difference in size of * RS and XW ‘material’ are described using soil deceptive terms.
Igneous Porphyritic
crystals **Distinctly Weathered not distinguishable into HW or MW.
Repetitive layering, may be
Metamorphic Foliated
planar or wavy Rock Strength
Parallel arrangement of Term UCS Is(50)
Metamorphic Schistosity Field Identification
tabular minerals
(Symbol) (MPa) (MPa)
Other terms used where applicable. Crumbles in 1 hand. Peeled
> 0.03
Very Low 0.6 to with knife. Pieces up to 3 cm
to
(VLS) 2 thick can be broken by finger
≤ 0.1
pressure.
Easily scored with a knife. Core
150 x 50 mm may be broken by
2 to > 0.1 to
Low (LS) hand. Sharp edges of core may
6 ≤ 0.3
be friable and break during
handling.
Readily scored with a knife.
Medium 6 to > 0.3 to
Core 150 x 50 mm can be
(MS) 20 ≤ 1.0
broken by hand with difficulty.
Core 150 x 50 mm cannot be
20 to > 1 to
High (HS) broken by hand. Broken by a
60 ≤3
single firm pick blow. Rings.
Hand specimen breaks with
Very High 60 to > 3 to
pick after more than one blow.
(VHS) 200 ≤ 10
Rings under hammer.
Extremely Requires many pick blows to
High > 200 > 10 break intact material. Rings
(EHS) under hammer.

QMS-6020-B Sheet: 3 of 4
 Geotechnical Investigation
Explanatory Notes and Abbreviations

Notes on rock strength: - Field Testing

- These items refer to the rock material and not the strength of
Symbol Description
the rock mass which may be considerably weaker due to the
effect of rock defects SPT Standard Penetration Test – AS 1289.6.3.1
- Anisotropy may affect assessment of strength FV Field Shear Vane (kPa) – AS 1289.6.2.1
- The Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) is typically about PP Pocket Penetrometer (kPa)
23 x Is(50) for high strength rock (UCS > 20 MPa)
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer – AS 1289.6.3.2

Rock Defect Descriptions Light Falling Weight Deflectometer – ASTM-

LFWD
E2583-07, 2011
Defects are generally described in the following sequence:-
Dynamic penetrometer with variable enery
[Defect Spacing]; [Depth (m from surface), Defect Type, Defect PANDA
method, French Standard NF P 94-105, 2012
Angle (° from horizontal), Planarity, Roughness, Aperture
observation, Infill material, Aperture measurement (mm)]
Type Planarity
Bp Bedding Parting St Stepped
Fp Foliation Parting Cu Curved
Jo Joint Un Undulating
Sz Shear Zone Ir Irregular
Cs Crushed Seam Pl Planar
Ds Decomposed Seam
Is Infill Seam Aperture Observation
Small-Scale Roughness Aperture Observation
Small-Scale Roughness cn Clean
Ro Rough sn Stained
Sm Smooth vn Veneer (<< 1 mm)
Sl Slickensided cg Coating (≤ 1 mm)

Drilling and Sampling

Excavation Method
Symbol Description
EB Excavator bucket
HA Hand auger
AD Auger drilling Indicate drill bit: V bit, Tungsten
WB Wash boring Carbide, Drag, Tricone (rock roller)
NMLC Rock coring with NMLC core barrel

Groundwater
Symbol Description
Standing water level and date
Water inflow
Water / drilling fluid loss

Sampling
Symbol Description
D, SPT Disturbed sample
B Bulk disturbed sample
U50 Undisturbed sample (50 mm diameter tube)
TCR Total Core Recovery (%)

QMS-6020-B Sheet: 4 of 4
 Appendix B
Geotechnical Borehole Logs

2533R100B 16 August 2018

 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH01-18
Sheet: 1 of 3

Commenced: 15/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 483917.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 18/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937015.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
0 Silty SAND (SM): Grey brown, fine grained, trace fine Topsoil 0
grained angular gravel, dry

L-
SM
MD

Sandy CLAY / Clayey SAND (CL): Brown mottled grey, low Residual
plasticity, fine to medium grained sand, dry to moist

1 CL F-St SPT 1.00: -1 1

7, 8, 10 N=18
Auger TC-bit

SPT
Silty SAND (SP): grey mottled brown, medium grained,
trace clay fines

2 -2 2

SPT 2.50:
From 2.50 m red brown, medium to coarse grained
10, 11, 12 N=23
Groundwater Not Encountered

SP From 2.60 m grey mottled pale brown, decrease in silt MD

SPT content

3 -3 3

4 SPT 4.00: -4 4
SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse Ripley Road Sandstone
19, 28, 29 N=57
WB rock roller

grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND

SPT

5 XW ELS -5 5

SPT 5.50:
14, 24, 28 N=52

SPT

6 6
QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH01-18
Sheet: 2 of 3

Commenced: 15/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 483917.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 18/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937015.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
6 (continued) SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to Ripley Road Sandstone 6
coarse grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND

XW ELS

(73)
0

7 NO CORE: 6.95 m to 7.30 m -7 7

SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse

grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND

XW ELS

(46)
8 NO CORE: 7.95 m to 8.70 m -8 8
0
Groundwater Not Encountered

SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey and grey brown, ELS-

fine to coarse grained, occasionally with coal lamination VLS
NMLC

9 ELS -9 9

VLS
(100)
XW
0

ELS

From 9.65 m to 9.78 m with medium grained gravel

ELS-
VLS
10 -10 10

HW VLS

(100)
0

11 -11 11

From 11.20 m grey, coarse grained, massive

MW-
SW

MS

(100)
SW
100

12 12
-12
QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH01-18
Sheet: 3 of 3

Commenced: 15/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 483917.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 18/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937015.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
12 (continued) SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey and Ripley Road Sandstone 12
grey brown, fine to coarse grained

From 12.00 m with fine grained gravel layers

(100)
100 SW

13 -13 13

From 13.20 m to to 13.30 m increase in coal lamination

MS-
HS

(100)
100

14 14.02 Handling break -14 14

Groundwater Not Encountered

NMLC

15 -15 15

From 15.20 m to 15.55 m medium grained

(100) SW-
100 FR 15.38 Bp 0-10° Pl Ro cn

From 15.55 m fine grained 15.60-15.70 Ds 0-5° Pl Ro cn sand

16 -16 16
HS

16.43 Drilling break

From 16.60 m to 16.90 m coarse grained

(100)
100

17 -17 17
From 17.00 m to 17.10 m coarse grained

17.24 Drilling break

EOH 17.58 m: Target depth

QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 Photographic Log BH01-18
Sheet: 1 of 1

Commenced: 15/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 483917 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed: 18/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937015 Project: School at White Rock
Logged: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

Start Depth (m): 6 Start RL (AHD): -

End Depth (m): 17.58 End RL (AHD): -
 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH02-18
Sheet: 1 of 3

Commenced: 14/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 484092.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 14/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937016.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
0 Silty SAND (SM): Grey brown, medium to coarse grained, Topsoil 0
moist

L-
SM
MD

From 0.50 m pale grey brown, dry

Sandy CLAY / Clayey SAND (CL): Brown mottled grey / Residual

pale grey, low plasticity, dry

1 SPT 1.00: -1 1
18, 12, 11 N=23
Auger TC-bit

SPT

From 1.40 m becoming grey mottled brown

CL H

From 1.80 m brown

2 -2 2

SPT 2.50:
SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse Ripley Road Sandstone
10, 17, 25 N=42
Groundwater Not Encountered

grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND

SPT

3 -3 3

4 SPT 4.00: -4 4
9, 13, 18 N=31
WB rock roller

SPT XW ELS

5 -5 5

From 5.10 m increase in sand content, red brown mottled

grey

SPT 5.50:
From 5.00 m grey, remoulds to SAND
10, 16, 16 N=32

SPT

6 6
QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH02-18
Sheet: 2 of 3

Commenced: 14/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 484092.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 14/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937016.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
rock Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
6 (continued) SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to Ripley Road Sandstone 6
roller
WB

coarse grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND

From 6.20 m grey mottled red

(100)
0
From 6.70 m no water return

7 -7 7

XW ELS

(100)
0

8 -8 8

From 8.50 m with fine to medium grained gravel

Groundwater Not Encountered

9 -9 9
NMLC

ELS-
HW
(100) VLS
0

From 9.40 m orange brown

XW ELS

HW VLS
10 -10 10
NO CORE: 10.00 m to 10.35 m

SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse

grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND
(68)
0

XW From 10.70 m with red, coarse grained gravel ELS

11 -11 11

NO CORE: 11.10 m to 11.38 m

SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse

(77) grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND
0
XW ELS
From 11.74 m to 11.94 with quartz gravel, coarse grained

12 From 11.98 m to 12.05 m coarse grained 12

-12
QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 DRAFT
Engineering Borehole Log BH02-18
Sheet: 3 of 3

Commenced: 14/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 484092.000 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed 14/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937016.000 Project: School at White Rock
Logged By: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked By: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

DRILLING INFORMATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION STRENGTH OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING STRATA

Cons-Density
Soil Description

Elevation (m)
Groundwater

Defect

Graphic Log
Weathering

Soil type, colour, plasticity and particle characteristics,

(TCR) RQD

Spacing
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
secondary and minor components Additional Comments
Samples

Strength
(mm)
Method

Origin, Structure, Testing

USC /

Rock Description 20 200 2m Defect Descriptions Results

Rock type, colour, grain size, structure 6 60 600
12 (continued) SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to Ripley Road Sandstone 12
(77) coarse grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND
0 From 12.10 m increase in silt content
XW ELS
From 12.25 m to 12.30 m Mudstone

From 12.40 m grey with orange and red speckles

Groundwater Not Encountered

(100)
0 XW- ELS-
HW VLS
NMLC

13 -13 13
NO CORE: 13.08 m to 13.70 m

(0)
0

SANDSTONE: Red brown mottled grey, fine to coarse

(100) grained, remoulds to Clayey / Silty SAND
XW ELS
0
From 13.95 m to 14.00 m Mudstone
14 -14 14
EOH 14 m: Target depth
QMS-6021.0-A

Additional Remarks
Driller: Schneider Drilling
Drill Rig: Hydrapower scout truck
 Photographic Log BH02-18
Sheet: 1 of 1

Commenced: 14/06/2018 Easting (UTM 56): 484092 Client: Department of Housing and Public Works
Completed: 14/06/2018 Northing (UTM 56): 6937016 Project: School at White Rock
Logged: RM Surface RL (m AHD): - Project No.: 2533
Checked: Inclination (°): 90 Location: Proposed School Site

Start Depth (m): 6.2 Start RL (AHD): -

End Depth (m): 14 End RL (AHD): -