WOMBARRA 95 Morrison Ave Jan 11

Report on
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Subdivision
95 Morrison Avenue, Wombarra
Prepared for
Mr Bryan Morrison
Project 48891
J anuary 2011

Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Subdivision Project 48891
95 Morrison Avenue, Wombarra J anuray 2011

Executive Summary
A geotechnical investigation was carried out on the site of a proposed three lot subdivision at
95 Morrison Avenue, Wombarra. The investigation included a review of historical records held by
Wollongong City Council, field mapping, the drilling of six boreholes and the excavation of eight test
pits, monitoring of groundwater wells, laboratory testing or selected samples and engineering analysis.

The interpreted subsurface profile is topsoil overlying very loose to medium dense and firm to stiff
colluvium to depths ranging from 7.5 m to 12.0 m underlain by residual soil and weathered siltstone
and sandstone. The bedrock is typically extremely low to very low strength in the upper 1 m to 2 m but
then rapidly improves to medium to high strength.

The site in its undeveloped state is assessed as being of moderate and high risk (for property
damage) of instability resulting from a combination of a groundwater regime characterised by periodic
artesian conditions within a pre-existing, landslide affected, deep colluvial profile. Five terrain units
have been defined for each of the instability risk areas.

Site surface and subsurface conditions indicate that periodic creep failure or localised slump failure
may occur along the eastern boundary of site, along the face of a relict landslide identified in the
central northern part of the site and along the buried watercourse.

Any residential development should be limited to Terrain Unit 2, will require further assessment and
engineering works to reduce the risk of instability to no greater than low risk to property and
acceptable levels of risk to life. It is anticipated that such works would include improvement to surface
drainage (for the entire site) and subsurface drainage (extending into Terrain Units 1, 3 and 5).

As a consequence of the variability of the subsurface profile and indications of recent instability, it is
considered that the construction of a trial subsoil drainage system would be required to fully assess
the effectiveness of such a system in the longer term with a monitoring period of not less than
12 months, but possibly longer if dry conditions be encountered.


Table of Contents
Page

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1
2. Site Description and Regional Geology...........................................................................1
3. Field Work.......................................................................................................................2
3.1 Site Inspection....................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Subsurface Investigation....................................................................................... 3
4. Laboratory Testing..........................................................................................................4
5. Comments.......................................................................................................................5
5.1 Proposed Development......................................................................................... 5
5.2 Geological model .................................................................................................. 5
5.3 Slope Stability Assessment................................................................................... 5
5.4 Site Classification.................................................................................................. 9
5.5 Site Development.................................................................................................. 9
5.5.1 Remedial and Precautionary Works.......................................................... 9
5.5.2 Trial Works and Monitoring...................................................................... 10
5.6 Construction Guidelines...................................................................................... 11
5.7 Wollongong City Council Geotechnical Development Control Plan.................... 12
5.8 Proposed Subdivision Layout.............................................................................. 12
5.9 Contamination..................................................................................................... 13
6. Conclusions...................................................................................................................13
7. References....................................................................................................................13
8. Limitations .....................................................................................................................14

Appendix A: About this Report
Results of Field Work
Photo Plates 1 4
Drawings 1 4
Appendix B: Results of Laboratory Tests
Appendix C: Extracts of Relevant Publications

1 of 15

Report on Geotechnical Investigation

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed subdivision
at 95 Morrison Avenue, Wombarra. The investigation was commissioned by Mr Bryan Morrison in an
email dated 5 October 2010 care of Mr Scott Lester of Nathan Lester Architecture and was undertaken
in accordance with Douglas Partners' proposal dated 8 September 2010.

It is understood that the development of the site will include the subdivision of a large existing block
into three residential lots. The aim of the investigation was to assess the surface and subsurface soil
and groundwater conditions across the site in order to provide:
an assessment of the geotechnical suitability, include slope stability, of the site for the proposed
development;
an appropriate site classification in accordance with the requirements of AS 2870 1996 (Ref 1);
recommendations on site preparation and earthworks;
recommendations on excavations and retaining structures; and
an appropriate foundation system for the proposed development.

The investigation included a review of historical records held by Wollongong City Council, field
mapping, drilling of six boreholes, the excavation of eight test pits, monitoring of groundwater wells,
laboratory testing of selected samples and engineering analysis. The details of the field work are
presented in this report, together with comments and recommendations on the issues listed above.

2. Site Description and Regional Geology
The site, which is known as Lot 1 in DP 14039, is a trapezoidal shaped area of some 1.2 ha with a
maximum north-south and east-west dimensions of 208 m and 77 m, respectively. It is bounded to the
west by Morrisons Avenue, the north and south by low density residential dwellings, and to the east by
a large lot which is densely wooded on the steep slope at the rear which is adjacent the site.

The site topography is hummocky and irregular (refer Photo 1). Site levels fall variously to the
southeast, east, northeast and north but mostly to the east, at grades ranging from 1 in 8 to 1 in 30 in
the southern, eastern and north-western area of the site, including the existing dwelling, increasing to
1 in 2.5 at the central and north-eastern area of the site (refer Photo 2).

The site is mostly covered by short, maintained, grass with some boulders scattered predominately
around the central and lower portions of the site. Matured trees were also scattered across the site.

2 of 15

Improvements to the site include a weatherboard cottage and separate garage located in the northern
portion of the site.

The site is mapped on the Geology and Natural Slope Stability Zones in the City of Greater
Wollongong (Ref 2) as being underlain by Wombarra Claystone, part of the Narrabeen Group, which
comprises greenish grey claystone with calcareous and quartz-lithic sandstone interbeds. The
footslopes of the Illawarra Escarpment are, in places, blanketed with talus deposits and colluvium,
comprising sandy clays with sandstone boulders which may exceed 10 m in thickness. Rocks
intersected in the boreholes on the site were typical of rocks of the Narrabeen Group.

3. Field Work
3.1 Site Inspection
Inspection of the site and field mapping was carried out by an experienced engineering geologist on
5 November 2010. The main features observed are summarised below and also selected items are
additionally shown on Drawing 1 (in Appendix A) and Photos 1 8 in Plates 1 4 (in Appendix A).

The perimeter walls of the existing dwelling in the northern portion of the site appears to be
supported on brick piers, most likely founded at shallow depths within the overburden soils. The
eastern wooden piers on the associated decking have cracking in the cement rendering and a
masonry wall is leaning downslope (refer Photo 4).
The eastern brick piers and attached wooden panel underneath the house have minor cracking
and there is an opening between weatherboard panels on the eastern side garage wall and
slippage of a weatherboard panel on the southern side of the garage wall.
Some mature native tress on the steeply sloping land on the lot and on the land immediately are
east leaning downslope (refer Photo 5) consistent with on-going soil creep (gradual movements
with time in response to gravity and other factors affecting the near-surface soil layers).
Small to large (in excess of 3 m largest dimension) sandstone boulders (refer Photo 6), derived
from ancient collapse of sections of the Illawarra Escarpment, are scattered in the central and
eastern areas of the site.
Degraded scarps typically <1 m in height are present within the hillside some 8 m to 15 m east of
the property boundary.
Degraded scarps, formed by soil slumping up to approximately 1 m in height, are present in the
creek alignments north, northeast and southeast of the site.
Springs, with moderate flow during rainfall, are present in the hillside in the south-eastern area of
the site and adjacent property.
There is seepage from the hillside running onto Morrison Avenue from 72 74 and 92 Morrison
Avenue.
Water ponds on the surface at an area of internal drainage within the north-central section of the
site at a break in slope (refer Photo 7).
3 of 15

Water ponds in depressions on the western side of Morrison Avenue including near the south-
western and north-western corners of the site. Water is discharged from a drain pipe on the
south-western corner onto the site and flows through the grass to meet a creek on the property
downslope.

3.2 Subsurface Investigation
The subsurface investigation comprised:
Six boreholes (Bores 1 6) drilled with a trailer-mounted Gemco 210B auger/rotary rig to V-bit
refusal at depths ranging from 8.75 m to 13.44 m. Bores 3, 4 and 6 were extended into the
underlying rock using NQ (48 mm diameter) diamond core drilling equipment to termination
depths ranging from 11.59 m to 16.54 m. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were undertaken at
regular intervals. On completion of the drilling, standpipe piezometers were installed in Bores 3, 4
and 6 to facilitate long-term monitoring of groundwater levels.
Groundwater monitoring and permeability testing at the location of the three standpipe
piezometers.
Eight test pits (Pits 7 14) were excavated with a New Holland LB110.B backhoe fitted with a
450 mm wide bucket.
Logging by an engineering geologist and sampling of disturbed samples to assist in strata
identification and for laboratory testing.
Dynamic cone penetrometer tests (AS 1289 6.3.2) at the test pit locations to assess the in-situ
strength of the overburden soils.

The test locations are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A. The surface levels shown on the borehole
and test pit logs were determined by interpolation from contours provided by Hill and Blume Pty Ltd,
consulting surveyors.

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered during the field investigation are given on the
borehole and test pit logs in Appendix A, which should be read in conjunction with the notes defining
classification methods and descriptive terms in Appendix A. Summary geological cross sections
(Sections A A and B B) are given on Drawings 2 and 3.

The field testing encountered variable conditions underlying the site, with the succession of strata
broadly summarised as follows:

TOPSOIL: clay and gravelly clay extending to depths ranging from 0.1 m to 0.7 m;

COLLUVIUM: comprising firm to very stiff, clay and gravelly clay, and very loose to medium
dense gravel, clayey gravel and cobbly gravel with some boulders up to 1000 mm
extending to depths ranging from 7.5 m to 12.0 m in Bores 1 6 and to the
terminations depths ranging 1.6 m to 5.1 m in Pits 7 14;

RESIDUAL SOIL: very stiff to hard, clay and silty clay, 0.3 2.6 m thick, extending to depths ranging
from 7.8 m to 13.0 m in Bores 1 2 and 4 6;

4 of 15

BEDROCK: initially extremely low to very low strength at depths ranging from 7.5 m to 16.0 m
becoming very low to low strength at refusal of the V-bit at depths from 9.25 m to
16.0 m. Core drilling recovered typically medium to high strength siltstone,
sandstone and laminite to the termination depths ranging from 11.59 m to 16.54 m.

Variable conditions were encountered initially in Pit 14 which encountered filling comprising clay to a
depth of 1.0 m overlying the general succession described above.

Free groundwater was observed in all boreholes during auger drilling at depths ranging from 1.7 m to
10.0 m. Free groundwater was also observed in Pits 7, 8 and 12 during excavation at depths ranging
from 0.9 m to 2.7 m. No free groundwater was observed in the remaining test pit excavations for the
short period they were left open. It is noted that excavations were immediately backfilled following
logging and sampling which precluded longer term monitoring of groundwater levels.

Groundwater monitoring in standpipe piezometers installed in Bores 3, 4 and 6 measured static water
levels ranging from 1.55 m to 9.85 m below the surface, RL109.5 to RL114.0 (refer Drawings 2 and 3).
Rising head slug tests indicate the colluvium is of moderate permeability (5.9 x 10
-4
4.6 x 10
-5

m/sec). It is noted that groundwater levels are affected by climatic conditions and soil permeability
and will therefore vary with time.

4. Laboratory Testing
Selected samples from the boreholes and test pits were tested in the laboratory for measurement of
field moisture content, Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage. The detailed test report sheets are given
in Appendix B with the test results summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Bore/Pit
No
Depth (m)
FMC
(%)
PL
(%)
LL
(%)
PI
(%)
LS
(%)
Material
2 1.00 1.45 20.9 64 27 37 12.0 Silty clay
13 0.5 0.6 26.3 46 25 21 11.5 Gravelly silty clay
where FMC = Field moisture content PL = Plastic limit
LL = Liquid limit PI = Plasticity Index
LS = Linear shrinkage

The results indicate that the clay soils are of intermediate plasticity and as such, would be moderately
susceptible to shrinkage and swelling movements as a result of changes in moisture content.

5 of 15

5. Comments

5.1 Proposed Development
It is understood the proposed development comprises a three lot subdivision for low density residential
housing.

5.2 Geological model
The geological model for the site comprises:
a deep (7.8 m to 13.0 m) colluvial profile, including boulders to greater than 3 m largest
dimension, derived from ancient collapses of sections of the Illawarra Escarpment and
subsequently affected by slope instability within and adjacent to the site.
local mantling of the colluvium by road embankment filling in the south-western corner of the site.
a 0.3 m to 2.6 m thick residual clay profile which underlies the colluvium and grades into
extremely to highly weathered siltstone and sandstone which become slightly weathered to fresh
with depth.
both perched and deeper groundwater tables, controlled in part by a buried watercourse in the
southern of the site, which results in springs and saturation of near-surface soils and probably
triggering instability in the steep slopes immediately east of the site.

5.3 Slope Stability Assessment
The site lies with the area mapped for stability by Bowman in 1972 (Ref 3) which indicates the lot is
located in an area classified as stable land no landslip problems and near the boundary of an area
classified as topographically unstable for development owing to steep slopes and/or topographic
position and nature of soil immediately to the east. Due to the limited resolution of Bowmans
mapping, it is not possible to delineate these areas with precision.

The site also borders the area mapped by Walker et al. 1987 (Ref 4) which indicates hummocky,
irregular slope to the south of the site on Morrison Avenue.

Wollongong City Council records document instability (slumping and associated debris flows) having
developed on the western side of Morrison Avenue to the west, and to the northeast of the site and
also within, including the lower north eastern portion of the site.

Stability of existing undeveloped slopes is typically dependant on a number of key factors including the
slope of the ground, the type and strength of soil or rock and the presence of water. While an area
may be assessed as being currently stable, unsuitable development or poor construction techniques
may trigger instability. Alternatively, sites which are assessed as having some risk of instability may
be improved by installation of such features as sub-surface drains or retaining structures.

6 of 15

The site and adjacent areas have been divided into five terrain units based on observed slopes and
features indicative of slope instability. The inferred distribution of these units is shown on Drawing 4
(Appendix A). Descriptions of each of the terrain units are outlined below and associated limitations
on development are given in the following sections.

TERRAIN UNIT 1 This unit is within the relatively flat southern portion of the site lying between
RL110 and RL120, affected by the presence of a buried drainage line or
watercourse. While there are some minor irregularities in the south-east
facing surface profile the overall profile is generally uniform. Elevated
groundwater levels, the presence of springs and the lack of fine material in
the near surface colluvium are a feature of this terrain unit. The inferred
location of the buried watercourse is shown on Drawing 4. Whilst no ground
movements are currently active, it is likely that any small change to this
slope, increased saturation of the soil or increased piezometric pressure
following prolonged rainfall, may destabilise the slope and reactive
movement. This may include regression of instability into the site from the
downslope property.

TERRAIN UNIT 2 This unit is within the central southern portion of the site and generally lies
between RL111.5 and RL122. Bedrock underlies the area at depths ranging
7.5 m to 10.7 m. Whilst no signs of deep-seated instability were observed in
this unit, a hummocky, irregular surface was observed. Areas of slope
instability (Terrain Unit 5) are noted immediately to the east of the site
boundary and may regress into this terrain unit.

TERRAIN UNIT 3 This terrain unit is within the central northern and north eastern portion of the
site where the ground surface levels are within the range RL109 to RL124.5.
Bedrock underlies the area at depths between 7.8 13.0 m and surface
grades range from 1 in 2.5 to 1 in 9. Leaning trees along the toe face of the
relict landslide indicates surface creep is occurring in an easterly direction.

TERRAIN UNIT 4 This terrain unit comprises the area where the existing dwelling is located
where surface ground levels are above RL117. Surface grades are
generally between 1 in 8 to 1 in 15. Whilst no signs of deep-seated
instability were observed in this unit, downslope movement of a masonry
wall, separation between weatherboard walls and minor cracking were
observed in the two structures and may indicate surface creep.

TERRAIN UNIT 5 This terrain unit is in the north-eastern portion of the site and extends to the
east into the adjacent property where ground surface levels are generally
below RL114 and surface grades range from 1 in 2.5 to 1 in 30. Degraded
scarps and leaning trees are a features of the steeper areas of this terrain
unit.

The risk to property for the existing and proposed building areas has been assessed based on the four
terrain units (refer Table 2) with reference to AGS Practice Note Guidelines on Landslide Risk
Management (Ref 5), relevant extracts of which are included in Appendix C. Descriptions of each of
the terrain units are outlined below and associated limitations on development are given in the
following sections.
7 of 15

Table 2: Slope Stability Risk Assessment for Property
Terrain
Unit
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk
Extremely slow soil creep Almost certain Insignificant Low
Rapid, near-surface, localised
slumping in colluvial soils
Possible Major High 1
Rapid, deep-seated slide Unlikely Catastrophic High
Extremely slow soil creep Likely Insignificant Low
Possible Medium Moderate 2
Rapid, deep-seated slide Unlikely Major Moderate
Extremely slow soil creep Almost certain Minor Moderate
Possible Major High 3
Extremely slow soil creep Likely Insignificant Low
Possible Medium Moderate 4
Rapid, deep-seated slide Unlikely Major Moderate
Extremely slow soil creep Almost certain Minor Moderate
Likely Medium High 5

The site is assessed as having a risk to property of slope instability of high (Terrain Units 1, 3 and 5),
moderate (Terrain Units 2 and 4).

The AGS definitions of various risk categories are as follows:

LOW RISK Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to
reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is required.

MODERATE RISK Tolerated provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain or reduce
risks, may be accepted. These may also require investigation and planning
of treatment options.

HIGH RISK Detailed investigation planning and treatment options required to reduce risk
to acceptable levels. Work would cost a substantial sum.

8 of 15

The AGS Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (Ref 5) indicates that the regulator
(i.e. Council) is the appropriate authority to set standards for risk levels but also suggest that, for most
development in existing urban areas, criteria based on Tolerable Risk levels are applicable because of
the trade-off between the risks, the benefit of development and the cost of risk mitigation. Definitions
of acceptable and tolerable risks are included in the AGS Guidelines as follows:

TOLERABLE RISK Risks within a range that society can live with so as to secure certain
benefits. It is a range of risk regarded as non-negligible and needing to be
kept under review and reduced further if practicable.

ACCEPTABLE RISK Risk which everyone affected is prepared to accept. Action to further reduce
such risk is usually not required unless reasonably practicable measures are
available at low cost in terms of money, time and effort.

Wollongong City Council policy requires the adoption of a low risk criterion for property and an
acceptable risk to life assessed in accordance with AGS Landslide Risk Management Guidelines
(2007) for the site development and a possible requirement of a monitoring period (possibly years)
prior to construction so as to validate the success of measures installed to remediate landslide
affected areas.

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 of an individual).
P
(H)
is the annual probability of the hazardous event (e.g. deep seated slide).
P
(S:H)
is the probability of spatial impact by the hazard (e.g. of the slide reaching the
element at risk taking into account the travel distance for a given event.
P
(T:S)
is the temporal probability (e.g. the affected section of the dwelling being occupied
by the individual) given the spatial impact allowing for potential for excavation.
V
(D:T)
is the vulnerability of the individual (probability of loss of life of the individual given
the impact).

A preliminary assessment of risk of life has been carried out for the assessed slope instability hazards.
On the basis of velocity and consequences of previous failures within nearby sections of Morrison
Avenue and Buttenshaw Drive, it is expected that there would be a high probability of safe evacuation
of the structure in the event of a deep seated slide extending into the approximate footprint of the
existing and newly proposed footprints recommended in the following sections of this report.

The annual probability of a person most at risk losing his/her life as a result of an impact by a deep
seated slide (considered to be the most dangerous of the assessed hazards) is summarised in Table 3
and assumes that:
the probability of non-evacuation taken as 0.1
typical occupation for the person most at risk of the dwelling averages 16 hours/day.
a deep seated slide extends into 50% of the existing and newly proposed dwelling areas.
the impacted section of the building collapses.

9 of 15

Table 3: Summary of Estimated Annualised Risk of Slope Instability
Person Most at Risk, Terrain Units 2 and 4
Scenario Hazard P
(H)
P
(S:H)
P
(T:S)
V
(D:T)
R
(LoL)

Current site
conditions
Rapid, deep
seated slide
10
-4
1 3.3 x 10
-2
1 3.3 x 10
-6

Post precautionary
works
Rapid, deep
seated slide
10
-5
1 3.3 x 10
-2
1 3.3 x 10
-7

Whilst there are no established acceptance criteria for landslides in Australia or internationally for loss
of life due to a hazardous event such as a landslide, AGS suggests that for new slopes or those
affected by known or previous instability (eg those including new development), an acceptable risk of
life of 10
-6
is appropriate for the average person at risk. A tolerable risk level (to life) is taken as 10
-5
.
On this basis, the risk of loss of life with respect to geotechnical hazards identified for Terrain Units 2
and 4 in Table 3 is considered to be acceptable after precautionary works described in the following
sections have been undertaken.

Therefore based on the assessment results and current site conditions, residential development within
the high risk zone (Terrain Units 1,3 and 5) would be precluded and as such, would be nominated as
restricted building zones. Whilst remedial works are also suggested for the high risk zones (Terrain
Units 1, 3 and 5), development within is not considered feasible with the main purpose of these works
being to provide a level of protection to Terrain Units 2 and 4 by minimising creep movements that are
occurring as a result of elevated groundwater pressures and to reduce the likelihood of upslope
regression of instability.

5.4 Site Classification
Due to the topographic location, indications of previous instability, an allowable bearing capacity of
less than 100 kPa and the site being subject to probable severe moisture changes due to the
presence of mature trees, the site is classified as Class P in accordance with requirements of AS 2870
1996 (Ref 1). The main requirement of a Class P lot is that the design of all footings must be
undertaken by a structural engineer using engineering principles and construction techniques
appropriate for hillside lots (refer AGS extracts, Appendix C) and guidelines given in this report. In
terms of clay reactivity, the clay soils are moderately reactive (Class M) as defined in AS 2870
1996.

5.5 Site Development
5.5.1 Remedial and Precautionary Works
It is considered limited development will be feasible for Terrain Unit 2 following the undertaking of
remedial and precautionary works to reduce the property risk to an acceptable level. These works will
extend into the adjacent high risk zones and outside the site (subject to landowner agreement) in the
eastern part. Works to be undertaken prior to the development should include the installation of
10 of 15

subsoil drains to reduce pore water pressure at the interface between the colluvium and the residual
soil/weathered rock interface. Works for Terrain Units 1, 3 and 5 are aimed at minimising the possible
influence from the neighbouring high risk area. Appropriate remedial precautionary works to reduce
risk for the neighbouring zones to an acceptable level would include:
Extensive subsoil and surface drainage within the high risk area with a maximum drain spacing of
20 m. A nominal drain depth of 5 m is suggested with drains orientated normal to the site
contours with twin ag-pipes. Riser pipes should be included at regular intervals to permit periodic
inspection and long term maintenance.
To minimise water along the buried watercourse (Terrain Unit 1), the individual drains (possibly in
a herringbone arrangement) will need to be closely spaced, possibly in the order of 6 m.
Limit the removal of existing mature trees and the provision of vegetation cover to protect against
erosion, including re-vegetation by deeply rooted trees species in Terrain Unit 1 and 3 in order to
reduce the risk of further instability occurring in adjacent zones that could adversely impact on
downslope areas.

Provided the precautionary works demonstrate effective dewatering of the buried watercourse (Terrain
Unit 1), the relict landslide (Terrain Area 3) and the steeper slopes on the property to the east of the
site (Terrain Unit 5), it is expected that development would be limited to single storey or split-level,
light-weight structures capable of tolerating movement.

5.5.2 Trial Works and Monitoring
In order to assess the likely effectiveness of the precautionary works, it is suggested that a trial area
be considered with the overall methodology to be agreed with Council as providing supporting data for
development. It is envisaged that the trial works comprise:
The construction of a trial trench/drainage line extending upslope along the buried watercourse
(near the southern boundary of the property). The drainage line would be excavated until a
maximum practical depth of about 6 m was achieved, then extended upslope through the
overlying strata to its head end. The drain would be finished with permanent structures including
flushing points and a discharge point protected from damage and constructed to provide flushing
access and monitoring of discharge volume.
It is anticipated that the trench drain would have a minimum width of 500 mm and include dual
100 mm diameter ag-lines set into geo-textile wrapped, free-draining aggregate extending to
approximately 1 m below the surface. The upper 1 m of the trench would be backfilled with
selected clayey material compacted in layers to provide a surface seal. It is anticipated that the
trenching would commence from the downslope end and be progressively laid to minimise the
length of trench open at one time. Where significant groundwater inflow was encountered at the
trench head, it may be necessary to allow drainage of the upslope material prior to continuing the
trenching, so as to minimise the risk of trench collapse. Excavation support, such as shoring may
also be required, given the required depth of the excavation by conventional measures.
Reinstatement with controlled filling will be required to minimise the potential for erosion scouring.
The installation of an additional two piezometers, one upslope and one downslope along the
buried watercourse and the installation of an additional piezometer near Bore 1 to assist in the
determination of the effective drainage radius. These piezometers (including the existing bores)
11 of 15

would be finished as permanent monitoring points, with monitoring being carried out regularly
from the time of installation.
The installation of two inclinometers, finished at permanent monitoring points, most likely adjacent
to Bores 3 and 6, to assess the likelihood of on-going creep or intermittent slope movements.

The monitoring of groundwater levels would be carried out during drain construction and subsequently
on a regular basis, so as to assess groundwater response and drainage rates over a period including
at least a major rainfall event. It is envisaged that the minimum monitoring period of the piezometers
and inclinometers would be approximately 12 months, but could be longer if the period was
characterised by significantly lower than average rainfall.

Progressive geotechnical assessment of the results during and at the completion of the monitoring
period would be carried out to determine (if the results are positive) the final number and spacing of
subsurface drains within the site.

5.6 Construction Guidelines
Following the undertaking of precautionary works and monitoring program described in Section 5.5,
development within Terrain Unit 2 within the proposed building envelopes (refer Drawing 4) must take
into account the site history and the instability classification, the variably relative density and
composition of the colluvium as part of the overall design of a future dwelling(s). It must also be
realised that the geology of the site are the area in general (ie rock at depths of excess of 10 m)
means that any stabilisation works carried out may have little impact in reducing the effect of the
longer term creep movements or deep seated movement in the colluvium profile. The works proposed
however, will reduce the effects of differential movements occurring.

The following guidelines therefore, are suggested for the development of concept design plans for the
site should be favourable monitoring results being obtained in the trial:
cutting (excavations) and filling must not exceed a vertical height of 1 m above or below the
existing ground surface. All batters should be constructed no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) and
appropriately vegetated to reduce the effects of erosion. All other excavation or filling should be
supported by engineer-designed retaining walls.
dwellings should be of single storey or split-level construction, generally following the ground
contours (i.e. designed across the slope).
dwellings should be of light weight construction (such as timber) with limited masonry sections
and metal roofing. They should have predominantly timber (bearers and joist) flooring, with the
overall structures capable of tolerating movement.
whilst the dwelling will need to be inherently flexible, the footing systems must have structural
rigidity, with the overall conceptual design to be reviewed by DP on ensure that the geotechnical
requirements of the site are accommodated in the design. Design compliance to be confirmed
following inspection by a suitably qualified engineer during construction.
footing systems could comprise shear walls founding below depths of near-surface soil creep at
depths of at least 1 m orientated in the north-south direction or a grillage of ground beams again,
12 of 15

orientated predominately in the north-south direction. Allowance may need to be made within the
design of the footing system for re-levelling of the structure.
construction of a deep foundation system (such as piles founding in rock) is considered to be
unsuitable for this site due to the depth of rock being in excess of 10 m and the resultant
slenderness of the piles having little resistance to bending.
all stormwater drainage must be collected and discharged from the site in a controlled manner
with allowance made for erosion control at the outlet. The site should be maintained in
accordance with the CSIRO publication Guide to Home Owners on Foundation Maintenance and
Footing Performance, a copy of which is included in Appendix C.

Structures designed in accordance with the above guidelines will enable the effect of creep induced
movements to be minimised with the overall site development undertaken in such a way that the risk
of instability is not increased. It must be realised however, that creep movements will be on-going
during the life of all structures and that the movements must be accommodated in design as they
cannot be eliminated.

5.7 Wollongong City Council Geotechnical Development Control Plan
Wollongong City Council has a Geotechnical Development Control Plan (GDCP) (Ref 6) which has
been prepared to define methods of geotechnical assessment of sites which may be subject to slope
instability. It includes items to be addressed as part of the development application, design and
construction phases of site development.

Items of significance to the proposed subdivision include:
adoption of a low risk criterion for property and an acceptable risk to life assessed in accordance
with the AGS Landslide Risk Management Guidelines (2007) for the site development;
a possible requirement of a monitoring period (possibly years) prior to construction so as to
validate the success of measures installed to remediate landslide affected areas.

It should be noted that modification of the risk assessment included in the previous sections may be
required at a future date should revision to either Councils GDCP or the AGS guidelines be
undertaken.

5.8 Proposed Subdivision Layout
Drawing 4 (Appendix A) shows a preliminary subdivision layout with nominated building envelopes
proposed by the client prior to the current site investigation. This has been overlayed with the terrain
units and proposed building envelope discussed in the previous sections. The following observations
are made in relation to the detail shown:
A three lot subdivision is proposed with two nominated building areas located partly in high risk
terrain units.
Two proposed driveways, one for each of the nominated building areas, both located partly in
high risk terrain units.
13 of 15

A new building envelopes recommended on the basis of this investigation is also shown in Drawing 4.

Revision of the proposed lot boundaries and building envelopes will require consideration of the
Wollongong City Councils Local Environment Plan (LEP) (Ref 7) which requires residential lots to
provide a specific rectangular building envelope with minimum dimensions of 15 m (width) and 10 m
(depth) where the subject site contains any inherent site constraints. The LEP has further minimum
12 m lot width requirement for residential allotments at the front of the building alignment and a
minimum depth for a residential allotment of at least 25 m.

5.9 Contamination
No discernable signs of contamination were observed during the field work for the current site
investigation.

6. Conclusions
The site in its undeveloped state is assessed as being variously of moderate and high risk (for
property damage) of instability resulting from a combination of a groundwater regime characterised by
periodic artesian conditions within a pre-existing, landslide affected, deep colluvial profile. Five terrain
units have been defined for each of the instability risk areas.

Site surface and subsurface conditions suggest that periodic creep failure or localised slump failure
may occur along the eastern boundary of site, along the face of a relict slide identified in the central
northern part of the site and along the buried watercourse.

Any residential development, limited to Terrain Unit 2, will require further assessment and engineering
works to reduce the risk of instability to no greater than low risk to property and acceptable levels of
risk to life. It is anticipated that such works would include improvement to surface drainage (for the
entire site) and subsurface drainage (extending into Terrain Units 1 and 3).

As a consequence of the variability of the subsurface profile and indications of recent instability, it is
considered that the construction of a trial subsoil drainage system would be required to fully assess
the effectiveness of such a system within terrain units in the longer term with a monitoring period of not
less than 12 months, but possibly longer should dry conditions be encountered.

7. References
1. Australian Standard AS 2870 (1996) Residential Slabs and Footings.
2. Bowman H N (1972) Natural Slope Stability in the City of Greater Wollongong, Sheet 5951,
Geological Survey of NSW.
3. Bowman H N (1972) Natural Slope Stability in the City of Greater Wollongong, Geological Survey
of NSW 14(2) pp 159 222.
14 of 15

4. Walker B F, Amaral B & MacGregor J P (1987) Slope Instability in the Coledale area of the
Illawarra Escarpment, Soil Slope Instability and Stabilisation, Walker & Fells (Eds), Belkema,
Rotterdam.
5. Australian Geomechanics Society (2007c) Practice Note Guidelines on Landslide Risk
Management, Australian Geomechanics, 42(1).
6. Wollongong City Council (2009) Development Control Plan: Chpt E12 Geotechnical Assessment.
7. Wollongong City Council (2009) Local Environment Plan: Chpt B2 Residential Subdivision.

8. Limitations
Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for a project at 95 Morrison Avenue, Wombarra, NSW
in accordance with DP's proposal dated 8 September 2010 and acceptance received from Mr Bryan
Morrison care of Scott Lester Nathan Lester Architects on 5 October 2010. The report is provided for
the exclusive use of Mr Bryan Morrison for this project only and for the purpose(s) described in the
report. It should not be used for other projects or by a third party. In preparing this report DP has
necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents.

The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions only at the specific
sampling or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was
carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and
also as a result of anthropogenic influences. Such changes may occur after DP's field testing has
been completed.

DP's advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the
advice provided by DP in this report may be limited by undetected variations in ground conditions
between sampling locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others
or by site accessibility.

This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached notes and should be kept in its entirety
without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations
or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,
outcome or conclusion given in this report.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A
About this Report
Borehole Logs
Test Pit Logs
Photo Plates 1 4
Drawings 1 4

J uly 2010
Introduction
These notes have been provided to amplify DP's
report in regard to classification methods, field
procedures and the comments section. Not all are
necessarily relevant to all reports.

DP's reports are based on information gained from
limited subsurface excavations and sampling,
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and
experience. For this reason, they must be
regarded as interpretive rather than factual
documents, limited to some extent by the scope of
information on which they rely.

Copyright
This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty
Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose
for which it was commissioned and in accordance
with the Conditions of Engagement for the
commission supplied at the time of proposal.
Unauthorised use of this report in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.

Borehole and Test Pit Logs
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this
report are an engineering and/or geological
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and
their reliability will depend to some extent on
frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or
excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed
sampling or core drilling will provide the most
reliable assessment, but this is not always
practicable or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits
represent only a very small sample of the total
subsurface profile.

Interpretation of the information and its application
to design and construction should therefore take
into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the
frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other
than 'straight line' variations between the test
locations.

Groundwater
Where groundwater levels are measured in
boreholes there are several potential problems,
namely:
In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time the hole is left open;
A localised, perched water table may lead to
an erroneous indication of the true water
table;
Water table levels will vary from time to time
with seasons or recent weather changes.
They may not be the same at the time of
construction as are indicated in the report;
and
The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will
mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to
be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must
first be washed out of the hole if water
measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by
installing standpipes which are read at intervals
over several days, or perhaps weeks for low
permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a
particular stratum, may be advisable in low
permeability soils or where there may be
interference from a perched water table.

Reports
The report has been prepared by qualified
personnel, is based on the information obtained
from field and laboratory testing, and has been
undertaken to current engineering standards of
interpretation and analysis. Where the report has
been prepared for a specific design proposal, the
information and interpretation may not be relevant
if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,
DP will be pleased to review the report and the
sufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion
of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and
recommendations or suggestions for design and
construction. However, DP cannot always
anticipate or assume responsibility for:
Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
The potential for this will depend partly on
borehole or pit spacing and sampling
frequency;
Changes in policy or interpretations of policy
by statutory authorities; or
The actions of contractors responding to
commercial pressures.
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

J uly 2010
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site
during construction appear to vary from those
which were expected from the information
contained in the report, DP requests that it be
immediately notified. Most problems are much
more readily resolved when conditions are
exposed rather than at some later stage, well after
the event.

Information for Contractual Purposes
Where information obtained from this report is
provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including the
written report and discussion, be made available.
In circumstances where the discussion or
comments section is not relevant to the contractual
situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a
specially edited document. DP would be pleased
to assist in this regard and/or to make additional
report copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.

Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical
and environmental aspects of work to which this
report is related. This could range from a site visit
to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on
site.

J uly 2010
Sampling
Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting
to allow engineering examination (and laboratory
testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide
information on colour, type, inclusions and,
depending upon the degree of disturbance, some
information on strength and structure.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it
to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively
undisturbed state. Such samples yield information
on structure and strength, and are necessary for
laboratory determination of shear strength and
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally
effective only in cohesive soils.

Test Pits
Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or
an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-
situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth
of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe
and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential
disadvantage of this investigation method is the
larger area of disturbance to the site.

Large Diameter Augers
Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or
short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in
diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling
rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at
intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are
disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture
content. Identification of soil strata is generally
much more reliable than with continuous spiral
flight augers, and is usually supplemented by
occasional undisturbed tube samples.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers
The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm
diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ
testing. This is a relatively economical means of
drilling in clays and sands above the water table.
Samples are returned to the surface, or may be
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but
they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils
from the sides of the hole. Information from the
drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs
or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing
or softening of samples by groundwater.

Non-core Rotary Drilling
The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with
water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill
rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill
cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can
be determined from the cuttings, together with
some information from the rate of penetration.
Where drilling mud is used this can mask the
cuttings and reliable identification is only possible
from separate sampling such as SPTs.

Continuous Core Drilling
A continuous core sample can be obtained using a
diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm
internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
achieved (which is not always possible in weak
rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
very reliable method of investigation.

Standard Penetration Tests
Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a
means of estimating the density or strength of soils
and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in
Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing
Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.

The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50
mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of
a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is
normal for the tube to be driven in three
successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value
is taken as the number of blows for the last 300
mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be
practicable and the test is discontinued.

The test results are reported in the following form.
In the case where full penetration is obtained
with successive blow counts for each 150 mm
of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
4,6,7
N=13
In the case where the test is discontinued
before the full penetration depth, say after 15
blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for
the next 40 mm as:
15, 30/40 mm

J uly 2010
The results of the SPT tests can be related
empirically to the engineering properties of the
soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /
Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests
Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are
carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground
using a standard weight of hammer falling a
specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil
the number of blows required to penetrate each
successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally
there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be
extended in certain conditions by the use of
extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are
commonly used.
Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer
dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This
test was developed for testing the density of
sands and is mainly used in granular soils and
filling.
Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod
with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven
using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS
1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed
initially for pavement subgrade investigations,
and correlations of the test results with
California Bearing Ratio have been published
by various road authorities.

J uly 2010
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
Australian Standard AS 1726, Geotechnical Site
Investigations Code. In general, the descriptions
include strength or density, colour, structure, soil
or rock type and inclusions.

Soil Types
Soil types are described according to the
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading
of other particles present:

Type Particle size (mm)
Boulder >200
Cobble 63 - 200
Gravel 2.36 - 63
Sand 0.075 - 2.36
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002

The sand and gravel sizes can be further
subdivided as follows:

Type Particle size (mm)
Coarse gravel 20 - 63
Medium gravel 6 - 20
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2

The proportions of secondary constituents of soils
are described as:

Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and
Sand (40%)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some
sand
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace
of sand

Definitions of grading terms used are:
Well graded - a good representation of all
particle sizes
Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the specified range
Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
particle size with the range

Cohesive Soils
Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
estimated by field tests or engineering
examination. The strength terms are defined as
follows:

Description Abbreviation
Undrained
shear strength
(kPa)
Very soft vs <12
Soft s 12 - 25
Firm f 25 - 50
Stiff st 50 - 100
Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Hard h >200

Cohesionless Soils
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:

Relative
Density
Abbreviation SPT N
value
CPT qc
value
(MPa)
Very loose vl <4 <2
Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
Medium
dense
md 10 - 30 5 - 15
Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
Very
dense
vd >50 >25

J uly 2010
Soil Origin
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
Filling - moved by man.

Transported soils may be further subdivided into:
Alluvium - river deposits
Lacustrine - lake deposits
Aeolian - wind deposits
Littoral - beach deposits
Estuarine - tidal river deposits
Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.

J uly 2010
Rock Strength
Rock strength is defined by the Point Load Strength Index (Is
(50)
) and refers to the strength of the rock
substance and not the strength of the overall rock mass, which may be considerably weaker due to defects.
The test procedure is described by Australian Standard 4133.4.1 - 1993. The terms used to describe rock
strength are as follows:

Term Abbreviation Point Load Index
Is
(50)
MPa
Approx Unconfined
Compressive Strength MPa*
Extremely low EL <0.03 <0.6
Very low VL 0.03 - 0.1 0.6 - 2
Low L 0.1 - 0.3 2 - 6
Medium M 0.3 - 1.0 6 - 20
High H 1 - 3 20 - 60
Very high VH 3 - 10 60 - 200
Extremely high EH >10 >200
* Assumes a ratio of 20:1 for UCS to Is
(50)

Degree of Weathering
The degree of weathering of rock is classified as follows:

Term Abbreviation Description
Extremely weathered EW Rock substance has soil properties, i.e. it can be remoulded
and classified as a soil but the texture of the original rock is
still evident.
Highly weathered HW Limonite staining or bleaching affects whole of rock
substance and other signs of decomposition are evident.
Porosity and strength may be altered as a result of iron
leaching or deposition. Colour and strength of original fresh
rock is not recognisable
Moderately
weathered
MW Staining and discolouration of rock substance has taken
place
Slightly weathered SW Rock substance is slightly discoloured but shows little or no
change of strength from fresh rock
Fresh stained Fs Rock substance unaffected by weathering but staining
visible along defects
Fresh Fr No signs of decomposition or staining

Degree of Fracturing
The following classification applies to the spacing of natural fractures in diamond drill cores. It includes
bedding plane partings, joints and other defects, but excludes drilling breaks.

Term Description
Fragmented Fragments of <20 mm
Highly Fractured Core lengths of 20-40 mm with some fragments
Fractured Core lengths of 40-200 mm with some shorter and longer sections
Slightly Fractured Core lengths of 200-1000 mm with some shorter and loner sections
Unbroken Core lengths mostly >1000 mm

J uly 2010
Rock Quality Designation
The quality of the cored rock can be measured using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index, defined
as:

RQD % = cumulative length of 'sound' core sections 100 mm long
total drilled length of section being assessed

where 'sound' rock is assessed to be rock of low strength or better. The RQD applies only to natural
fractures. If the core is broken by drilling or handling (i.e. drilling breaks) then the broken pieces are fitted
back together and are not included in the calculation of RQD.

Stratification Spacing
For sedimentary rocks the following terms may be used to describe the spacing of bedding partings:

Term Separation of Stratification Planes
Thinly laminated <6 mm
Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm
Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm
Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m
Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m
Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m
Very thickly bedded >2 m

J uly 2010
Introduction
These notes summarise abbreviations commonly
used on borehole logs and test pit reports.

Drilling or Excavation Methods
C Core Drilling
R Rotary drilling
SFA Spiral flight augers
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia

Water
Water seep
Water level

Sampling and Testing
A Auger sample
B Bulk sample
D Disturbed sample
E Environmental sample
U
50
Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
W Water sample
pp pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
S Standard Penetration Test
V Shear vane (kPa)

Description of Defects in Rock
The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on
the logs.

Defect Type
B Bedding plane
Cs Clay seam
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault
J J oint
Lam lamination
Pt Parting
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein

Orientation
The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.

h horizontal
v vertical
sh sub-horizontal
sv sub-vertical

Coating or Infilling Term
cln clean
co coating
he healed
inf infilled
stn stained
ti tight
vn veneer

Coating Descriptor
ca calcite
cbs carbonaceous
cly clay
fe iron oxide
mn manganese
slt silty

Shape
cu curved
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
un undulating

Roughness
po polished
ro rough
sl slickensided
sm smooth
vr very rough

Other
fg fragmented
bnd band
qtz quartz

J uly 2010
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock

General

Soils

Sedimentary Rocks

Metamorphic Rocks

Igneous Rocks

Road base
Filling

Concrete
Asphalt
Topsoil
Peat
Clay
Conglomeratic sandstone
Conglomerate
Boulder conglomerate
Sandstone
Slate, phyllite, schist
Siltstone
Mudstone, claystone, shale
Coal
Limestone
Porphyry
Cobbles, boulders
Sandy gravel
Laminite
Silty sand
Clayey sand
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Gravelly clay
Shaly clay
Silt
Clayey silt
Sandy silt
Sand
Gravel
Talus
Gneiss
Quartzite
Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Granite
Tuff, breccia
Dacite, epidote
TOPSOIL - dark brown grey clay with some silt, roots and
rootlets, damp
CLAY - firm, slightly friable, orange grey clay with some
fine to medium gravel (siltstone, sandstone) and silt, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly gravelly below 2.0m
- becoming slightly friable below 3.0m
GRAVEL - loose, orange brown, slightly clayey, fine to
coarse gravel (sandstone, siltstone), wet
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming medium dense below 7.5m
CLAY - very stiff to hard, yellow brown clay with some
extremely low to very low strength bands, humid to damp
(RESIDUAL)
SILTSTONE - extremely low strength, extremely
weathered, orange grey siltstone with some very low
strength bands
Bore discontinued at 10.61m
(refusal on very low to low strength siltstone)
0.4
3.4
9.12
10.0
10.61
T
y
p
e
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
Depth
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Results &
Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 1
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
LOGGED: RJH RIG: Gemco 210B
DRILLER: Boers Drilling (Paul)
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Free groundwater observed at 4.0m, at 3.2m after 48 hours
TYPE OF BORING: SFA (V-bit) to 10.75m
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
CASING: Uncased
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample U
x
Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
SURFACE LEVEL: 118 AHD
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
Well
Construction
Details
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
2,3,4
N = 7
3,2,4
N = 6
3,3,4
N = 7
2,3,3
N = 6
3,4,4
N = 8
4,7,8
N = 15
10,5/30
refusal
11/110
refusal
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.45
2.0
2.45
3.0
3.45
4.5
4.95
6.0
6.45
7.5
7.95
9.0
9.18
10.5
10.61
TOPSOIL - dark grey brown, friable clay with some silt,
roots and rootlets, damp
CLAY - stiff, orange grey brown, slightly friable clay with
some fine to medium gravel (siltstone, sandstone) and
trace rootlets, humid
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly gravelly below 1.0m
- becoming very stiff, yellow brown mottled light grey clay
with some gravel (fine to medium siltstone) below 2.0m
GRAVEL - medium dense, orange brown, fine to medium
gravel (siltstone, sandstone) with some clay and silt, wet
(COLLUVIUM)
GRAVELLY CLAY - stiff, orange brown, gravelly (fine to
coarse siltstone, sandstone) clay with some silt, damp to
wet
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming very stiff and slightly gravelly to gravelly below
6.0m
CLAY - very stiff to hard, yellow brown mottled light grey,
fissured, slightly silty clay with some extremely low to very
low strength siltstone bands, humid to damp
(RESIDUAL)
- with some very low to low strength bands below 10.5m
SILTSTONE - extremely low to very low strength,
extremely weathered, yellow orange brown siltstone with
some low strength bands
0.2
2.5
4.5
9.0
10.72
11.91
T
y
p
e
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
Depth
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 2
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 8/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Free groundwater observed at 2.5m, at 2.4m after 1 hour
CASING: Uncased
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
SURFACE LEVEL: 115 AHD
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
Well
Construction
Details
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
3,6,6
N = 12
3,6,11
N = 17
4,6,5
N = 11
3,3,6
N = 9
3,4,6
N = 10
3,6,10
N = 16
7,18,12/110
refusal
12,7/50
refusal
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.45
2.0
2.45
3.0
3.45
4.5
4.95
6.0
6.45
7.5
7.95
9.0
9.41
10.5
10.72
TOPSOIL - dark brown grey clay
with some silt, roots and rootlets,
damp
CLAYEY GRAVEL - very loose to
loose, orange brown, friable, slightly
clayey to clayey, fine to coarse
gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with
some silt, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming damp to wet below 1.7m
- becoming very loose below 2.0m
- becoming very loose to loose
below 3.0m
CLAYEY GRAVEL - loose, grey
brown, clayey, fine to medium gravel
(siltstone, sandstone) with sand and
silt, damp to wet
(POSSIBLE COLLUVIUM)
- becoming medium dense and
damp below 6.0m
SILTSTONE - extremely low
strength, extremely weathered, light
grey to yellow orange brown
siltstone
- becoming very low strength with
some low strength bands below
8.3m
SANDSTONE - medium to high
strength, moderately weathered to
fresh stained, slightly fractured,
orange grey to light grey, fine to
medium grained, quartz sandstone
with some siltstone bands
SILTSTONE - typically high
strength, slightly weathered to fresh
rock, slightly fractured, light to mid
grey siltstone with some fine to
medium grained quartz sandstone
bands
(limit of investigation)
3,3,2
N = 5
3,2,1
N = 3
3,3,2
N = 5
2,4,5
N = 9
3,7,9
N = 16
8,16,22
N = 38
PL(A) = 1.1
PL(A) = 0.7
PL(A) = 0.5
PL(A) = 1.2
93
96
99
100
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
*Unless otherwise
stated, rock is fractured
along smooth planar,
ironstained,
subhorizontal bedding
partings
9.29m: 10mm clay
9.31m: J 20 - 25, 8mm
clay
9.37m: J 20 - 25, 2 -
8mm clay
0.4
3.77
7.5
9.25
10.78
11.59
Rock
Strength
W
a
t
e
r
Degree of
Weathering
E
W
H
W
M
W
S
W
F
S
F
R
Description
of
Strata
Fracture
Spacing
(m)
0
.
0
1
Depth
(m)
Test Results
&
Comments
0
.
0
5
Discontinuities
B - Bedding
S - Shear
T
y
p
e
E
x

L
o
w
V
e
r
y

L
o
w
L
o
w
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
V
e
r
y

H
i
g
h
E
x

H
i
g
h
0
.
1
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
0
0
R
Q
D
%
C
o
r
e
R
e
c
.

%
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
J - Joint
F - Fault
R
L
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
9
4
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 3
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
Standpipe installed: screen 7.60 - 11.59m, gravel 6.0 - 11.59m, bentonite 5.6 - 6.0m, backfill 0.0 - 5.6m
REMARKS:
TYPE OF BORING: SFA (V-bit) to 9.25m, coring (NQ) to 11.59m
CASING: NW to 9.25m
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
SURFACE LEVEL: 113.2 AHD
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
TOPSOIL - dark brown, friable clay
with some silt, roots and rootlets,
damp
GRAVELLY CLAY - firm, grey
brown, friable, slightly gravelly to
gravelly (fine to coarse siltstone,
sandstone) clay with trace rootlets,
humid to damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- with some silt and damp below
1.0m
- becoming clay and gravel below
2.0m
- becoming firm to stiff and grey to
orange brown below 4.5m
GRAVEL - medium dense, orange
brown, friable, fine to coarse gravel
(siltstone, sandstone) with some
clay, humid to damp
(COLLUVIUM)
CLAYEY GRAVEL - medium dense,
orange brown, slightly clayey to
clayey, fine to coarse gravel
(siltstone, sandstone) with some silt,
damp
(COLLUVIUM)
brown, fine to coarse gravel
(siltstone, sandstone) with some silt,
damp to wet
(COLLUVIUM)
CLAY - very stiff to hard, yellow
brown to grey brown clay with some
silt and bands of very low strength
siltstone, humid to damp
(RESIDUAL)
strength, extremely weathered,
orange brown siltstone with some
very low to low strength bands
SILTSTONE - typically very low to
low strength, extremely to highly
weathered, fractured to slightly
fractured, yellow brown grey
siltstone
SILTSTONE - medium strength,
slightly weathered, slightly fractured,
yellow brown to grey siltstone
2,2,3
N = 5
2,3,2
N = 5
2,2,4
N = 6
3,4,4
N = 8
3,4,4
N = 8
8,7,11
N = 18
3,5,7
N = 12
4,6,10
N = 16
10,22
refusal
PL(A) = 0.1
PL(A) = 0.1
PL(A) = 0.05
PL(A) = 0.4
PL(A) = 0.5
0
0
84
85
100
100
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
C
*Unless otherwise
ironstained,
partings and subvertical
joints
13.81m: J 80 - 90
13.94m: CORE LOSS:
170mm
14.1m: J 80 - 90
15.17m: J 60 - 65, FeV
15.52m: J 65 - 70
15.63m: J 75 - 80, FeV
15.95m: 2mm clay
0.1
6.85
9.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
13.44
14.11
16.0
16.54
Rock
Strength
W
a
t
e
r
Degree of
Weathering
E
W
H
W
M
W
S
W
F
S
F
R
Description
of
Strata
Fracture
Spacing
(m)
0
.
0
1
Depth
(m)
Test Results
&
Comments
0
.
0
5
Discontinuities
B - Bedding
S - Shear
T
y
p
e
E
x

L
o
w
V
e
r
y

L
o
w
L
o
w
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
V
e
r
y

H
i
g
h
E
x

H
i
g
h
0
.
1
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
0
0
R
Q
D
%
C
o
r
e
R
e
c
.

%
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
J - Joint
F - Fault
R
L
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
9
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 4
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6 - 7/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
REMARKS:
CASING: NW to 13.44m
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
TOPSOIL - dark brown, friable clay with some silt, roots
and rootlets, damp
CLAY - firm, orange brown, friable, slightly gravelly (fine to
coarse siltstone, sandstone) clay with some silt and trace
rootlets, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
GRAVELLY CLAY - stiff, orange brown gravelly (fine to
coarse siltstone, sandstone) clay with some silt, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- damp to wet between 2.0 - 2.5m
- becoming stiff to very stiff, clay and gravel below 4.5m
CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottled orange brown, slightly
silty clay with some sand and some very low to low
strength siltstone bands, humid to damp
(RESIDUAL)
- becoming wet below 9.7m
- becoming light grey mottled yellow brown below 10.5m
SILTSTONE - extremely low strength, extremely
weathered, grey brown to light grey siltstone
0.45
2.0
9.0
11.6
12.14
T
y
p
e
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
Depth
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 5
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 8/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
REMARKS:
CASING: Uncased
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
Well
Construction
Details
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
2,3,4
N = 7
3,18,8
N = 26
3,4,6
N = 10
5,7,9
N = 16
4,8,7
N = 15
7,10,11
N = 21
5,12,6/30
refusal
5,8,13
N = 21
7/90
refusal
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.45
2.0
2.45
3.0
3.45
4.5
4.95
6.0
6.45
7.5
7.95
9.0
9.33
10.5
10.95
12.0
12.09
TOPSOIL - dark grey brown, friable
clay with some roots and rootlets,
damp
CLAYEY GRAVEL - loose, orange
brown, friable, clayey, fine to coarse
gravel (siltstone, sandstone) with
some silt, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly clayey to clayey
below 1.0m
GRAVELLY CLAY - stiff, orange
brown, friable, slightly gravelly to
gravelly (fine to coarse siltstone,
sandstone) clay with some silt,
damp
(COLLUVIUM)
CLAY - very stiff, yellow orange
brown mottled light grey, slightly
silty clay with trace root remains,
humid to damp
(PROBABLE COLLUVIUM)
brown, slightly clayey, fine to coarse
gravel (siltstone, sandstone) with
some silt, wet
CLAY - very stiff, yellow brown
mottled light grey, slightly silty clay,
humid to damp
(RESIDUAL)
strength, extremely weathered,
yellow brown grey siltstone
- becoming very low to low strength
below 8.7m
LAMINATE - medium to high
strength, slightly weathered
becoming fresh stained, slightly
fractured, orange brown and light to
mid grey laminite
3,3,4
N = 7
4,6,5
N = 11
4,6,9
N = 15
4,9,11
N = 20
5,15,8
N = 23
5,14,15/110
refusal
PL(A) = 0.4
PL(A) = 1
PL(A) = 0.9
PL(A) = 1.2
PL(A) = 0.6
51
100
99
100
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
*Unless otherwise
ironstained,
partings
8.81m: CIV
9.39m: J 55 - 60 S, P,
FeS
9.96m: J 20 - 25 S, P,
FeV
10m: J 75 - 80 S, P,
FeV
0.3
2.0
4.5
5.0
7.5
7.8
8.75
11.61
Rock
Strength
W
a
t
e
r
Degree of
Weathering
E
W
H
W
M
W
S
W
F
S
F
R
Description
of
Strata
Fracture
Spacing
(m)
0
.
0
1
Depth
(m)
Test Results
&
Comments
0
.
0
5
Discontinuities
B - Bedding
S - Shear
T
y
p
e
E
x

L
o
w
V
e
r
y

L
o
w
L
o
w
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
V
e
r
y

H
i
g
h
E
x

H
i
g
h
0
.
1
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
0
0
R
Q
D
%
C
o
r
e
R
e
c
.

%
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
J - Joint
F - Fault
R
L
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
9
4
9
3
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
BORE No: 6
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 7/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Mr Bryan Morrison
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Free groundwater observed at 5.0m
CASING: NW to 8.75m
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
TOPSOIL - brown grey, friable, slightly gravelly (fine to
coarse sandstone) clay with some cobbles, silt, roots and
rootlets, damp
GRAVEL - brown, friable, slightly clayey, cobbly, fine to
coarse gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with some silt and
trace rootlets
(COLLUVIUM)
- with some boulders below 1.4m
Pit discontinued at 1.6m
(large collapses)
0.3
1.6
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
RIG: New Holland LB110.B (450mm bucket)
LOCATION:
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Free groundwater observed at 0.9m
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 7
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Collapses from 1.6 - 0.2m
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
Dynamic Penetrometer Test
(blows per 150mm)
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.5
D
D
D
TOPSOIL - dark brown grey, friable clay with some silt,
fine to coarse gravel (sandstone), roots and rootlets, damp
GRAVEL - brown, friable, slightly clayey, fine to coarse
gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with some silt and trace
rootlets, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- with some cobbles below 1.0m
- becoming orange grey brown, fine to coarse gravel and
wet below 1.2m
CLAYEY GRAVEL - brown, slightly clayey to clayey,
cobbly, fine to coarse gravel with gravel and cobble sized
pockets of clay, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
(side walls collapsing)
0.4
2.2
3.6
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Water inflow at 1.2m to 2.7m
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 8
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
Collapses between 3.6 - 1.2m
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.9
3.0
3.5
3.6
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 100kPa
pp = 60 - 200kPa
TOPSOIL - dark brown grey clay with some silt, roots and
rootlets, damp
GRAVELLY CLAY - stiff to very stiff, orange brown,
slightly friable, gravelly (fine to coarse sandstone,
siltstone) clay with some silt and trace rootlets, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming clay and gravel with some cobbles below 0.4m
- sandstone boulder at 0.4m
CLAYEY GRAVEL - orange brown friable, slightly clayey
to clayey, fine to coarse gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with
some cobbles, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly clayey below 3.8m
- with some moisture on gravel surfaces below 4.4m
0.4
1.5
4.8
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
9
4
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 9
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.7
2.8
3.2
3.3
3.8
3.9
4.4
4.5
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 100 - 200kPa
pp = 240 - 250kPa
TOPSOIL - dark brown grey, slightly gravelly (fine to
coarse sandstone, siltstone) clay with some silt, roots and
rootlets, damp
GRAVEL - orange brown, friable, slightly clayey, fine to
coarse gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with trace silt, cobbles
and rootlets, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- with some clay between 0.8 - 1.5m
CLAYEY GRAVEL - stiff to hard, orange brown, friable,
clayey, fine to coarse gravel (siltstone, sandstone), damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly clayey to clayey below 3.2m
0.4
2.2
4.6
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
REMARKS:
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 10
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.2
3.3
3.8
3.9
4.4
4.5
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 110 - 320kPa
pp = 290 - 440kPa
pp = 170 - 230kPa
roots, rootlets and trace fine to medium gravel (siltstone),
damp
CLAY - firm to stiff, orange brown, friable, slightly sandy,
slightly gravelly (fine to coarse sandstone, siltstone) clay
with trace rootlets, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
GRAVEL - orange brown, fine to coarse gravel
(sandstone, siltstone) with some clay, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottled orange brown, slightly
silty clay with some fine to medium gravel (siltstone),
humid to damp
- becoming slightly gravelly (siltstone) below 2.5m
CLAYEY GRAVEL - orange brown, friable, clayey, fine to
coarse gravel (sandstone, siltstone) with some cobbles
and silt, humid to damp
0.4
1.0
1.5
2.8
4.8
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
9
4
9
3
REMARKS:
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 11
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.7
4.2
4.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 390 - 430kPa
pp = 350 - 390kPa
CLAYEY GRAVEL - orange brown, friable, slightly clayey
to clayey, fine to coarse gravel (siltstone, sandstone) with
some sand, silt and trace rootlets, damp to moist
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming damp to wet below 1.6m
- with some cobble and boulder sized pockets of orange
brown, slightly silty clay with some fine to medium gravel
below 2.2m
- becoming slightly cobbly, fine to coarse gravel with some
clay below 2.8m
- with some cobble sized pockets of grey mottled orange
brown, slightly silty clay below 4.5m
0.7
4.7
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
9
7
9
6
9
5
9
4
9
3
9
2
9
1
REMARKS:
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Moderate water inflow from 1.6m
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 12
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.8
2.9
3.4
3.5
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 100 - 160kPa
pp = 200 - 270kPa
CLAY - stiff to very stiff, orange brown mottled light grey,
friable, slightly gravelly (fine to coarse siltstone) clay with
trace cobbles (sandstone), silt and rootlets
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming slightly gravelly to gravelly below 1.0m
GRAVELLY CLAY - orange brown, friable, slightly cobbly,
gravelly (fine to coarse sandstone, siltstone) clay with
some silt and sand, damp
(COLLUVIUM)
0.5
3.0
4.6
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
9
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
REMARKS:
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 13
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.9
3.0
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.6
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 120 - 200kPa
pp = 140 - 200kPa
pp = 170 - 270kPa
pp = 150 - 170kPa
FILLING - poorly to moderately compacted, dark grey,
orange brown and brown clay with some gravel (crushed
brick, concrete), silt, roots, rootlets, damp
TOPSOIL - dark grey brown mottled red brown clay with
some rootlet remains, humid to damp
GRAVELLY CLAY - stiff to very stiff, orange grey brown,
slightly friable, gravelly (fine to coarse siltstone,
sandstone) clay, humid to damp
(COLLUVIUM)
- becoming friable and slightly gravelly to gravelly below
2.4m
- becoming light grey mottled orange brown below 3.6m
- with some moisture on surfaces below 4.2m
1.0
1.5
5.1
Results &
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
S
a
m
p
l
e
Description
of
Strata
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
T
y
p
e
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
Mr Bryan Morrison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R
L
LOCATION:
1
2
0
1
1
9
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
5
1
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
2
1
0
1
REMARKS:
TEST PIT LOG
Depth
(m)
LOGGED: RJH
PIT No: 14
PROJECT No: 48891
DATE: 6/12/2010
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
BLK Block sample U
x
EASTING:
NORTHING:
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90/--
5 10 15 20
(blows per 150mm)
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.7
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.7
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
pp = 100 - 130kPa
pp = 100 - 260kPa
pp = 170 - 250kPa
pp = 200kPa
pp = 190 - 320kPa
pp = 170 - 200kPa
pp = 210 - 250kPa
Project No.
48891
Date:
5 Nov 2010 Client: Mr Bryan Morrison
Photo 1: View north of hummocky, irregular slope
Photo 2: View west of relict landslide
Site Photographs 1 and 2
Proposed Subdivision, Wombarra
Project No.
48891
Date:
Photo 3: View southeast towards Bore 1, scattered boulders
Photo 4: View north of exist dwelling deck, cracks in cement rendering and masonry wall leaning downslope
Project No.
48891
Date:
Photo 5: View northwest towards trees leaning downslope below the eastern boundary of the site
Photo 6: View northeast towards of sandstone boulders on the surface
Project No.
48891
Date:
6 Dec 2010 Client: Mr Bryan Morrison
Photo 7: View northwest of water ponding
Photo 8: View of groundwater seepage on collapsed side walls of Pit 12

Appendix B
Laboratory Test Report Sheets

Appendix C
CSIRO Publication
Extracts from Australian Geomechanics Society

-
- -- - - -
- - - - P
- -
- - -- --
- - - -- -
- -- -
---
- --
- - --
- - - - -
-- - -- -- --
- - -
-
-
--
-
- - - -
-
{ - - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - --
{ - - - -
- - - - -
-K- -- -- - ----
- - - -
- - -
--
- - -
- - - -
- -
-
-
-- - - - - --
- - -
- -
- - -- -
--- - -- - -
-- - - -
- - - P
- -
- - - - - -

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - -
- -- -
- - - - -
- --
- - - -
- --
- - - -
- - -- -
-

- - - -
- - -
-- --
{ -
{ - -
-
{ - - - - -

- - -
- - - - -
- - -- -
- - - - -
- - - -- - --
- - -

K-

--
- - -- - -
-- - - -
- -- - -
-- - -
-- - -
--
- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- -
- -- - - - -- -- -

-

- -- -
- - -
{ - - - ---
- -- -
{ - - - -
- - - --
--
- - -
K- -
- - -
{ - -
{ - - -
- -- - -
- - --
- - -
- - -
- - -
- -
- - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - -
- -- -
-- -
- - -
- - - - - -
-K- - -
- -
- -
- - - -
-- - -
- -- --- -
- -
- - --
- -- --
{ -
- - - - -
{ - - --
- -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - -
-- -
- --
- - - - -
- - --
- -
- - - - -
- - - -
-
- - - -
- - - - -
-
- - - -
-- -
- -
- - - -- - -
- - - -
- - - --
- - -
-
-- - - -
-- - - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - -
-K- - -- - -
- - -
-- - - -
-
- - -
- -- -
-
- -- -
-
- - -
- -
- -- -
- - - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - - -- --
P - - -
- - - -
--- - - -
- -
- - - - - -
-- - - -- -
- - - -

- - --
-- -
- - - - -- - -
- - - - - - -
- - -
- - -
-- - - -
- - -
- - --
- -
- - -- -
- -- - - --
- -
- -
- - - - - -
-- - - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- -
--
- - -- -
-
-- - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
--
- - - -
- - --- - -
- - --
-
- - -
- -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
-- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
- - -
- - ---- -
- - - -
- --
- --
- - --
-- - - -
- - - -
- -- -
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - ---
- -
- - -
-- - --- - -
-- - -
-- - - -
- -
- - - - -
- -
- - - - -
- - - -
- --
- - -
- - -
- -
- -
- -
- -

- - - -
- - -
- -- - -
-
- - -
--
- - - - - -
-- -- - - - - -
-
- - -
- -
- -
- -
{ - - - -
- -
{ - -
{ - - -
-- - -
- -- - -
- - - - -

---
- - - - -
-
-
- -- - -
- -
- -- - -

- - -
- - -
- - - -
-- - --

- - - -- - -
- - -- -
- - - -
- - -
-
-- - -

- - - - - -
- - - -
- - K-
- - -

-- - -
- -- -
-- --
- -- - - -
-
- -- --
- --
-- - - - -
- -

- -- - - - -
-
-- - -- - - -- -
- - - -
- -
- - -- -

-
-
-
-
- - - - - -
- -- - P -
- - - -
--
- -- - P -
- - - - - - -
- -- - - -
- -
- -
- - --
--
- - -
-- - - -
- -
- - - - - -
- -
- - -- - -
-
P -
- - -
- -- -
- - -
-
- - - - - --
- - - -
- -
- - -
- - - -- --
- - --
- -
- -
- - - - -
- -
{ - - -
- -- - -
{ - -
- -- - --
{ - - -
- - - -
- - - - - --
- -
-- - -

- -

- -- - -

-- --- -
- - -
- -- - - --- -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
- - -
-- -
- -
-
- -- -
-
- -
-
- - --
- -
- - -
- - -- - - --
- - -

- -
- - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - --
- - - - -
- - - -- -
- - -
--
- - -
-- -
- - - - --

-
- - -
- -
- - - -
- -- - -
- -
- -
- --
- --- -- - - -- - -
- - - - -
-- - -
-
-
--
----
w - - -
- -
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
92 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)

QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
Indicative Value of
Approximate Annual
Probability
1: CATASTROPHIC
200%
2: MAJOR
60%
3: MEDIUM
20%
4: MINOR
5%
5:
INSIGNIFICANT
0.5%
A ALMOST CERTAIN 10
-1
VH VH VH H M or L (5)
B - LIKELY 10
-2
VH VH H M L
C - POSSIBLE 10
-3
VH H M M VL
D - UNLIKELY 10
-4
H M L L VL
E - RARE 10
-5
M L L VL VL
F - BARELY CREDIBLE 10
-6
L VL VL VL VL
Notes: (5) For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.
(6) When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
time.

RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Level Example Implications (7)
VH VERY HIGH RISK
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
property.
H HIGH RISK
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
M MODERATE RISK
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators approval) but requires investigation, planning and
implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
L LOW RISK
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
required.
VL VERY LOW RISK
Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
Note: (7) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
given as a general guide.
APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY

QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD
Approximate Annual Probability
Indicative
Value
Notional
Boundary
Implied Indicative Landslide
Recurrence Interval
Description Descriptor Level
10
-1
10 years The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A
10
-2
100 years
The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
design life.
LIKELY B
10
-3
1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. POSSIBLE C
10
-4
10,000 years
The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
design life.
UNLIKELY D
10
-5
100,000 years
The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances
over the design life.
RARE E
10
-6

1,000,000 years

The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life. BARELY CREDIBLE F
Note: (1) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.

QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY
Approximate Cost of Damage
Indicative
Value
Notional
Boundary
Description Descriptor Level
200%
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
CATASTROPHIC 1
60%
Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
MAJOR 2
20%
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
MEDIUM 3
5% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works. MINOR 4
0.5%

Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
INSIGNIFICANT 5
Notes: (2) The Approximate Cost of Damage 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.
(3) The Approximate Cost is to be 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
works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide 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 landslides which may affect the property.
(4) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa
100%
40%
10%
1%
5x10
-2

5x10
-3

5x10
-4

5x10
-5

20 years
200 years
2000 years
20,000 years
200,000 years
5x10
-6

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 113
APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION

GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE
ADVICE
GEOTECHNICAL
ASSESSMENT
Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early
stage of planning and before site works.
Prepare detailed plan and start site works before
geotechnical advice.
PLANNING
SITE PLANNING Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk
arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.
Plan development without regard for the Risk.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
HOUSE DESIGN
Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber
or steel frames, timber or panel cladding.
Consider use of split levels.
Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.
Floor plans which require extensive cutting and
filling.
Movement intolerant structures.
SITE CLEARING Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indiscriminately clear the site.
ACCESS &
DRIVEWAYS
Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage.
Council specifications for grades may need to be modified.
Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.
Excavate and fill for site access before
geotechnical advice.
EARTHWORKS Retain natural contours wherever possible. Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks.
CUTS
Minimise depth.
Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope.
Provide drainage measures and erosion control.
Large scale cuts and benching.
Unsupported cuts.
Ignore drainage requirements
FILLS
Minimise height.
Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling.
Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards.
Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall.
Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage.
Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails,
may flow a considerable distance including
onto property below.
Block natural drainage lines.
Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil.
Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil,
boulders, building rubble etc in fill.
ROCK OUTCROPS
& BOULDERS
Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk.
Support rock faces where necessary.
Disturb or undercut detached blocks or
boulders.
RETAINING
WALLS
Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces.
Found on rock where practicable.
Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope
above.
Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation.
Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as
sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced
blockwork.
Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes.
FOOTINGS
Found within rock where practicable.
Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope.
Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.
Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.
Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders
or undercut cliffs.
SWIMMING POOLS
Engineer designed.
Support on piers to rock where practicable.
Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.
Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there
may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.

DRAINAGE
SURFACE
Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes.
Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses.
Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.
Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.
Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.
Discharge at top of fills and cuts.
Allow water to pond on bench areas.

SUBSURFACE
Provide filter around subsurface drain.
Provide drain behind retaining walls.
Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.
Prevent inflow of surface water.
Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.
SEPTIC &
SULLAGE
Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may
be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable.
Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded.
Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.
Use absorption trenches without consideration
of landslide risk.
EROSION
CONTROL &
LANDSCAPING
Control erosion as this may lead to instability.
Revegetate cleared area.
Failure to observe earthworks and drainage
recommendations when landscaping.
DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant
SITE VISITS Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER
OWNERS
RESPONSIBILITY
Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply
pipes.
Where structural distress is evident see advice.
If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.


WOMBARRA 95 Morrison Ave Jan 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WOMBARRA 95 Morrison Ave Jan 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on

You might also like