GEOTECHNICAL & LANDSLIP RISK

ASSESSMENT REPORT

PROJECT: 23 Florence Avenue, Upwey

CLIENT: Ms. Milinda Wickramasinghe
DATE: 10 June 2014
REPORT NO: GE2571-14

GEOTESTA PTY LTD | ABN91851620815| 6/31-37 Howleys Rd, Notting Hill, VIC 3168
GEOTESTA PTY LTD | ABN
Phone: 91851620815|
1300 6/31-37
852216 | Fax: Howleys
03 9562 Rd, Notting
9098 | email: Hill, VIC 3168
[email protected]
Phone: 1300 852216 | Fax: 03 9562 9098 | email: [email protected]
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical investigation and landslip risk assessment was undertaken for a

proposed new dwelling at 23 Florence Avenue, Upwey on 6 June 2014.

The type of hazards on the site was identified as shallow slump and deep seated failure.
The levels of risks to landslip as a result of the development activities on this site have
been assessed in accordance with the AGS Guidelines. The risk to loss of property is
considered “Low” and the risk to loss of life is “Tolerable”.

The relevant mitigation measures against the risks should be adopted. They include
installation of surface and subsurface drains, construction of retaining walls and
construction of the proposed new dwelling founded on bored piers.

2
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
2. SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Site Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Surface Conditions and Topography............................................................................................. 5
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................. 7
4. SITE CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................................... 8
5. POTENTIAL MODES OF INSTABILITY ........................................................................................ 9
5.1 Proposed Site Development ............................................................................................................ 9
5.2 Potential Modes of Instability ......................................................................................................... 9
5.3 Past Landslips ................................................................................................................................. 10
6. GEOTECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY LOSS .............................................. 11
6.1 Risk Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Likelihood of Failure Event........................................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Shallow Slump Failure Mode ................................................................................................ 14
6.2.2 Deep Seated Failure Mode ..................................................................................................... 14
7. GEOTECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – QUANTITATIVE RISK TO LIFE .......................... 16
7.1 Method of Assessment................................................................................................................... 16
7.2 Risk to Life ....................................................................................................................................... 16
8. LANDSLIP RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 18
8.1 Risk Mitigation................................................................................................................................ 18
8.2 Risk Treatments .............................................................................................................................. 18
9. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 22
10. CONDITIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 23

FIGURES AND ATTACHMENTS

3
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents our result of geotechnical investigation and risk assessment for the
proposed new dwelling at 23 Florence Avenue, Upwey. The purpose of the
investigation was to assess the existing slope conditions, consider the implications of the
construction of proposed new dwelling and advise appropriate measures to minimise
potential instability at the site.

The results of this investigation should not be used for any other purpose than that for
which it is specifically intended. We recommend that our advice be sought prior to any
third party using or relying on the field data or the interpreted results. There may be
significant variations from the conditions presented in this report that could affect the
total project cost or its construction.

Our scope of works included undertaking a site inspection, assessing the site conditions,
drilling of two boreholes, performing dynamic cone penetration tests and preparing this
report. The report presents the results of the landslip risk assessment and
recommendations for risk mitigation strategies relevant to the proposed new dwelling.

The site inspection and the fieldwork were carried out on 6 June 2014.

4
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

2. SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Geology

The geology in this region belongs to Devonian Ferny Creek Rhyodacite (Djf) as
identified from the geology map of Victoria (Department of Primary Industries). The
geological map of the site is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Geology Map of the Site

Subject Site

Geological Unit: Devonian Ferny Creek Rhyodacite (Djf), (Source: State of Victoria, Department of
Primary Industries)

2.2 Surface Conditions and Topography

The site is located on the north side of Florence Avenue and is a vacant land. The
property is mainly covered by numerous medium to tall trees along the site boundaries
and within the property.

The natural slope of the site ranged from 12° to 14° towards the east. The contour map
of the site is presented in Figure 2.

A cut batter of 0.6m high was observed at the west boundary of the property. This site is
likely to receive medium surface water runoff from the upslope.

5
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Figure 2 – Contour Map of the Site

Source: land.vic.gov.au

6
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

3. FIELD INVESTIGATION
Soil sampling was undertaken using hand auger at two borehole locations (B1 & B2).
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was undertaken adjacent to each of the
above boreholes. The borehole logs and DCP test results are presented in Appendix B.
The borehole locations are shown in Figure 3.

Borehole B1: The investigation borehole B1 revealed the soil profile comprising soft to
firm clayey silt to 0.4m depth overlying firm to very stiff silty clay to the termination
depth at 0.8m.

Borehole B2: The investigation borehole B2 revealed the soil profile comprising soft to
firm clayey silt to 0.5m depth overlying stiff to very stiff silty clay to the termination
depth at 0.9m.

Figure 3 – Site Plan and Borehole Locations

7
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

4. SITE CLASSIFICATION
It has been estimated that the Characteristic Surface Movement (ys) of the underlying
natural soil and the fill material will be in the range of 20mm to 40mm provided the site
is protected from “abnormal moisture conditions” and is drained as described in AS
2870-2011. However, due to the sloping site condition, this site has been classified as
Class P as per AS 2870.

8
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

5. POTENTIAL MODES OF INSTABILITY

5.1 Proposed Site Development

It is proposed to construct a new dwelling on this site. The cross section of the proposed
site is shown in Figure 4. Based on the proposed work, some of the construction
activities related to the slope conditions are:

• Construction of the proposed work and effect of live loading from machineries and
materials during construction activities;
• Earthworks to modify the ground contour;
• Construction of permanent retaining structures;
• Removal of trees and other existing plantations.

5.2 Potential Modes of Instability

There are two main classes of failure hazards differentiated on the basis of material type
and scale of failure due to the proposed works:
Mode 1: A shallow slump (earth slide or earth flow) involving the natural slope, cuts
and man-made fill. This mode of failure may occur in the area surcharged with
uncontrolled fill or subject to additional loading from the new constructions or steep cut
batters;
Mode 2: Deep seated failure (rotational or translational landslip) that involves the
underlying natural soil and rock in steep slope; the area subject to this failure could be
identified from the presence of steep slopes combined with additional load on the slope.
The sketch of the slope cross section illustrating the potential modes of instability is
shown in Figure 4.

9
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Figure 4 – Potential Mode of Failure

5.3 Past Landslips

Landslips in the natural ground were not uncommon in the geology unit such as in this
area. An interrogation of the landslip records in the Shire of Yarra Ranges indicates that
the following sites in Upwey with the same geology had experienced landslips in the
past:
• Ferguson/Ternes Road
• Toorac/Hazelvale Road
• Torry Hill Road

The statistical record of landslips suggests the two main factors that contribute to the
landslips, i.e. natural steepness of the slope and saturation of the slope.

10
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

6. GEOTECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY LOSS

6.1 Risk Assessment Methodology

The risk assessment process is a qualitative process designed to enable ranking of the
sites identified as hazardous. This ranking is important to allow prioritisation of sites for
either nomination to a hazard monitoring program or for hazard treatment. In this
qualitative process, risk has been assessed as the product of likelihood and consequence
criteria, determined by a matrix method in line with accepted risk management
principles. The likelihood rating is applied to the table ‘Qualitative Measures of Likelihood’
to derive a likelihood level, A to F.

Table 1 Qualitative Measures of Likelihood – Property Loss

Indicative Implied Descriptor Definition Level

Value Indicative
Landslip
Recurrence

ALMOST The event is expected to occur over the design life A

10-1 10 years
CERTAIN

The event will probably occur under adverse B

10-2 100 years LIKELY
conditions over the design life

The event could occur under adverse conditions C

10-3 1000 years POSSIBLE
over the design life

10,000 The event might occur under very adverse D

10-4 UNLIKELY
years circumstances over the design life

100,000 The event is conceivable but only under E

10-5 RARE
years exceptional circumstances over the design life

1,000,000 BARELY The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the F

10-6
years CREDIBLE design life

The consequence rating is applied to the table ‘Qualitative Measures of Vulnerability

and Consequence’ to derive a consequence level, 1 to 5.

Table 2 Qualitative Measures of Consequence to Property

Approx. Cost Definition Descriptor Level

of damage
Indicative
Value

200% Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale CATASTROPHIC 1

damage requiring major engineering works for
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent
property major consequence damage

11
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Approx. Cost Definition Descriptor Level

of damage
Indicative
Value

60% Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or MAJOR 2

extending beyond site boundaries requiring
significant stabilisation works. Could cause at least
one adjacent property medium consequence damage

20% Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or MEDIUM 3

significant part of site requiring large stabilisation
works. Could cause at least one adjacent property
minor consequence damage

5% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of MINOR 4

site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works

0.5% Little damage. (Note for high probability event INSIGNIFICANT 5

(Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at
a national boundary of 0.1%. See risk Matrix)
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. It is an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the
cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures),
stabilisation work required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslip
which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal
fees, temporary accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to
address other landslips which may affect the property.
Table 3 Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix – Level of Risk to Property
Consequences to Property
Indicative
value of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Approximate
Likelihood Annual Catastrophic Major Medium Minor Insignificant
Probability 200% 60% 20% 5% 0.5%

Almost
10-1 VH VH VH H M or L
Certain (A)

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

Possible (C) 10-3 VH H M M VL

Unlikely (D) 10-4 H M L L VL

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

Barely
10-6 L VL VL VL VL
Credible (F)

12
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

A qualitative risk rating is derived by using both the likelihood level and the
consequence level in a standard form of risk analysis matrix. (See Table 3, ‘Qualitative
Risk Analysis matrix”). This matrix assigns a four-fold risk level ranging from VH (very
high), H (high), M (moderate) to L (low).
A table of ‘Risk Level Implications’ is shown in Table 4 below. These implications are only
given as a general guide as the implications for a particular site are often very site
specific.

Table 4 Risk Level Implications

Risk Level Implications

VH - Very High 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 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 May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subjected to regulator’s

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 Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to

reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is required

VL – Very Low Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures

We have undertaken the risk assessment of the site with reference to the guidelines set
out by the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) in “Landslide Risk Management
Concepts and Guidelines” as published in the Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol. 42
No. 1, March 2007c.

6.2 Likelihood of Failure Event

The estimation of the probability that a slope failure event will occur has been based on
inspection of the site and any indications of current or past events.
The following observations were important in estimating the indicative annual
probability of a slope instability event:

The soil properties;

Review of geotechnical data;

The site topography;

The surface run-off and groundwater conditions;

13
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

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

6.2.1 Shallow Slump Failure Mode

Likelihood
The major factors which govern the likelihood of a shallow slump are the presence of:
• Unretained and over steepened man-made fill or cut;
• Alteration of soil moisture condition due to removal of trees and installation of new
surface and subsurface drainage;
• Additional pressure on the slope from construction machineries.
The likelihood of a shallow slump failure is considered “Likely” on any
existing/proposed cut or fill batter.
The steepness of the site coupled with the presence natural clayey silt in the uppermost
layer suggests that any construction activities may impact on surface stability. By
limiting the construction phase to the drier periods of the year, the impact of any
earthworks on stability will be restricted.
A design that incorporated a good surface and subsurface drainage system, limited the
number and extent of fill, placement of engineered fill and engineer designed earth
retaining structures would reduce the likelihood of a shallow slump failure occurring to
“Unlikely”.
Although it is acknowledged that the client cannot control development beyond the
boundaries of their site, good maintenance of the drain in the adjacent properties will
also be important to prevent over saturation of the slope.
If drainage of the site is not managed well, it could lead to saturation of the soil profile
and reducing the soil shear strength. The likelihood of a shallow slump failure would
therefore increase if the above factors eventuate. They can, of course, be offset by
ensuring good drainage and placement of engineered fill. Some mitigation options
against the slope instability are presented in section 8 of this report.
Consequences
The element at risk on this site is the proposed dwelling. A small slump failure may
cause medium damage to the proposed structure.

6.2.2 Deep Seated Failure Mode

Likelihood
A deeper failure involving deeper soil profile is heavily dependent on the overall slope
angle and in the engineering properties of the soil mass. The common trigger that
initiates deep seated slope failure is an excessive cutting or erosion and change in

14
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

groundwater conditions including saturation in the uppermost soil profile due to poor
surface drainage condition. A kinematic analysis and review of the geomorphology of
this region indicates that the likelihood of failure through the soil mass occurring at the
site is “Rare”.
If the engineering recommendations suggested in this report are adopted, development
construction proceeds without requiring the excavation of any substantial cuttings or
significant fill, as proposed, it is considered that the impact of the proposed
development with regards to this mode of failure will be to further reduce its likelihood
of occurring.
Consequences
The deep seated failure occurring at the site may result in major damage to the
proposed new dwelling. A proposed development that minimizes or prohibits deep
excavation that undercut the slope should be adopted and improve the surface and
subsurface drainage condition should be adopted.

6.3 Results of Risk Level Estimation

The estimated risk levels are shown below in the following Table 5. This table also
presents the implications of the estimated risk levels.
Table 5 Risk Levels after Risk Mitigation

Mode of Failure Element at Risk Likelihood of Consequence Risk

Occurrence

Mode 1: Shallow Slump Proposed dwelling Unlikely Medium L

Failure

Mode 2: Deep Seated Proposed dwelling Rare Major L

Failure

Adopting an Important Level of Structure of 2 (Low rise structures), the suggested

acceptable qualitative risk to property criteria is “Low (L)”. It should be noted that the
above risk level has been estimated based on the assumption that all the risk mitigation
recommendations given in this report are adopted.

15
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

7. GEOTECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – QUANTITATIVE RISK TO

LIFE

7.1 Method of Assessment

The risk of loss of life has been estimated using the methodology outlined by the AGS,
2007, Section 7.
For loss of life, the individual risk can be calculated from:
R(LoL) = P(H) x P(S:H) x P(T:S) x V(D:T)
Where:
R(LoL) is the risk (annual probability of loss of life (death) of an individual);
P(H) is the annual probability of the landslip;
P(S:H) is the probability of spatial impact of the landslip impacting a building (location) taking
into account the travel distance and travel direction given the event; The shallow slump failure
may occur on any man made cut/fill that is available on the site or that would be required for the
proposed structure. This failure is estimated to hit a part of the dwelling. P(S:H) for shallow
slump failure is estimated as 0.2.The deep seated failure may also impact a part of the structure.
Hence, the P(S:H) for deep seated failure is estimated as 0.5.
P(T:S) is the temporal spatial probability (e.g. of the building or location being occupied by the
individual) given the spatial impact and allowing for the possibility of evacuation given there is
warning of the landslip occurrence; in this case it is assumed that the proposed dwelling will be
occupied by 2 persons on average 10 hours/day, 365 days per year, so P(T:S)=0.83.
V(D:T) is the vulnerability of the individual (probability of loss of life of the individual given the
impact). Vulnerability value due to shallow slump failure occurring upslope/downslope of the
house is 0.1. Vulnerability value due to deep seated failure is 0.5.
Vulnerability is generally based on the guidelines contained in Appendix F of AGS, 2007
and refers to the probability of survival given the type of failure and its spatial impact
on the element at risk. Low value of vulnerability has been assigned to events that are
unlikely to cause any significant effect on the structures due to spatial distance and /or
low impact energy, such as a shallow slump. A vulnerability value of 1.0 has been
adopted for persons occupied on structures.

7.2 Risk to Life

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

16
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Table 6 Risk Estimate – Loss of Life

Probability of
Likelihood of

Vulnerability
Mode of Failure

Occurrence

Probability

Individual
Indicative

Temporal
Annual

Spatial
Impact

Factor

Risk
Mode 1: Shallow slump failure Unlikely 10-4 0.2 0.83 0.1 1.66*10-6

Mode 2: Deep seated failure Rare 10-5 0.5 0.83 0.5 2.07*10-6

An evaluation of the estimated risk levels against the adopted criteria indicates the
assessed risk for shallow slump failure and deep seated failure are “Tolerable”.

17
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

8. LANDSLIP RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 Risk Mitigation

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

8.2 Risk Treatments

Based on the qualitative and quantitative risk assessment the following
recommendations are made to reduce the risk to both property and individuals at this
site.
8.2.1 Stabilisation of Slope
Additional control measures should be adopted to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
The work may involve the following scope of work:
• Installation of engineer designed retaining walls for any cut or fill batter higher than
1m; or create a minimum batter of 2H:1V in unretained cut or engineered fill.
• The following soil parameters interpreted from boreholes B1 can be used in
designing earth retaining systems at the site.
Depth (m) Soil Type Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion (kPa)
(°)
0 – 0.5 Clayey silt 18 22 2
> 0.5 Silty Clay 18 25 3
• Review of existing surface stormwater drain. The surface runoff should be regulated
to prevent flow onto the slope.

8.2.2 Drainage
• The collected water from roof should be discharged to the legal collection point to
prevent water accumulation in the vicinity of the dwelling.
• The surface stormwater drain is regularly maintained and diverted away from the
slope. Collect the stormwater in a water storage tank and divert the overflow with
pipe to legal outlet point. No excess water should discharge directly onto the existing
slope.
• Surface water should be prevented from ponding anywhere on site. Install surface
spoon drain and subsurface drain as recommended and direct the collected water
from the drains to outlet point.
• Any retaining wall structures should have adequate surface and subsurface drainage
installed behind the crest and at the toe of the wall to collect water and direct it
efficiently downslope. The subsurface drain is expected to avoid surface soil
saturation in the area behind the wall.

18
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

8.2.3 Footing Designs

Based on site observations, subsurface investigations, the size and type of proposed
development it is considered that the site be assigned a Class P classification (slope
stability), in accordance with AS 2870-2011. The proposed dwelling should be designed
as flexible structure.
It is recommended that bored piers be used to support the proposed dwelling. At a
minimum, the pier footings should be founded into very stiff layer and penetrate
through any fill material. The founding depth should be 1.5m below finish ground
surface or to hard layer, whichever is encountered first. The allowable bearing capacity
and unit skin friction for pier design can be taken as 250kPa and 25kPa respectively.
It should be noted that excavation of bored piers may encounter obstruction due to the
presence of cobbles/boulders in the soil formation. As an alternative to bored piers,
backhoe or rectangle piers can be used.
A suitably qualified geotechnical engineer should be engaged to confirm the
appropriate founding depth during footing excavation stage. The founding depth may
be deepened subject to the findings during the excavation.

8.2.4 Cut and Fill

Some earthwork is expected on this site during construction. The following guide lines
should be adopted for the earthwork:
• Any unretained fill on this site or during construction should be minimised to not
greater than 1.0m from the original ground surface provided that the fill is placed in
layers not exceeding 150mm loose thickness and compacted to achieve 95% dry
density of the standard compaction.
• Fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 150mm loose thickness and compacted
to achieve 95% dry density of standard compaction.
• The existing material derived in-situ is considered appropriate for fill material,
except for materials greater than 75mm, such as large cobbles or boulders.
• Key the fill into the natural slope. The existing slope should be excavated a
minimum depth of 0.3m prior to placement of fill. Remove vegetation and topsoil
before placing fill.
• The unretained cut and fill slope should not be steeper than 2H:1V.
• Any retaining walls should be constructed with appropriate drainage that is
incorporated into the overall site storm water management plan. Where possible,
batters above retained cut batters should be revegetated.
Any retaining structures taller than 1m should be designed by a qualified Engineer and
adopt the guidelines as recommended in AS4678-2002 (Earth Retaining Structures).

19
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

8.2.5 Vegetation
Revegetation of bare patches resulting from any construction works is essential on steep
slopes for limiting the effects of erosion. Revegetating reshaped batters is integral to
maintaining surface stability.

8.2.6 Effluent and Wastewater Disposal

Effluent disposal from the septic system should be discharged to the existing reticulated
sewer system, if available, otherwise use subsurface irrigation system subject to the
findings from Land Capability Assessment study.

8.2.7 Construction Supervision and Site Maintenance

• It is recommended that the detailed drainage and structural designs be reviewed by
a Geotechnical Engineer.
• It is recommended that a suitably qualified engineer be engaged to design and
oversee construction of retaining walls for the cutting and filling.
• The home owner should engage a Geotechnical Engineer that will provide a site
inspection in the first year after the construction of retaining wall is completed. The
inspection should include visual observation of the slope condition in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
This assessment has been determined on the assumption that recommendations
contained in this report are adopted in their entirety for the final design and that the
construction phase of the project is supervised by an appropriately qualified
geotechnical engineer.
To ensure that the risk does not increase to unsatisfactory levels, it is strongly
recommended that ongoing site maintenance be undertaken. Maintaining site drainage
and monitoring the site for evidence of deterioration in slope stability are key
components of any ongoing maintenance program for this site. Some guidelines for
hillside construction published by AGS (Australian Geomechanics Society) are attached.

20
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Figure 5 – Proposed Engineering Measures

21
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

9. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Good drainage is an important part of any footing design. The Builder should
follow all of the drainage requirements in AS 2870 to prevent water accumulation
near the building footings (even during construction). It is recommended that
sufficient ground clearance be created to accommodate paving which slopes a
minimum of 1:20 away from the building. This slope should be achieved by
excavation and not by building-up loose fill around the footings.
• Any proposed footings which are close to an easement and/or other excavations,
(including those in adjoining properties) should be founded below a line projected
up at 30° to the horizontal (for Sand) and 40° to the horizontal (for firm/stiff Clay)
and measured from the nearest base of the easement excavations.
• Avoid excavations close to footings since those founded on sandy soils can
experience settlements while those founded in clayey soils can also move due to the
shrinking and swelling of the clay. Plumbers and drainers should follow all the
recommendations made in AS 2870 and other appropriate codes with respect to
drainage works.
• It is also recommended that the Owners follow the requirements of AS 2870 and the
C.S.I.R.O. BTF18 (www.csiro.au), which requires Owners to carry out regular
maintenance of drainage and care for the soil moisture conditions.

22
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

10. CONDITIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

• This report is a geotechnical report only and the classification stated shall not be
regarded as an engineering design nor shall it replace a design by engineering
principles although it may contribute information for such designs. It shall be read
in conjunction with AS 2870 and must be reproduced only in total.
• The advice given in this report is based on the assumption that the test results are
representative of the overall subsurface conditions. However, it should be noted that
actual conditions in some parts of the building site may differ from those found in
our test holes. If excavations reveal soil conditions significantly different from those
shown in our attached Borehole Log(s), Geotesta must be consulted and excavations
stopped immediately.
• Any sketches in this report should be considered as only an approximate pictorial
evidence of our work. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, any dimensions or slope
information should not be used for any building cost calculations and/or positioning
of the building.
• Whilst Geotesta has accepted the commission for the work reported herein, the
ownership of the report and any liabilities associated with it, remain with Geotesta
until all relevant accounts have been paid.

For and on behalf of

GEOTESTA PTY LTD

STEPHEN P. DARMAWAN
B.Eng M.Eng MIEAust CPEng
Geotechnical Engineer

Rev No. Status Date Remark

Rev 0 Final 10/06/2014 SL/SD

23
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Appendix A
Site photographs

24
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Proposed new dwelling location; looking west

Proposed new dwelling location; looking northwest

25
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Appendix B
Borehole Logs and DCP Results

26
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

27
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

28
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

Appendix C
EXAMPLES OF GOOD HILLSIDE PRACTICE

29
23 Florence Avenue, Upwey GE2571-14

30