Warrell Creek Aar Working Geotech

WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA
PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT REVIEW
Roads and Maritime Services
GEOTLCOV24043AF-AC Rev 2
22 December 2011
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd ABN 93 056 929 483

8/12 Mars Road Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Australia
22 December 2011
Roads and Maritime Services

76 Victoria Ave
GRAFTON NSW
Attention: Shane Green
Dear Sir
RE: Warrell Creek to Urunga
Alternative Alignment Review
This report provides the findings of a geotechnical assessment of the alternative alignment for the
Pacific Highway upgrade section from Warrelll Creek to Urunga. Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Coffey)
has prepared this report for the technical review of the alternative alignment. The contents of this report
are based on a desktop study of existing surface and subsurface conditions obtained from studies and
investigations for the approved alignment.
Should you have any queries or comments regarding this report, please contact the undersigned.
For and on behalf of Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
Paran Moyes
Associate Geotechnical Engineer

cc Shane Higgins
SMEC
Distribution: Original held by Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

1 copy held by Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
1 electronic copy to RMS
1 electronic copy to SMEC
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd ABN 93 056 929 483 GEOTLCOV24043AF-AC Rev 2
8/12 Mars Road Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Australia
PO Box 125 North Ryde NSW 1670 Australia
T (+61) (2) 9911 1000 F (+61) (2) 9911 1001 coffey.com
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 PROPOSED ROUTE 1
2.1 Approved alignment 1
2.2 Alternative Alignment 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
3.1 Regional Topography and Terrain 2
3.2 Regional Geological Setting 2
3.2.1 Holocene Sediments 2
3.2.2 Pleistocene Sediments 2
3.2.3 Gully Alluvium 3
3.2.4 Phyllite 3
3.3 Geotechnical Information Available 4
3.4 Alternative Alignment Topography and Assessed Subsurface
Conditions 5
3.5 Land Use 10
4 GEOTECHNICAL UNITS 12
5 ACID SULPHATE SOIL AND CONTAMINATION 14
6 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 14
6.1 Cuttings 14
6.1.1 Excavation of Cuttings 14
6.1.2 Cut Batter Design 14
6.1.3 Material from Cuttings and Reuse Potential 15
6.1.4 Unsuitable Materials 17
6.1.5 Cut Foundation Treatments 17
6.1.6 Transition Zones at Cut/Fill Interface 18
6.2 Embankments 19
6.2.1 General Embankment Design Criteria 19
6.2.2 Embankment Foundation Preparation and Treatments 20
6.2.3 Embankment Settlement 21
6.3 Soft Ground Engineering 23
6.3.1 Introduction 23
6.3.2 Locations of soft ground 23
6.3.3 Settlement design criteria 24
6.3.4 Surcharge and settlement estimates 25
6.3.5 Ground improvement 26
6.4 Bridge Foundations and Construction Issues 33
Coffey Geotechnics i
22 December 2011
CONTENTS
6.5 Culverts 33
7 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES - APPROVED ALIGNMENT AND
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 37
8 CONDITIONS OF THIS REPORT 38
Important Information About Your Coffey Report
Tables
Table 3.1 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs for Former Quarry
Table 4.1 Alternative Alignment Geotechnical Units
Table 6.1 Summary of Weathered Rock CBR Testing
Table 6.2 Summary of Cuttings
Table 6.3 Summary of Embankments
Table 6.4 Summary of Soft Ground Locations
Table 6.5 Summary of Proposed Post Construction Settlement Criteria for Preliminary Design
Table 6.6 Estimated Surcharge Requirements and Associated Settlements
Table 6.7 Potential Ground Treatment Methods
Table 6.8 Design Concepts for CIC Supported Embankments
Table 6.9 Suitability of Ground Improvement Methods
Table 6.10 Summary of Culverts
Table 7.1 Geotechnical Issues – Approved and Alternative Alignment
Figures
Figure 3.1 Weathering Profile Developed on Schistose Rock
Photos
Photo 3.1 Nambucca River Floodplain (southern side of river)
Photo 3.2 End of Ridgeline near Ch 12 150m
Photo 3.3 Nambucca River Floodplain looking North
Photo 3.4 Surface water on Floodplain Looking Southeast form Mattick Lane
Coffey Geotechnics ii
22 December 2011
CONTENTS
Photo 3.5 Weathered Phyllite Exposure in Cutting on Old Coast Road
Photo 3.6 Weathered Phyllite Overlain by Soil in Old Coast Road Cutting
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Plans
Appendix B: Geotechnical Long Sections
Coffey Geotechnics iii

22 December 2011
1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides Coffey Geotechnics’ Pty Ltd (Coffey’s) geotechnical assessment for the technical
review of the alternative alignment for the Warrell Creek to Urunga Pacific Highway Upgrade. Following
community requests, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is undertaking a technical review of the
alternative alignment to evaluate the constraints associated with the alternative alignment and
compares it with the approved route. RMS engaged Coffey on 31 October 2011 to undertake a
geotechnical assessment comprising a desktop assessment for input into the technical review. This
work was carried out in general accordance with our proposal ref GEOTLCOV24043AF-AA dated 21
October 2011.
2 PROPOSED ROUTE
2.1 Approved alignment

The approved alignment extends north of the Bald Hill Road interchange traversing the Gumma Swamp
floodplain to the east of Macksville, before crossing the Nambucca River just to the west of the
Macksville Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). A new bridge, approximately 830m long, would be
constructed across the Nambucca River.
North of the Nambucca River, the approved alignment crosses the existing Pacific Highway
approximately 150 metres to the west of Old Coast Road. The approved alignment then generally
follows the ridgeline in the vicinity of Old Coast Road, initially to the east of the ridgeline then crossing
to the west before then passing through the Nambucca State Forest.
2.2 Alternative Alignment

The alternative alignment deviates east from the approved alignment north of the Bald Hill Road
interchange at approximate chainage 8700, to the south of the Nambucca Council Depot and Sewage
Treatment Plant. The alternative alignment then proceeds in a north-easterly direction traversing the
Gumma Swamp floodplain and a section of SEPP 14 wetland (No. 388) to the east of Macksville, before
crossing the Nambucca River just to the east of Goat Island.
A new bridge approximately 1 400 metres long would be constructed across the Nambucca River
crossing Gumma Road on the southern side and the existing Pacific Highway on the northern side of
the river. Presently oyster leases and SEPP 14 wetland are impacted by the alternative alignment.
North of the Nambucca River, the alternative alignment heads north through agricultural lands to the
east of the approved alignment running parallel to the west of Watt Creek before crossing Mattick Road.
From here the alternative alignment continues north, running on the eastern side of a ridge line and Old
Coast Road. At this point the alternative alignment passes to the west of Kingsworth Estate before
connecting back to the approved alignment at approximate chainage Ch 16500m, south west of
Nambucca Heads through the Nambucca State Forest.
Coffey Geotechnics 1
22 December 2011
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Regional Topography and Terrain

The topographic setting for the alternative alignment of the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads highway
upgrade is dominated by low, east-west trending, rounded ridgelines, relatively narrow valleys between
the ridgelines and a broad alluvial floodplain associated with the Nambucca River. Along the upgrade
alignment, the gently undulating foothills are elevated to about RL45m north of the Nambucca River.
Ground slopes flanking the low ridgelines are typically less than 10°.
Between the low ridgelines are small meandering watercourses typically about 5m wide within valleys of
about 100m to 250m width. The wider valley floors can be associated with localised areas of “boggy
ground” following prolonged rainfall.
The Nambucca River crossing, located 2.8km east of Macksville, is about 400mm wide, with the river
located in the northern portion of a 3.5km wide floodplain. The floodplain is at a surface elevation
ranging from RL0.9m to RL3m.
Land use along the upgrade alignment is predominantly farming in the form of cattle grazing or smaller
hobby farms. The Nambucca State Forest occupies the northern portion of the study area. An area of
privately owned forest is located between chainages Ch 13 700m and Ch 14 600m.
3.2 Regional Geological Setting

The following section describes the regional geological units that have been identified in this portion of
the Warrell Creek to Urunga study. This information is based on the geology encountered in the studies
of the approved alignment. The geology is dominated by Holocene and Pleistocene age alluvial
deposits in the Nambucca River Floodplain. In the vicinity of Old Coast Road the geology is dominated
by deeply weathered Phyllite bedrock.
3.2.1 Holocene Sediments
Holocene sediments are present within the floodplain of the Nambucca River. The Holocene sediments
form the uppermost Quaternary sediment sequence in these areas, and overlie the older Pleistocene
deposits of the Nambucca River floodplain. Approximately 950m of the alternative alignment is
underlain by Holocene soils 5m to 15m thick, and approximately 2,000m of alternative alignment is
underlain by Holocene soils 15m to 18m thick.
The Holocene sediments at the Nambucca River are typically characterised by grey and dark grey soft
to firm estuarine clays, silts and sands, often with shells and shell fragments. Analytical tests performed
on the Holocene deposits suggest that these sediments originate from the weathering and erosion of
the neighbouring low grade metamorphic terrain giving rise to non-reactive clay species (predominantly
illites).
3.2.2 Pleistocene Sediments
Inferred Pleistocene sediments are present along the alternative alignment associated with the very
broad floodplain of the Nambucca River. The Pleistocene deposits form the basal Quaternary sediment
sequence in this area and are overlain by younger Holocene sediments.
22 December 2011
The Pleistocene sediments at the Nambucca River consist of basal sands and gravels at depth (up to
depths of 25m to 30m within gently incised palaeochannels) which are in turn overlain by a clay
dominated sediment sequence. The Pleistocene clays are characterised by mottled red, orange and
grey fissured stiff to very stiff clays. The Pleistocene deposits are complex and vary considerably
laterally, as is characteristic of fluvial sediments.
Within the vicinity of the existing Nambucca River, the upper Pleistocene clay sequence has been
incised through and eroded away so that the lower Pleistocene sequence is seen to be directly overlain
by Holocene age sediments. Only at the northern and southern extents of the Nambucca River
floodplain is the upper Pleistocene clay sequence at least in part preserved.
3.2.3 Gully Alluvium
More localised alluvial deposits (which may also have a significant colluvial component) occur within a
number of locations along the alternative alignment within creeks and in the base of large gullies.
These materials are generally limited to firm to very stiff clays with some interbedded sands and gravels
and often form localised river terraces and former levees. These deposits are like to be complex and
vary considerably laterally, as is characteristic of fluvial sediments.
3.2.4 Phyllite
Phyllite bedrock underlays the floodplain deposits and is exposed at the surface north from
approximately Chainage Ch 13 700m onwards.
The Phyllite bedrock is characterised by a foliated, fine grained rock similar to sedimentary mudstone or
shale but differentiated (where fresh) by a lustrous micaceous sheen characteristic of Phyllite rocks.
Quartz veins are sparsely distributed throughout the unit, ranging from 5mm to 200mm in thickness.
The Phyllite often exhibits a very deep weathering profile, with soil properties (typically very stiff to hard
clayey silt with relict foliation) to depths of up to 40m, although more typically in the order of 5m to 20m.
The depth of weathering may vary considerably over short distances with some beds weathered to
great depths and adjacent beds far less weathered (Figure 3.1). Beneath the floodplain deposits the
weathered layers is relatively thin indicating erosion of the weathered Phyllite prior to the alluvial
deposition.
Petrographically, the Phyllite is typically a tuffaceous low-grade metasedimentary rock consisting of

extremely fine-grained, ash-derived quartz and feldspar. Some higher grade metamorphic examples
tending towards low grade schist have also been recognised. Deformation has often resulted in a
micaceous foliation and subtle crenuation. Coarser grained examples assessed as meta-greywacke
likely represent clayey sand beds within the original sediment sequence. All samples contain a
significant proportion of volcanic ash and detritus, a feature that is consistent with the regional geology
which indicates these strata formed from the accumulation of volcanic detritus within a deep marine
basin.
Structurally, the Phyllite is typically foliated at low- to high-angles where encountered in boreholes and it
is likely that these low to high angles represent a series of fold limbs and hinges. Where the attitude of
the foliation within the Phyllite could be observed along the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads
alignment (for example within test pits), it was generally seen to be dipping either broadly north or
broadly south at various angles. Observations made in cuttings along Old Coast Road in vicinity of the
alternative alignment identified bedding dipping to the south at an angle of 10° to 15°. This is
consistent with the literature for the area which suggests a broadly east-west striking structural trend
22 December 2011
(i.e. fold axes within the Nambucca Beds strata are likely to be oriented east-west with northerly and
southerly dipping fold limbs).
Jointing within the Phyllite is generally at mid- to high-angles although no distinct and consistent joint
sets have been identified. This is in accordance with the prolonged deformation history and multiple
deformation episodes associated with these strata which would likely have resulted in a number of joint
sets at various angles.
Although no distinct joint sets have been clearly defined, it is anticipated that a prominent north-south
trending joint set associated with north-south compression of the Nambucca Block is likely to be present
(and may be the reason many of the intrusive dykes in the area exhibit a northerly trend). If a
prominent north-south trending joint set is present within these strata, this would strike sub-parallel to
much of the proposed alignment and hence may have implications if steeper batter designs are to be
considered within some cuts.
Figure 3.1 – Weathering profile

developed on schistose rock with
steeply dipping foliation (from
Stapledon in Fell et al., 2006);
3.3 Geotechnical Information Available

Coffey has undertaken a significant number of investigations along the approved alignment as part of
the geotechnical investigations for the Warrell Creek to Urunga project. This has included in the
floodplain south of Gumma Road, along the approved bridge alignment in the Nambucca River, the
floodplain north ofthe Nambucca River and along the Old Coast Road ridgeline. In all, Coffey has
undertaken in excess of 30 testpits, 23 boreholes and 12 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) along the
length of the approved alignment. In addition to the Coffey investigations, reference has been made to
previous investigations undertaken for route selection studies.
In order to undertake the geotechnical assessment of the alternative alignment, reference was made to
nearby available subsurface information. Site observations and geotechnical information available in
similar topography and geomorphological environments to those observed along the alternative
alignment were used in formulate the geotechnical model for the alternative alignment.
22 December 2011
3.4 Alternative Alignment Topography and Assessed Subsurface Conditions

An Associate Geotechnical Engineer from Coffey’s Sydney office made a visit to the alternative
alignment on 8 November 2011. The purpose of the visit was to observe the site conditions and make
an assessment of the subsurface conditions along the alternative alignment. No targeted subsurface
investigations were carried out along the alternative alignment and reference was made to previous
subsurface data in the general area. The site observations are provided in the sections below along
with an assessment of the geological conditions. Site observations have also been presented on the
Figures provided in Appendix A.
Ch 8 700m to Ch 8 950– Nambucca River Floodplain (Southern Portion)
In this section, the alternative alignment extends onto the Nambucca River floodplain at Ch 8 700 as a
fill embankment some 2m to 4m high. The available data suggests a subsurface profile of a relatively
constant alluvium thickness of 11m to 13m depth. The upper 8m of the alluvial sequence is assessed
to comprise more recent softer Holocene deposits, overlying stiffer or sandier Pleistocene deposits. A
harder “surface crust” of stiffer, desiccated silty clay was noted in the upper 1m to 1.5m of the profile,
where the area is not inundated with ponded water.
Ch 8 950m to Ch 10 650m – Nambucca River Floodplain (Deeper Alluvium)
In this section the proposed fill embankment is to extend across the southern floodplain area of the
Nambucca River, rising to about 3m high at the southern abutment of the Nambucca River Bridge at Ch
10 650m. The area is generally cleared pasture, with some pockets of paperbark wetland forest. The
area south from Ch9 900m has poor trafficability after rain and periodically ponded water after
prolonged rain. The floodplain surface level is at about RL 0.9m to 2m.
22 December 2011
Photo 3.1 Nambucca River floodplain (southern side of river), viewed south from near Gumma Rd.
The nearest subsurface investigations on the southern side of the river suggest a relatively uniform
depth of alluvium across the floodplain of 27m to 29m. The upper 18m (including a 1m to 1.5m
desiccated crust) comprises softer Holocene estuarine deposits with shells and minor sandier layers
and lenses. Underlying the Holocene sediments is a 10m thick layer of Pleistocene gravels and sands.
These gravels and sands have been penetrated with conventional site investigation drilling equipment.
The groundwater table in the alluvium is within 1m to 2m of the surface.
The bedrock profile beneath the alluvium is assessed to comprise an approximate 4m thick weathered
rock profile over slightly weathered to fresh Phyllite.
Ch 10 650m to Ch 12 050m – Nambucca River Bridge
The alternative Nambucca River crossing is located some 2.8km downstream of the township of
Macksville. The bridge crossing of the river is to be continued across the northern floodplain of the river
and over the existing Pacific Highway at Ch12 050m, resulting in a total bridge length in the order of 1
400m. The Nambucca River at this location is 400m wide and of the order of 4m deep (tidal).
Mangroves line the northern shoreline.
The investigations undertaken near and within the river, to the west of the alternative alignment,
indicate the area is underlain by deep deposits of Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium. Beneath the
southern bank the depth to weathered rock is inferred to be approximately 28m, and approximately 32m
beneath the northern bank. Beneath the river bed, the subsurface profile is assessed to comprise 9m
of soft Holocene deposits (base at RL-12m) over 9m of stiffer Pleistocene clay and 5m of basal sands
and gravels. Slightly weathered to fresh Phyllite is beneath the basal gravels.
Boreholes beneath the northern bank some 400m upstream encountered 22m of Holocene deposits
(base at RL-20m) over a 9m thick basal gravel layer (base at RL-29m).
The depths and thicknesses of these materials is assumed to be similar in the vicinity of the alternative
alignment.
Ch 12 050 to Ch 13 600 Nambucca River Floodplain (Northern Portion)
In this section, the Nambucca River floodplain is bounded on the western side by the ridgeline traversed
by Old Coast Road. The ground surface level is about RL1.5m to RL3.5m. Approximately 100m to the
west of the alignment between Ch 12 050m and Ch 12 300m is a narrow ridge extending out into the
floodplain. The thickness of alluvium to the east of this ridgeline is assessed to reduce from
approximately 25m near the edge of the river to approximately 10m. The ridgeline is anticipated to
comprise weathered phyllite.
22 December 2011
Photo 3.2 End of ridgeline near Ch 12 150m looking west from Champions Lane
Photo 3.3 Nambucca River floodplain looking north along alternative alignment (approximately Ch 12100)
22 December 2011
The floodplain area is predominantly cleared farmland pasture with some stands of paperbark trees. A
number of creeks and drainage channels cross the floodplain. At the time of the site visit significant
amounts of surface water were observed in the numerous channels and depressions that are on the
floodplain. Significant surface water was observed in the area south of Mattick Lane.
Photo 3.4 Surface water on floodplain looking southeast from Mattick Lane
It is anticipated that the thickness of Holocene alluvium in the area would be of the order of 12m to 15m
with a surface crust of 1.5m to 2.5m. Where the alignment is closer to the ridgelines it is anticipated
that the thickness of alluvium decreases to between 3m and 10m (approximately Ch 13150m to Ch
13600m)
Ch 13 600 to Ch 16 900– Undulating Farmland Slopes and Old Coast Road
In this section, an area of undulating slopes is located immediately to the west of the Nambucca River
floodplain paralleling and crossing the alternative alignment. The alternative alignment cuts through
relatively narrow ridgelines (with cut elevations of between RL 8m AHD and RL 32m AHD) and crosses
east trending gullies and valleys (up to 500m wide), with a 10m to 20m difference in elevation. The
Nambucca River has a northern trend some 2km to the east of the alignment. The floodplain extends to
the foot slopes of the ridgelines containing the alternative alignment.
22 December 2011
The alternative alignment extends through cleared pasture farmland, smaller hobby farm allotments and
forestry areas on private properties or in the Nambucca State Forest. Forested areas border Old Coast
Road within the road reserve.
The valley and gully floor areas contain small incised gullies some 1m to 2m deep. As with areas
investigated elsewhere on the alignment it is anticipated that these gully floors are underlain by very stiff
colluvial (slopewash) clays 2m to 4m deep over highly to moderately weathered Phyllite.
The investigations undertaken for the approved alignment and observations made during the site
indicate that the ridgelines are underlain by deeply weathered Phyllite with the following typical
weathering profile beneath the ridgeline (cutting locations):
• 0m to 2m – Residual soil/extremely weathered Phyllite over,

• 2m to about 25m – extremely weathered to moderately weathered Phyllite over,
• >25m depth – slightly weathered Phyllite.
Photo 3.5 Weathered Phyllite exposure in Cutting on Old Coast Road (Approximate Ch 15150m)
22 December 2011
Photo 3.6 Weathered Phyllite overlain by Soil in Old Coast Road Cutting (Approximate Ch 15 400m)
3.5 Land Use

Based on previous Coffey studies, the cleared areas of the alternative alignment are understood to
have been used primarily for cattle grazing. It is anticipated that some small cropping activities such as
tomato growing may have also occurred.
In our aerial photograph assessment a potential former quarry was identified in the vicinity of Ch
14000m to 14 300m. Further investigation comprising a review of historic aerial photograph
assessment was undertaken. The results are provided in Table 3.1 below.
22 December 2011
Table 3.1. Review of historical aerial photographs for the former Quarry / Gravel Pit Site on the Alternative Alignment – Nambucca River
Crossing, Warrell Creek to Urunga Upgrade
Date Chainages Aerial Photograph Description Surrounding Landuses
• Image is in black and white. • Surrounding areas are bushland and low lying
1956 Ch 13500
• The alternative alignment passes over an area of native wetlands. To the north of Ch14500 appears to be
to bushland with adjacent low lying wetland areas. The wetland cleared grazing land.
Ch 14500 areas are generally orientated in a northwest to southeast • Some smaller paddocks located to the south and
direction. north of this area appear to be under cultivation,
• Two distinct cleared areas are present within bushland at possibly for small crop horticulture.
approximately Ch14100.
• No quarrying activities are present.
• Image is in black and white. • No significant change from 1956 photograph.
1967 Ch13500
to • Three distinct cleared areas are now present within bushland
Ch14500 at approximately Ch14100.
• Cleared areas may now be used as a quarry/gravel pit
although no structures or plant can be identified on image.
• Image is in black and white. • Increase in development of logging roads in
1980 Ch13500
to • A larger area of clearing is now present to south west and the bushland areas to south and north of the quarry
development of small roads, possibly logging tracks and log area.
Ch14500
dumps in the bushland areas. • Clearing of bushland has occurred to the southwest
• The previously three distinct cleared areas have now been and southeast for use as grazing land since 1967
consolidated into a single large area within bushland at photograph.
approximately Ch14100.
• Cleared area appears to be used as a quarry/gravel pit. Dirt
haul roads are in use leading to this site from Old Coast Road.
22 December 2011
Following the historic aerial photograph review Coffey contacted Max Bryen – Works Supervisor with
Nambucca Shire Council for further information. Mr Bryen advised that the quarry site was (and
possibly still is) owned by a Gus Monroe and used to screen and grade river gravels sourced from the
nearby Nambucca River and also from Deep Creek at Valla. The gravel was trucked into site for
processing and then sold once it had been screened and graded. This would explain why there are no
3
large pits evident on this site. It is understood that large stockpiles of gravel greater than 50,000m
were present on this site and Mr Bryen believes that a lot of material was sold to the RTA for the
upgrade works on the highway at Allgomera, nearby to Eungai.
It is possible that the operation also extracted some black sand material from the back (eastern end) of
the property for local sales. The air photos show some surface diggings in the east of the property that
are consistent with this use.
In the vicinity of the quarrying operation, the review of historical aerial photographs indicated logging
operations. From observations made during our site visit, it is anticipated that logging was undertaken
on the ridgelines to the west of the alternative alignment.
4 GEOTECHNICAL UNITS
The geotechnical model has been developed based on the geotechnical studies for the approved
alignment. The model provides a geological and geotechnical context for the engineering and
construction of the project.
The geotechnical model comprises two broad categories: soil and rock. The soil units comprise
transported materials such as colluvium, Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium found in the floodplains of
the Nambucca River. The soil subunits are based on the common constitutive materials such as clays
and sand, and the in-situ consistency / density.
The rock units comprise the underlying Phyllites. There are two sub units (1 and 2) for the rock type.
The residual soil and extremely weathered materials have been aggregated into Subunit 2, as their
engineering properties are similar. Based on assessment of the long section, the top of weathered
“bedrock” has been taken as the top of highly weathered rock that has been assigned the top of Subunit
2 material.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the geotechnical model. The assessed geotechnical model for the
alternative alignment is presented on geotechnical long sections provided in Appendix B.
22 December 2011
Table4.1: Alternative Alignment Geotechnical Units
Material Unit Name Sub Unit Description Common Description
Transported A Floodplain A1 Very soft to firm clay, dark Commonly CL, dark grey, very soft to firm, silty/sandy clay. Often with organic matter or a
Soil Alluvium - grey, shells high shell content. Occasional sulphurous smell.
Holocene
A2 Sandier zones and gravel Commonly SP/SM (sometimes SC), or GW/GM dark grey-grey, fine-medium grained sand
zones or gravel, silty, very loose-loose with low plasticity fines. Some medium dense layers. Often
with shell fragments.
Transported B Floodplain B1 Clay Commonly CL-CH/ML brown-grey, medium-high plasticity, with some fine-medium grained
Soil Alluvium – sand. Stiff-very stiff.
Pleistocene B2 Sand / Gravel Commonly SW, brown-pale brown, sub-rounded, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to medium
(complex) sub-angular-sub-rounded quartz gravel with some brown clay/silt. Medium dense-dense.
Transported C Gully and C Sandier / Gravelly / Stiffer Highly variable. Stiff-very stiff clays, usually low plasticity, and medium dense-dense sands of
Soil Valley Floor Clay various (fine-coarse) sub-angular grain sizes. Granular material is usually clean quartz.
Alluvium Normally dark grey/brown. Often high in organic matter and sulphurous smelling. Normally
brown-pale brown/pale grey.
Rock & D Phyllite D1 Residual Soil and Commonly MH-ML, (medium liquid limit) mottled brown-yellow-red/grey, with some fine-
Residual Extremely Weathered medium, sub-angular, pale grey quartz gravel. EW material usually has a micaceous lustre
Soil Phyllite on relict foliation planes. Remoulds to clayey silt.
D2 Highly Weathered to Commonly mottled brown-orange/grey, with an indistinct (becoming more distinct with depth)
Moderately Weathered low angle (5° to 25° degrees) foliation fabric. Fol iation defects are often closely spaced (10-
Phyllite 40mm). The foliation fabric is occasionally wavy or lenticular. Often iron stained. Normally low
strength.
22 December 2011
5 ACID SULPHATE SOIL AND CONTAMINATION

Based on Coffey’s study for the approved alignment, it is anticipated that some acid sulphate soil will be
encountered in the Unit A and B materials on the floodplain.
As discussed in Section 3.3, the land use activities along the alignment comprise, cattle grazing, small
cropping, quarrying and logging. Possible sources of contamination from these activities may be
arsenic which was used in relation to tomato cropping, hydrocarbons related to quarrying and logging
equipment and pesticides and herbicides.
6 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
6.1 Cuttings
The alternative alignment has seven cuttings ranging from less than 1m to 10m deep. A summary is
presented in Table 6.1 at the end of this section.
6.1.1 Excavation of Cuttings
Assessing excavation of soil and rock materials in cuttings can be complicated by a number of
geological variables as well as operational variables. A number of excavatability assessment methods
and charts are available to estimate machine types and production rates. A preliminary assessment of
the rock types encountered in Coffey’s study of the approved alignment has been made using seismic
velocity and the rock characteristics to provide guidance to the RTA.
The results of the borehole drilling, geophysical investigations, rock strength testing and defect spacing
provide guidance on the excavatability of the materials in the cuttings.
The assessment indicates that the cuttings containing weathered Phyllite material (residual soil through
to moderately weathered Phyllite) would be rippable with a D11 bulldozer. Given the assessed
composition of the cuts in the alternative alignment comprise Unit D1 and Unit D2 materials, then it is
assessed that the cuts may be readily ripped by a D11 bulldozer.
Studies for the approved alignment indicate that less weathered, very high strength dykes could occur
in the cuttings through the ridgelines. These cuttings would require heavy ripping and possibly localised
blasting. No dykes were observed during the site visit or investigations for the adjacent approved
alignment.
6.1.2 Cut Batter Design
The Batter Management Strategy as provided by the RTA contains the following requirements for cut
batter design:
• The overall batter slope must be stable with no foreseeable possibility of a failure involving the
whole slope or a major part of it.
• Batters must be designed so that material which may become detached is prevented from
reaching the road shoulder.
• All cut slopes and batters are required to have an Assessed Risk Level (ARL) in accordance
with “RTA Guide to Slope Risk Analysis Version 3.1“ of ARL 4 or better.
22 December 2011
• Access to the final batter slopes must be available for plant and equipment to allow ready
installation of any treatment measures which may become necessary and to facilitate
inspection of the face of the batter.
• For slopes 2H:1V or shallower, individual vertical batter heights may be up to 10m.
• For slopes steeper than 2H:1V, batter heights must be 7m or less.
• Cut batters slopes must not be between 0.75H:1V to 1.5H:1V.
• Minimum bench width of 4.5m.
The major criteria influencing cut batter design is cut slope stability (per batter and overall slope)
together with the erodibility of the materials. Observations of the natural slopes in the area and the
existing cut batters for roads and the railway do not indicate the area is affected by larger scale
landsliding or creep sliding that could necessitate cut batters being designed flatter than 2H:1V. Most
cut batters in soils and highly weathered phyllite that are steeper than 2H:1V have experienced erosion
and localised instability. Similarly, the vegetated cut batters of 2H:1V are assessed to have performed
well.
The geotechnical model for the alternative alignment, suggests that the cuts will contain residual soil,
extremely weathered material and highly weathered to moderately weathered Phyllite, which is foliated
and highly fractured. The Emerson erodibility testing performed on these materials indicate the majority
of the soil material is Class 4 and readily slakes (are erodible), with very few samples indicated
dispersive characteristics. On the basis of this information, 2H:1V cut batters for the soil and highly
weathered phyliite would seem appropriate, provided the batters are protected by topsoil and vegetation
following excavation
6.1.3 Material from Cuttings and Reuse Potential
Sustainability is driven on highway construction with as much excavated material from the project as
possible reused in the earthworks and not removed to spoil or disposed off site. In order to reuse
materials derived from the project, the material properties must satisfy the following requirements in
R44:
• Selected Material (SMZ): A minimum CBR(4 day) of 30% (if unstabilised) and maximum PI of
15%. If the CBR of the material to be used in the SMZ is less than 30% but at least 15%, the
upper 150mm shall be lime stabilised. Material subjected to pre-treatment.
• Upper Zone of Formation (UZF): A minimum CBR(10 day) of 8% and a PI less than 25%.
Material subjected to pre-treatment.
• Verge Material: A minimum CBR(4 day) of 15% and a PI ≥6% and ≤12%. Subject to pre-
treatment.
• Drainage Blanket/Rock Fill/Rock Facing: A minimum Point Load Strength Index of 1 MPa
and a maximum Wet/Dry Strength Variation of 35%.
22 December 2011
• Earth fill at ‘spill-through’ bridge abutments: Particle Size Distribution of 100% passing AS
sieve 75mm, minimum CBR of 15%, a PI ≥6% and ≤12% and a minimum Emerson Class of 5.
Material subject to pre-treatment.
• General Earth Fill: A maximum layer thickness of 300mm with a maximum rock size
dimension of 200mm, material must have >60% passing the AS 37.5mm sieve.
The materials derived from cutting excavations will comprise residual soils (with minor slopewash soils),
extremely weathered material and variably weathered Phyllite.
The following summary of laboratory testing undertaken for the approved route in Table 6.2 provides an
appreciation of the range of material remoulded strengths for reuse applications of the weathered rock
materials on the project following pre-treatment.
Table 6.1 Summary of Weathered Rock CBR testing
Geotechnical Unit CBR Number of Mean CBR, Number Mean CBR,

Unit Description Soak Tests with (range) after of (range) after
T102 T102 Pre- Tests T103 Pre-
treatment with treatment
T103
Unit D1 EW Phyllite 10 days 31 tests 5.2% 1 7%
(1% to 13%)
4 days 2 tests 4% & 5% 1 test 7%
Unit D2 HW/MW 10 days 25 tests 7.1% 13 tests 6.2%

Phyllite
(2% to 14% (1.5% to 17%)
4 days 1 tests 11%
The majority of the testing was performed on EW to MW Phyllite. The significant depth of weathering of
the Phyllite did not afford for samples to be recovered of SW/Fresh Phyllite from the test holes.
The results presented in Table 6.1 show relatively low CBR values for the weathered Phyllite. While
significant variation can be seen for given Phyllite units as a consequence of the variable geology in the
steeply dipping metasediment rocks, the average values are relatively consistent at 5.2% to 7.1% for
the EW to MW Phyllite with T102 or T103 pre-treatments. These relatively low average CBR values
would suggest the bulk of the cuttings containing weathered Phyllite would only be suitable as general
fill and possibly as UZF (following stabilisation). The average PI for the HW/MW Phyllite, as indicated in
Section 13.2 is 12.8% (range of 7% to 25%) which complies with the UZF requirements. Selectively
excavating the less weathered Phyllite from within a cutting containing a higher proportion of MW
Phyllite is likely to yield material suitable for UZF without stabilisation.
22 December 2011
6.1.4 Unsuitable Materials
Based on the geotechnical interpretation of site conditions along the route it is expected that small
minor amounts of ‘unsuitable’ materials may be encountered as follows;
• Topsoil from cutting excavations and striping for the preparation of embankment foundations.
The borehole and test pit logs indicate that the depth of topsoil and root affected zone along the
alignment is typically between 0.2m to 0.3m depth.
• Saturated/soft soils near creeks and springs that require “remove and replace” treatments.
Most deeper soft soil areas are proposed to be left in place and treated geotechnically or
structurally. However, isolated softer zones may require removal as unsuitable material.
• Contaminated soils
6.1.5 Cut Foundation Treatments
RTA specification R44 provides for five cut floor treatment options that are selected by site engineering
staff at the time the cut floor is exposed. However, the RTA, together with designers and constructors,
need to have an appreciation of the types of foundation treatments that will be required prior to
excavation during project planning and estimation stages.
The following cutting floor treatments are specified in R44:
• Type C1 Treatment – Rip and Recompact cut floor.to a depth of 300mm where material meets
the requirement of CBR(10 day) min.8% and max PI 25%.
• Type C2 Treatment – Drainage Blanket - min. 300mm thickness.
• Type C3 Treatment – Excavate and replace with material having CBR(10 day) min.8%.
• Type C4 Treatment - Working platform - in-situ or imported stabilised material.
• Type C5 treatment - Geotextile/geogrid
The geotechnical assessment suggests Types C5 treatments will only be required locally as special
cases and has not been considered further in this report.
Type C1 Treatment – Rip and Recompact
The requirements of this treatment relates to cutting floors that are dry, and have material in the floor of
the cutting that can be ripped and recompacted and meet the requirement of CBR(10 day) min.8% and
max PI 25%. Many of the cutting floors are anticipated to expose residual soil and EW/HW Phyllite. For
these cuttings a Type C1 treatment is unlikely to meet RTA requirements and alternative treatments are
likely to be required.
Where MW Phyllite is exposed in the floor of the cutting, the CBR testing suggests this material will
meet RTA criteria once ripped and recompacted.
Type C2 Treatment – Drainage Blanket
For many years the RTA has recognised that cutting floor areas on operating roads are more
problematic for long term pavement performance than for other sections of pavement. These concerns
22 December 2011
are often associated with poor surface and subsurface drainage leading to erosion and pumping of
pavement materials. For this reason it is important to install adequate subsurface drainage measures in
cuttings that best suit the site conditions.
Type C2 treatment involves the placement of a 300mm to 500mm thick drainage blanket across the
cutting floor beneath the SMZ layer to allow upward seeping waters to be directed to the longitudinal
subsurface drainage lines.
An assessment has been made for each cutting as to the likely requirement for a drainage blanket.
This assessment, provided in the Table 6.2, has been based on the geotechnical model, the actual and
anticipated groundwater levels and the materials to be exposed in the cutting floor. In general, most
cutting floors in weathered Phyllite that are less than 10m deep have been assessed to require Type C1
or C3 treatments, and a system of longitudinal subsurface drains (two per carriageway). For Phyllite
cuttings that are deeper than 10m (shallower if indicated to be wet), then a drainage blanket would be
recommended. The groundwater standpipe data from the approved alignment study suggests a
groundwater table below about 15m depth for the ridgeline areas, and therefore the 10m deep cutting
depth has been used as a criteria for installing the drainage blanket.
Type C3 Treatment – Excavate and Replace
Where materials are present within the floor of cuttings that do not meet the required cut floor criteria of
a minimum CBR(10 day) of 8% and a maximum PI of 25%, these materials will be excavated and replaced
with UFZ material or better quality material. The CBR testing data from the approved alignment study
indicates the weathered Phyllite (EW, HW and some MW material) is unlikely to meet the cutting floor
criteria.
Type C4 Treatment - Working platform using in-situ or imported stabilised material
The available CBR testing indicates the weathered Phyllite rock (EW to MW) is marginally below the
strength criteria for a Type C1 treatment. Consideration may be given to improving the strength of the
cutting floor through in-situ stabilisation of the weathered Phyllite. Trials would be required to assess
the suitability of the material for stabilisation and the types/quantities of stabilising agents that would be
most appropriate in terms of workability and strength gain.
6.1.6 Transition Zones at Cut/Fill Interface
Following excavation to the cut design floor level at the cut/fill transition, further excavation will be
carried out below the design floor level for the transition zone to a depth of 900mm. The excavation will
extend into the cut for a distance of at least 10m from the cut/fill transition line, as measured from the
underside of SMZ layer at the stripped surface level. The material placed above the base of the
excavation must satisfy the requirements for UZF (minimum CBR of 8% and a maximum Plasticity
Index of 25%, compacted to a minimum dry density of 98% standard compaction).
The same constraints limiting the use of weathered Phyllite as a source of UZF will also apply to the
use of the materials as imported product for the transition zone.
Table 6.2 provides a summary of the cut details. The assessed cut treatment has been evaluated from
the cut treatment recommended for cuts along the approved alignment with similar geotechnical
conditions.
22 December 2011
Table 6.2 Summary of Cuttings
Chainage of Cut Approximate Maximum Anticipated Cut Treatment

Length Depth Geotechnical
Conditions
12 975m to 13 090m 115m 3m Predominantly D1 C3 – excavate and

material with limited replace
D2 rock
13950m to 14 140m 190m 6m 1m to 2m of D1 C2 - drainage

overlying D2 rock blanket
14 710m to 14 775m 65m 2.5m Predominantly D1 C3 – excavate and

material with limited replace
D2 rock
15 000m to 15 040m 40m 0.5m D1 material C3 – excavate and

replace
15 125m to 15 540m 415m 8m 1m to 2m of D1 C2 - drainage

15 740m to 16 560m 810m 9m 1m to 2m of D1 C2 - drainage

16 800m onwards - 10m 1m to 2m of D1 C2 - drainage

6.2 Embankments
The alternative alignment has nine fill embankments ranging in maximum heights from less than 1m to
13m. A summary of the fill embankments is provided in Table 6.3 at the end of this section.
6.2.1 General Embankment Design Criteria
Where soft ground settlement and slope stability risks have been identified specific geotechnical or
structural foundation treatments have been recommended. Section 6.3 provides an assessment and
commentary of the embankment construction over the Nambucca River floodplain areas containing
Holocene soft soils. The isolated soft ground areas within the stiffer and gravelly alluvial deposits
defined as “gully alluvium” (Unit C), have been assessed for settlement and instability risk, with specific
ground treatment advice provided as required.
The embankment designs and construction staging should meet the following typical RTA criteria:
• For batters 2H:1V or shallower, individual vertical batter heights may be up to 10m.
22 December 2011
• Minimum bench width of 4m.

• Access to the final batter slopes must be available for maintenance plant and
equipment.
• Globally and locally stable with no foreseeable possibility of a failure involving the
whole embankment or a major part of the embankment.
• Main carriageway and ramp embankments above compressible foundation materials
must comply with the following pavement performance criteria:
A maximum decrease in levels of 10mm over any twelve month period.
A maximum decrease in levels of the greater of 15mm, or 0.25% of the
embankment height at carriageway centreline.
Maximum total residual settlement of 100mm in 40years.
Maximum change of grade, in any direction, of 0.3% over 40 years.
The design model provides for 2H:1V fill embankment batters. A bench has been provided in the model
where the embankment height is over 10m high.
6.2.2 Embankment Foundation Preparation and Treatments
The following embankment foundation treatments, as specified in RTA specification R44 have been
assessed as being applicable for each of the forty embankments.
• Type E1 Treatment – Loosen and Recompact;
• Type E2 Treatment – Bridging Layer;
• Type E5 Treatment – Drainage Blanket;
The use of other R44 treatments (Type E3 working platform by stabilisation and Type E4 geogrid) may
be considered during construction or as part of the soft ground foundation treatments.
Type E1 Treatment – Loosen and Recompact
Following vegetation removal, topsoil stripping and the removal or treatment of unsuitable material, the
stripped surface will be loosened by ripping to a depth of 300mm and then recompacted to a minimum
dry density ratio of 95% standard compaction. Type E1 treatment is viewed as the standard foundation
treatment for embankments not influenced by wet or soft subgrade conditions.
Type E2 Treatment – Bridging Layer
Bridging, as an embankment foundation treatment, is to provide a working platform upon which an

embankment can be constructed over soft/ heaving ground and/or ground that could be considered
unsuitable if excavated and removed. Bridging is typically placed by end dumping without further
compaction and is traditionally a “site won” material.
RTA R44 advises that bridging can comprise either earthfill or rock fill. The thickness of a bridging layer
is not specified in R44 other than a requirement for a minimum separation of 600mm between bridging
and the underside of pavements. Where earthfill is to be used, the material will be a:
“Granular material with strong mechanical interlock and low sensitivity to moisture”
22 December 2011
The requirements for a rockfill include:
• The compacted rock fill layer thickness will not exceed 550mm;
• The material will be well graded with a maximum particle dimension of 350mm;
• A maximum of 10% of the material will have a particle dimension of greater that 100mm;
• The material will have a Point Load Strength Index of ≥1 MPa and a maximum Wet/Dry
Strength Variation of 35%.
Areas where bridging would be suitable are broad valley floor areas such as in the northern sections of
the alternative alignment that could be problematic following rain (poor trafficability) and bridging will
allow for a working surface to be prepared quickly without the delays of waiting for the stripped surface
to dry and be able to be compacted. Where the area is anticipated to have periodic ponded water or an
elevated ground water table a drainage blanket has been recommended.
Type E5 Treatment – Drainage Blanket
Where active groundwater movement is anticipated beneath or across the proposed alignment or there
is ponded water, a drainage blanket embankment foundation is recommended. A drainage blanket
consists of a rock layer enclosed by a geotextile and will have the following properties:
• It will be constructed in a 300mm thick layer (+100mm/-0mm);

• 100% of the material will pass the AS 125mm sieve, with 0% to 15% passing the AS 19mm
sieve, 0% to 5% passing the AS 1.18mm sieve and <0.5% passing the AS 75µm sieve (i.e. it
will contain no silt or clay fines);
• The material will have a Point Load Strength Index of ≥1 MPa and a maximum Wet/Dry
Strength Variation of 35%.
6.2.3 Embankment Settlement
Post-construction settlement is an important consideration when planning embankment construction, as

excessive total and/or differential settlements can significantly reduce the operational life of the
pavement. The assessment of post-construction settlements has been carried out for the
embankments using the settlements calculated for similar embankments on similar anticipated
subsurface conditions on the approved alignment.
22 December 2011
Table 6.3 Summary of Embankments
Chainage Length Maximum Generalised Comments Estimated Max

Embankment Ground Post
(m)
Start End Height Profile Construction
Settlement 1
(m)
8 700m 10 650m 3600m 4m up to 8m Refer to Soft Ground Engineering Section
(Section 6.3)
12 050m 12 800m 750m 13m
12 800m 12 950m 150m Approximately

1.5m
13 090m 13650m 560m 6m
13 680m 13 950m 270m 6m 2m of Unit C Possible drainage <50mm

over Unit D1 path requiring
drainage blanket
Conventional R44
treatments
14 140m 14 710m 570m 10m 2m of Unit C Possible drainage <50mm

over Unit D1 path requiring
drainage blanket
Conventional R44
treatments
14 775m 15 000m 225m 13m D1 over D2 Possible drainage <40mm

path requiring
drainage blanket
Conventional R44
treatments
15 040m 15 125m 85m 4m D1 over D2 Conventional R44 <20mm

treatments
15 540m 15 740m 300m 10m D1 over D2 Conventional R44 <40mm

treatments
16560m 16 800m 240m 11m D1 over D2 Conventional R44 <40mm

treatments
22 December 2011
6.3 Soft Ground Engineering
6.3.1 Introduction
The alternative alignment traverses over a longer section of soft floodplain soils than the approved
alignment and incorporates a bridge over Nambucca River along with four 50m wide box culverts and a
number of pipe culverts.
Limited site investigations have been performed along the alternative alignment and what data exists is
shown in previous reports. For the purpose of this assessment, ground conditions encountered along
the preferred alignment are projected onto the proposed alignment. The projections are performed over
many hundreds of metres and should be considered an indicative geological model for the proposed
alignment accurate to a first approximation. Detailed site investigations along the proposed alignment
may show ground conditions vary from what has been assumed.
Assessments for settlement and ground treatment for the alternative alignment are based on the
assessments done for the approved alignment and presented in our previous interpretation reports
GEOTLCOV24043AD-Early works (dated 4 February 2011) and GEOTLCOV24043AB-BZ Warrell
Creek to Nambucca Heads (dated 19July 2011). Coffey has had significant experience in providing the
geotechnical design of soft ground engineering works on the Ballina Bypass and the Kempsey Bypass
Alliance projects. The personnel who provided the geotechnical design on these projects have
undertaken the assessment for the Early Works Study that included assessment of soft ground
treatment options in the Nambucca River floodplain using the geotechnical information referred to in
Section 3.3.
6.3.2 Locations of soft ground
Locations of soft ground are summarised in Table 6.4 along with embankment fill thicknesses and
estimated depths of soft soil.
Table 6.4. Summary of Soft Ground Locations
Chainage Fill Thickness (m) Depth soft soil (m) Comment
8700 to 9100 2 to 3 11 to 5 Box culverts at Ch8960
9100 to 9620 4.0 17 Box culverts at Ch9220
9620 to 10650 3.1 to 6.7 20 Box culverts at Ch9730

and Ch 10220. Also
includes bridge
approach
12050 to 12800 11.5 to 1.3 15 Bridge approach
12800 to 12950 1.5 15 to 0
13100 to 13650 1.4 to 4.8 4 Box culvert at Ch13200
22 December 2011
6.3.3 Settlement design criteria
Settlement design criteria adopted in our previous interpretation report have been adopted for this
study. Table 6.5 details the design criteria.
22 December 2011
Table 6.5 Summary of Proposed Post-construction Settlement Criteria for Preliminary Design
Permanent Pavement Staged Pavement
Zone Notes
Plain Concrete
Granular Pavement
Pavement
Total Post Construction Settlement (not including internal settlement)
1. Settlement additional to
abutment structure
2. Settlement taken at
1. Abutment terminal slab anchor
50mm in 40yrs 50mm in 40yrs
zone point
3. Minor corrections may

be required before 10
years
4. Length of transition zone

determined by
differential settlement
Increasing at not more Increasing at not more between Zones 1 and 3,
2. Transition
than 0.3% grade from than 0.5% grade from but need to continue until
Zone
Zone 1 to Zone 3 Zone 1 to Zone 3 estimated settlement for
untreated embankment
is less than 200mm in 10
years
Depends on length of
3. Low 5. Overlay sooner if
approach and 0.5%
embankment 100mm in 40 years settlement causes safety
grade. Aim for 200mm
zone concern
in 10 years.
Differential Settlement
6. Trigger level for review

Rmin = 1,600m in 40 Rmin = 1,000m in 10 will depend on actual
Zones 2 and 3
years years pavement and ride
quality performance
We have assumed that concrete pavement will be adopted for the purpose of this assessment.
6.3.4 Surcharge and settlement estimates
Estimates of surcharge requirements and associated settlement (with wick drains or surcharge only) are
presented in Table 6.6.
22 December 2011
Table 6.6. Estimated Surcharge Requirements and Associated Settlements
Chainage Fill Thickness (m) Depth soft soil Preload thickness Settlement
(m) estimate (m) estimate (m)
8700 to 9100 2 to 3 11 to 5 4 0.5
(1)
9100 to 9620 4.0 17 7 1.0
(2)
9 1.5
9620 to 10850 3.1 to 6.7 20 8.2 1.5
(3)
10850 to 11400 2.5 to 11 15 4 to 20 0.5 to 2.5
(3)
12050 to 12800 11.5 to 1.3 15 20 to 1.6 2.5 to 0.3
12800 to 12950 1.5 15 to 0 1 1.8
(1)
13100 to 13650 1.4 to 4.8 4 5 0.2
(2)
5.3 0.5
(1)
Away from culvert
(2)
Adjacent to culvert
(3)
At bridge abutment
6.3.5 Ground improvement
A summary of potential ground treatments presented in order from lowest cost (and generally greatest
construction time) is presented in Table 6.7 along with commentary on each method. The majority of
the methods are suited to concrete and flexible pavements. Preload or surcharge only methods are
generally suited to flexible pavements with a post construction maintenance strategy.
Table 6.7. Potential Ground Treatment Methods
Ground Relative Relative Comment

Treatment cost time
Remove and low rapid Limited to shallow depths of soft soil. Excavations may
replace (R&R) collapse if the extend below groundwater. Excavated material
may be acid-sulphate and require treatment.
Preload or low Slow to May be adopted in areas of shallow soft soils. In deeper soft
surcharge only rapid soils preloading can be used as part of a whole-of-life
(SUR) pavement strategy allowing relatively large post construction
settlements and pavement maintenance. Variations in rate of
settlement are important in design and construction.
22 December 2011

Treatment cost time
Surcharge and Low to Slow to Used where post construction settlements using preloading are
wick drains medium Medium too large. Wick drains speed up the consolidation process.
(SWD) The most cost effective approach is multi-staged construction
that optimises spacing of wick drains, volumes of surcharge,
stabilisation measures and construction time. Construction in a
single stage can result in wide stability berms (up to 30m) and
multiple layers of structural geofabric. Allowance for treatment
of extruded groundwater may be required. Large settlements
can occur and may affect adjacent structures.
Vacuum Medium Medium Either the membraneless (Beaudrain) or membrane (Menard)

consolidation version could be adopted. Limited (low) vacuum pressures
(VC) could be developed due to relatively high permeability soils and
the presence of sand lenses resulting in low efficiency. Large
volumes of groundwater can be extracted. If the groundwater
requires treatment then large sedimentation ponds may be
necessary. However, VC may allow embankments to be
constructed in a single stage.
Electro- Medium Medium Suitable for ground that has low electrical conductivity.
osmosis (EO) Probably not suitable for coastal high conductivity saline soils
along the Pacific Highway.
Dry or Wet Medium Rapid Dry cement or cement-soil slurry is mixed into the ground
Soil Mixing forming semi-rigid inclusions. Can be designed to achieve
(DSM / WSM) small settlements and is suited to works near existing structures
such as the existing bridge over Warrell Creek. The dry
method is suited to embankments up to 6m in height and soft
soils to 15m depth. The wet method is suited to embankments
in excess of 6m in height and can be installed to greater depth
than the dry method. Construction platforms ranging in
thickness from 0.5m to 1.5m are required to support the rigs.
Dynamic Medium Medium Replaces soft soil with granular material though dropping a
Replacement to Rapid heavy weight from a large height. Column diameters of about
(DR) 2.5m are formed and often constructed at 5m spacings. Suited
to soft soil depths of 5m to 6m. DR may not penetrate through
greater depths of soft soil. There are very limited areas where
the soft soil is shallow enough to consider the use of DR.
Dry or wet Medium Medium Suited to high embankments and soft soils ranging from 10m to
vibro- 20m depth. Typically reduces settlement by 50% compared
replacement with surcharge and wick drains and enhances embankment
stone columns stability. Significant settlements can still occur and may not be
22 December 2011

Treatment cost time
with surcharge applicable adjacent to existing structures. Less surcharge is

(SC) required than a wick drain only treatment. The dry method has
been used to limit water treatment costs in areas where spoil
water requires treatment.
Rigid High Rapid Suited to high embankments, deep soft soils, rapid construction
inclusions or where settlements need to be kept to small values. May be
such as reinforced or unreinforced with low strength grout. If the
Concrete columns require reinforcement then durability issues can
Injected increase the cost of grout mix design.
Columns (CIC)
or Piled
Embankment
(PE)
Light or ultra- Medium Rapid Can be used to reduce settlement by reducing load.
light weight fill to high Lightweight fills include bottom ash, foamed concrete and
(LWF) rubber tyre bundles. Ultra light weight fill comprises expanded
polystyrene blocks (EPB). The strength and stiffness of EPB
can be compromised if it comes in contact with petrochemicals
and needs protecting with a membrane or other barrier. EPB is
lighter than water and measures against floating during flooding
need to be implemented. Light and ultra light weight fills are
also used as contingency measures to speed up construction
where consolidation type ground treatments are taking longer
than anticipated or settling more than anticipated.
The suitability of various types of ground improvement method is assessed in Table 6.9. Light weight
fill or ultra light weight fill are not considered suitable as a primary treatment but should be considered
as contingency measures during construction.
For the purpose of this assessment ground treatments have been selected for use in various areas and
these are described in the following sections.
6.3.5.1 Ch 8 700 to Ch 9 100
This area can potentially be preloaded without the use of wick drains, however the risk of time delays or
greater settlement than desired increases as the depth of soft soil increases. Preload only is
recommended where the depth of soft clay is 8m or less and wick drains are recommended where the
depth of soft soil exceeds 8m.
22 December 2011
6.3.5.2 Ch 9 100 to Ch 9 620
Away from box culverts, the height of embankments and depth of soft clay will require wick drains to be
adopted. A 1.5m wick drain spacing in a triangular pattern is recommended. A 10m wide by 3m high
stability berm will be required along with one layer of 600kN/m structural geofabric. The height of
preload will increase in the 30m approach to the box culvert from 7m to 9m.
The box culvert is recommended to be supported on driven piles or concrete injected columns. The
spacing of the piles is likely to be 2m by 2m square and the piles will be driven to at least 20m depth.
6.3.5.3 Ch 9 620 to Ch 10 600
We recommend adoption of wick drains in this section to reduce risks of time delay and excessive
settlements associated with the deep deposits of soft clay even though the embankments are not high.
A 1.5m wick drain spacing in a triangular pattern is recommended. A 10m wide by 3m high stability
berm will be required along with one layer of 600kN/m structural geofabric.
6.3.5.4 Ch 10 600 to Ch 10 650
For the bridge approach, we recommend a 7m to 8m high surcharge with wick drains (SWD) is to be
adopted. It is anticipated that the period of surcharge would be 18 months A 10m wide by 3m high
stability berm will be required along with one layer of 600kN/m structural geofabric.
6.3.5.5 Ch 12 050 to Ch 12 800
A CIC supported embankment can be constructed between Ch12050 and Ch12120 at the bridge
approach (Zone 1A and Zone 2A in Sketch 1 below). Surcharge with wick drains (SWD) can be
adopted from Ch12120 to Ch12800 (Zone 2B in Sketch 1 below). CIC are again adopted to allow
earlier access to the bridge abutment for construction than would occur for the multiple stages of
construction associated with SWD.
22 December 2011
Sketch 1. Ground Treatment Zones
Indicative spacing, lengths and stabilisation measures for CIC supported embankments are presented
in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8 Design Concepts for CIC Supported Embankments
Type Design Depth of Column Column Column Stabilisation measures

Height soft soil / Pile / Pile / Pile
(m) (m) spacing size Length
(m)
CIC 7 to12 11 to 17 1.4m c/c 0.45m Min 5m Reinforce columns below batter with
square dia. below cage comprising 4Y12 bars and 2
soft layers of 600kN/m ultimate strength
soil(1) structural geofabric (1 oriented
laterally, 1 oriented longitudinally).
(1)
Depends on settlement assessment of soils below CIC columns
6.3.5.6 Ch12800 to Ch12950
The embankments in this area are of the order of 1.5m to 2m high. Preloading will not be required in
this section, however soft material will have to be boxed out and replaced with structural fill in order to
provide sufficient support for concrete pavement. Rock fill may be required and reinforced with a layer
of Triax170 geogrid.
6.3.5.7 Ch13100 to Ch13650
Preload without wick drains is likely to provide sufficient ground improvement away from box culverts in
this section. Adjacent to box culverts the height of the preload increases from 4m to 5m. Surcharge
with wick drains could be considered over the footprint of the box culvert and in the transitions. The
22 December 2011
height of preload could increase to 7m and this will require a 10m wide by 2m high stability berm along
with a layer of 600kN/m structural geofabric.
If the risks of culvert settlement are considered to be too high then the culvert could be supported on
semi-rigid or rigid ground inclusions or the soft clay could be removed and replaced with structural fill.
22 December 2011
Table 6.9 Suitability of Ground Improvement Methods
Design Depth
Location Height of soil R&R SUR SWD VC EO DR DSM WSM SC CIC PE
(m) (m)
Ch8700 to Ch9100 2 to 3 11 to 5 X X X X X X
Ch9100 to Ch9620 4 17 X X X X X
Ch9620 to
4 to 2.5 20 X X X X X X X X X
Ch10850
Ch10850 to
2.5 to 11 15 X X X X X X
Ch11400
Ch 12050 to
11.5 to 0.3 15 X X X X X X
Ch12800
Ch12800 to
0.3 15 to 0 X X X X X X X X X
Ch12950
Ch13100 to
3 4 X X X X X X
Ch13650
22 December 2011
6.4 Bridge Foundations and Construction Issues

The alternative alignment plans indicate a bridge extending from approximately Ch10 650m to 12050m.
Between Ch 10 650m and Ch 11 300m the ground conditions are assessed to comprise 20m of
Holocene alluvial deposits (A1 and firm to stiff clay) overlying approximately 10m of Pleistocene alluvial
deposits (Unit B2). The ground conditions can be seen to comprise approximately 15m of Holocene
alluvial deposits (A1/A2) overlying 10m to 15m of Pleistocene alluvial deposits (Unit B1/B2) between Ch
11 300m and Ch 11 500m. The thickness of Unit B1 material diminishes from Ch 11 550m to 11 600m
so that the Holocene alluvium deepens about 18m to 20m, reducing in thickness to 8m at Ch 12 100m.
The Unit B deposits below the Unit A material are approximately reduce 8m thick at Ch 11 650m before
pinching out at approximate Ch 12 050m. Unit A typically consists of soft to firm clay (Unit A1) and
loose sands (Unit A2); Unit B is made up of stiff to very stiff clays (Unit B1) and medium dense to dense
sands and gravels (Unit B2).
Underlying the alluvial deposits is Phyllite of varying degrees of weathering and strength is anticipated.
Units D1 and D2 are anticipated to have a combined thickness of around 10m to the south of the
Nambucca River. The studies for the approved alignment indicate that the thickness of Unit D1 and D2
is likely to be less on the northern side of the river where typically medium to high strength slightly
weathered to fresh Phyllite is shallower gradually thinning to less than 1m at the northern bank of the
river (approximate Ch 10 620m).
Based on the available geotechnical information, it is considered that driven piles, founding in the
alluvial gravels (Unit B2) or extremely weathered Phyllite (Unit D1), or bored piles, founding in either
Unit D2 Phyllite or better would be appropriate foundation options.
Excavations for pile caps within the alluvial deposits on the floodplain may encounter groundwater, and
appropriate dewatering measures should be implemented to allow construction of the pile caps.
Cofferdams would be required to allow construction of pile caps within the river bed; alternatively, an
option to construct columns to the underside of the bridge superstructure could be considered.
6.5 Culverts
A number of culverts of varying sizes are proposed along the alterative alignment. It is anticipated that
the culverts will provide drainage, fauna crossing or access paths beneath the proposed highway.
Coffey has been supplied with details of culvert locations, dimensions, and structure type (ie box or pipe
culvert) based on flood modelling of the alternate route. Table 6 10 provides a summary of the culverts
including anticipated structure type, and anticipated founding conditions interpreted from the
geotechnical investigation data.
22 December 2011
Table 6.10. Summary of Culverts
Approximate Potential Approximate Foundation Conditions Anticipated Foundation Treatment

Chainage Structure Type Size Pile Length (m)
Ch 8 960m Box culvert 12m long series Approximately 9m of A1 10m Driven piles or concrete injected
of culverts alluvial soils overlying B1 columns. Piles to be driven to Unit B
soils material. Ground improvement required
in transition zone.
of culverts alluvial soils overlying B2 columns. Piles to be driven to Unit B
soils material. Ground improvement required
in transition zone
of culverts overlying Unit B2 soils columns. Piles to be driven to Unit B
material. Ground improvement required
in transition zone.
of culverts overlying Unit B2 soils columns. Piles to be driven to Unit B
material. Ground improvement required
in transition zone
Ch 12 120m Pipe 1.8m Approximately 8m of A1 - Localised excavate and replace of soft

overlying Unit D1 foundation materials. Recommend
oversizing the pipe such that the flow
capacity is maintained following
settlement of the structure..
22 December 2011
Approximate Potential Approximate Foundation Conditions Anticipated Foundation Treatment

Chainage Structure Type Size Pile Length (m)
Ch 12 700m Pipe or box 2.1m Approximately 13m of A1 14m If box culvert then driven piles or
culvert overlying Unit D1 concrete injected columns to unit D1. If
pipe then recommend oversizing the pipe
such that the flow capacity is maintained
following settlement of the structure.
Ch 13 200m Box culvert 2.7m x 1.5m Approximately 3m of A1 - Slab footing with localised excavation
overlying Unit D1 and replace of unsuitable founding
material
Ch 13 620m Box culvert 2 culverts of D1 material - Slab footing with localised excavation
2.7m x 1.5m and replace of unsuitable founding
material
Ch 13 840m Pipe 1.5m Approximately 2m of C - Slab footing with localised excavation

overlying D1 and replace of unsuitable founding
material
Ch 14 420m Pipe 2.1m Approximately 2m of C - Slab footing with localised excavation

overlying D1 and replace of unsuitable founding
material
Ch 14 980m Pipe 1.05m D1 material - Slab footing with localised excavation

and replace of unsuitable founding
material
Ch 16 700m Pipe 1.5m D1 material - Slab footing with localised excavation

and replace of unsuitable founding
material
22 December 2011
Both pipe and box culverts require design settlement limits. In the case of pipe culverts, allowable
settlement is controlled by the flow capacity of the pipe and the allowable differential settlement
between the pipe units. Settlement limits for box culverts can be governed by flow capacity or structural
capacity of the culvert due to differential settlement. The structural capacity is limited to the capacity to
withstand differential settlements without substantial cracking as this would cause a long term durability
problem for the culvert. Both pipe and box culverts are designed for a 100 year life.
The design requirements for pipe culverts can often be achieved by constructing the pipes just prior to
pavement construction after allowing the embankments to settle. The pipes are also often over sized to
compensate for predicted long term settlement. If these measures do not reduce settlement to design
values then ground treatment is required.
In principle, it is possible to design ground treatments such as SWD, DSM, WSM and SC to limit
settlement of the box culverts to a design value. In principle, allowing box culverts to settle 50mm or
100mm is attractive because it allows a smooth settlement transition from the culvert to the
embankments to be developed. However, allowing box culverts to settle poses the following risks:
• Accurate assessment of differential settlements in three dimensions is difficult resulting

in some uncertainty in the performance of the culverts; and
• Settlement of embankments on either side of the box can cause down drag forces on
the sides of the culvert that result in hogging deformations. Hogging deformations can
cause link slab joints and the haunches of the arch units to crack.
Further geotechnical assessment would be required before being able to recommend allowing box
culverts to settle at this stage. For preliminary design we recommend that the culverts within the
Nambucca River floodplain, at Chainages Ch 8 960m, Ch9 240m, Ch 9 730m, Ch 10 220m, Ch 12
700m, 13 200m and Ch 13 620m be supported on piles founded in the Unit B Pleistocene soils or the
Unit D1 residual soils. Details of the structures are not available to perform preliminary design, however
box culverts have been similarly supported on piles for the Ballina Bypass and some of the design
details are provided below:
• 350mm square precast concrete driven piles were adopted;
• The piles were founded at least 6m into stiff Pleistocene clay;
• The piles were spaced in about a 2m by 2m grid for an embankment height of 2.5m;
and
• A 0.45m thick concrete base slab was adopted.
These design details are consistent with the approved alignment. Founding the culverts on piles will
cause short wave length differential settlements of the overlying pavements unless a transition between
the culverts and the adjacent embankments is created using ground treatment. For embankments of
3m height or less adopting SWD or DSM transitions as discussed in Section 20.5 is recommended.
The length of the transition is likely to range between 20m and 50m to control differential settlements of
the pavement to design limits
22 December 2011
7 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES - APPROVED ALIGNMENT AND ALTERNATIVE

ALIGNMENT
The main geotechnical issues and differences associated with this section of the approved alignment
and the alternative alignment is the extent and treatment of soft soils. Table 7.1 below provides a
summary of these geotechnical issues. The approved alignment is taken as commencing at project
chainage Ch 8 700m and terminating at Ch 16 200m. The alternative alignment is taken as
commencing at Ch 8 700m and terminating at Ch16 934m. Details regarding the geotechnical
conditions along the approved alignment are discussed in Coffey report ref GEOTLCOV24043AB-BZ
dated 19 July 2011.
Table 7.1 Geotechnical Issues – Approved and Alternate Alignment
Issue Approved Alignment Alternative Alignment
Length of Alignment Requiring 1 600m 3 550m

Soft Soil Treatment
Time Required for Time required is dependent on depth of soft soils

Consolidation.
Depths of Soft Soil <7m - 550m
7m to 9m 450m 900m
9m to 12m 150m 400m
15m to 17m 1000m 850m
>17m - 900m
Soft Soil Treatments Required Surcharge only 400m 950m
Surcharge + 1130m 2 230m

Wick Drains
Cement Injected 70m 70m

Columns
Excavate and 300m

Replace
Related to the soft soil treatment is the requirement for ground improvement for culverts and pipes in
the soft soil area. Based on the proposed designs provided to Coffey, we understand that there will be
three large box culverts in the approved alignment and four large box culverts, one smaller box culvert
and four pipes in the soft soil areas for the alternative alignment. The areas around these structures
require treatment to reduce the impact of ground settlement on the performance and integrity of these
structures.
22 December 2011
In addition to the soft soil issues, there are issues related to the extent of cuts and the material
extracted from them. The approved alignment has more cuts than the alternative resulting in more
excavated material being generated. As the proposed cuts in the approved alignment are deeper, it is
anticipated that a greater amount of less weathered Phyllite (Unit D2) will be excavated than compared
to the alternative alignment. The less weathered Phyliite is of greater engineering utility than the more
weathered D2 material. The cuttings on the alternative alignment are primarily through D1 material.
8 CONDITIONS OF THIS REPORT

This report has been based on details provided for the alternative alignment as a 5 December 2011.
The geological conditions discussed in this report have been based on information collected for the
approved alignment, with inferences drawn based on site observations from publicly accessible land.
The geotechnical conditions and recommendations provided in this report are for the purposes of a
technical review only and not detailed design.
For and on behalf of Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
Paran Moyes
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
22 December 2011
Important information about your Coffey Report
As a client of Coffey you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction
problems than any other factor. These notes have been prepared by Coffey to help you
interpret and understand the limitations of your report.
Your report is based on project specific criteria
Your report has been developed on the basis of your earth, rock and time. The actual interface between
unique project specific requirements as understood materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than
by Coffey and applies only to the site investigated. assumed based on the facts obtained. Nothing can
Project criteria typically include the general nature of be done to change the actual site conditions which
the project; its size and configuration; the location of exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of
any structures on the site; other site improvements; unexpected conditions. For this reason, owners
the presence of underground utilities; and the additional should retain the services of Coffey through the
risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed development stage, to identify variances, conduct
by the client. Your report should not be used if there additional tests if required, and recommend solutions
are any changes to the project without first asking to problems encountered on site.
Coffey to assess how factors that changed subsequent
to the date of the report affect the report's Your report will only give
recommendations. Coffey cannot accept responsibility preliminary recommendations
for problems that may occur due to changed factors
Your report is based on the assumption that the
if they are not consulted.
site conditions as revealed through selective
point sampling are indicative of actual conditions
Subsurface conditions can change throughout an area. This assumption cannot be
Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes substantiated until project implementation has
and the activity of man. For example, water levels commenced and therefore your report recommendations
can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site and can only be regarded as preliminary. Only Coffey,
pollutants may migrate with time. Because a report who prepared the report, is fully familiar with the
is based on conditions which existed at the time of background information needed to assess whether
subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based or not the report's recommendations are valid and
on a report whose adequacy may have been affected whether or not changes should be considered as
by time. Consult Coffey to be advised how time may the project develops. If another party undertakes
have impacted on the project. the implementation of the recommendations of this
report there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted
Interpretation of factual data and Coffey cannot be held responsible for such
misinterpretation.
Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken and
when they are taken. Data derived from literature Your report is prepared for
and external data source review, sampling and specific purposes and persons
subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by To avoid misuse of the information contained in your
geologists, engineers or scientists to provide an report it is recommended that you confer with Coffey
opinion about overall site conditions, their likely before passing your report on to another party who
impact on the proposed development and recommended may not be familiar with the background and the
actions. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred purpose of the report. Your report should not be
to exist, because no professional, no matter how applied to any project other than that originally
qualified, can reveal what is hidden by specified at the time the report was issued.

Important information about your Coffey Report
Interpretation by other design professionals Rely on Coffey for additional assistance

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and
develop their plans based on misinterpretations approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for
of a report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain all parties to a project, from design to construction. It
Coffey to work with other project design professionals is common that not all approaches will be necessarily
who are affected by the report. Have Coffey explain dealt with in your site assessment report due to
the report implications to design professionals affected concepts proposed at that time. As the project
by them and then review plans and specifications progresses through design towards construction,
produced to see how they incorporate the report speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches
findings. to problems that may be of genuine benefit both in
time and cost.
Data should not be separated from the report*
The report as a whole presents the findings of the site Responsibility
assessment and the report should not be copied in Reporting relies on interpretation of factual information
part or altered in any way. based on judgement and opinion and has a level of
uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than
Logs, figures, drawings, etc. are customarily included the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims
in our reports and are developed by scientists, being lodged against consultants, which are unfounded.
engineers or geologists based on their interpretation To help prevent this problem, a number of clauses
of field logs (assembled by field personnel) and have been developed for use in contracts, reports and
laboratory evaluation of field samples. These logs etc. other documents. Responsibility clauses do not transfer
should not under any circumstances be redrawn for appropriate liabilities from Coffey to other parties but
inclusion in other documents or separated from the are included to identify where Coffey's responsibilities
report in any way. begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties
involved to recognise their individual responsibilities.
Geoenvironmental concerns are not at issue Read all documents from Coffey closely and do not
hesitate to ask any questions you may have.
Your report is not likely to relate any findings,
conclusions, or recommendations about the potential
for hazardous materials existing at the site unless
specifically required to do so by the client. Specialist
equipment, techniques, and personnel are used to
perform a geoenvironmental assessment.
Contamination can create major health, safety and
environmental risks. If you have no information about * For further information on this aspect reference should be
the potential for your site to be contaminated or create made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical
an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact information in Construction Contracts" published by the
Coffey for information relating to geoenvironmental Institution of Engineers Australia, National headquarters,
issues. Canberra, 1987.

Appendix A
Site Plans
CPT1206
CPT1206
CPT1206
CPT1206
LEGEND
TP1326
TP1326
TP1326
CURRENT INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS) PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS)
BH BH
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
LDBH LARGE DIAMETER BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BH* BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER
AY
AYY
Y
Y
BH* TP CPT1205
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER
A
A
TEST PIT LOCATIONS CPT1205
CPT1205
WA
CPT1205
HWW
BH1114
H
BH1114
BH1114
GH
TP CPT BH1114
G
G
TEST PIT (BACKHOE/SMALL EXCAVATOR) LOCATIONS
HIIIIG
CPT LOCATIONS
H
1BH29
CH
1BH29
1BH29
1BH29
C
EP
FIIIC
LARGE EXCAVATOR PIT LOCATIONS 1CPT18
F
F
1CPT18
1CPT18
CIIIIF
1CPT18
AC
A
A C
C
CPT
PA
CPT LOCATIONS
P
P
SL
SEISMIC LINES
5000 CHAINAGE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT TP1325

TP1325
TP1325
TP1325
EXTENT OF GULLY ALLUVIUM WET AREA CPT1204

CPT1204
CPT1204
CPT1204
EXTENT OF ALLUVIUM GRAVEL PIT
DRAINAGE CHANNEL SOFT SOILS TREATMENT
1CPT17
1CPT17
1CPT17
GC-20
GC-20
GC-20
1CPT16
1CPT16
1CPT16
1CPT16
BH1113
BH1113
BH1113
BH1113
CPT1203
CPT1203
CPT1203
CPT1203
WA
W AY
A
AYY
Y
GH
G
HIIIIG HW
H
CH
C
FFIIIC H
H
CIIIIFF
1TP26
1TP26
1TP26
1TP26
PA
P
P AC
A
A C
C
GC-19
GC-19
GC-19
GC-19
DWG FILE: F:\GEOTECHNICS\1.PROJECTS\GEOTLCOV240\GEOTLCOV24043AB WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA\FIGURES\GEOTLCOV24043AF_FIGURES A1-A7.DWG
AY
A Y
Y
GH
G HW
HWWA
CH
C
IIIC HIIIIG
H
H
PA
P
P AC
A
A CIIIIFFFI
C
C
CS15
CS15
CS15
CS15
TP1321
TP1321
TP1321
TP1321
GC-17
GC-17
GC-17
GC-17
description approved client:

drawn date drawn CJP / AW ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY, NSW
COORDINATE SYSTEM: MGA ZONE 56
project: PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE
HEIGHT DATUM: A.H.D. approved CJP WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA
revision
PLOT DATE: 7/30/2011 12:30 PM
NAMBUCCA RIVER ALTERNATIVE CROSSING TECHNICAL REVIEW

date 07 / 12 / 11 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
title:
scale 1:5000 SITE PLAN - SHEET 1 OF 7
original project no: drawing no:

size A3 GEOTLCOV24043AF FIGURE A1
1CPT31
1CPT31
1CPT31
GC-15
GC-15
GC-15
GC-15 1BH39
1BH39
1BH39
1BH39
CS110
CS110
CS110
CS110
BH1117
BH1117
BH1117
BH1117
LEGEND

1BH37
1BH37
1BH37
1BH37
BH BH
1BH36
1BH36
1BH36
1BH36
BH* TP
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER TEST PIT LOCATIONS
TP TEST PIT (BACKHOE/SMALL EXCAVATOR) LOCATIONS CPT CPT LOCATIONS
1BH35
1BH35
1BH35
EP LARGE EXCAVATOR PIT LOCATIONS
CPT CPT LOCATIONS

1BH34
1BH34
1BH34
SL
SEISMIC LINES
1CPT27
1CPT27
1CPT27
1CPT27
BH1116
BH1116
BH1116
5000
GC-14
GC-14
GC-14
GC-14 CHAINAGE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT
1CPT29
1CPT29
1CPT29
1CPT29
1CPT28
1CPT28
1CPT28
1CPT28 EXTENT
G
G
GU
G U OF GULLY ALLUVIUM WET AREA
1BH33*
1BH33*
1BH33*
1BH33* UM
U M
MM
M M
MA
A
AAR
R
RO
R O
OA
O A
AD
A D
D
D

1CPT103
1CPT103
1CPT103
1CPT103
K
K
KEE
E
ELL
LLLLLY
Y
Y
Y
CCCLLL
LOOOS
SE
S E
E
E
1CPT102
1CPT102
1CPT102
1CPT102
1CPT101
1CPT101
1CPT101
1CPT101

revision
PLOT DATE: 7/32/2011 12:32 PM

title:

LEGEND
BH BH
D
ADD
RO
R
R OA
O A
LDBH BH*
TR
LARGE DIAMETER BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER
OA S
AS
A
A T
ST
BH* TP TP2302
TP2302
TP2302
TEST PIT LOCATIONSTP2302
COO
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER
DCC
1TP29
D
1TP29
1TP29
OLLLD
TP CPT 1TP29
TEST PIT (BACKHOE/SMALL EXCAVATOR) LOCATIONS CPT LOCATIONS
O
O
CPT CPT LOCATIONS

SL
SEISMIC LINES
5000 CHAINAGE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT
EXTENT OF GULLY ALLUVIUM WET AREA

1EP09
1EP09
1EP09 BH2102
1EP09 BH2102
BH2102
BH2102 CS111
CS111
CS111
CS112
CS112
CS112
CS112
1BH47*
1BH47*
1BH47*
1BH47*
1BH46
1BH46
1BH46
1BH46
1EP08
1EP08
1EP08
1EP08 LL
LLE
E
ETT
TTIIIITTT
IIIIA
A
AC
A C
CLL
C LLO
O
OSS
SEE
O E
E
TRRO
R
R A
OA
O D
D
D
AD
1EP07
1EP07
1EP07
AST
ST
T
1EP07
O
O
O DC
D
LLD
OLL CO
C
C OA
O A
AS
S
AS T
1TP28
1TP28
1TP28
1TP28
TP2301
TP2301
TP2301
TP2301
P
P
PAA
AC
A C
CIIIIFF
C FFIIIIC
C
CH
C H
HIIIIG
H G
GHH
HW
H W
WA
W A
AY
A Y
Y
BH2101
BH2101
BH2101
BH2101
GC-16
GC-16
GC-16
GC-16
1BH44
1BH44
1BH44
1BH44
1CPT38
1CPT38
1CPT38
1CPT38
P
PA
P
P A
AC
A C
CIIIIFF
C FFIIIIC
C
CH
C H
HIIIIG
H G
GH
G H
HW
HW
WWA
AY
A Y
Y
1BH43
1BH43
1BH43
CPT2202
CPT2202
CPT2202
1BH42
1BH42
1BH42
1CPT36
1CPT36
1CPT36
1CPT36
P
PA
P
P A
AC
A C
CIIIIFFFIIIIC
C C
CH
C H
HIIIIG
H G
GH
G H
HW
H W
WAA
AY
A Y
Y
CPT2201
CPT2201
CPT2201
1BH40
1BH40
1BH40
1BH40
1CPT34
1CPT34
1CPT34
1CPT31
1CPT31
1CPT31
GC-15
GC-15
GC-15
GC-15 1BH39
1BH39
1BH39
1BH39
CS110
CS110
CS110
BH1117
BH1117
BH1117
BH1117
1BH37
1BH37
1BH37
1BH37
1BH36
1BH36
1BH36
1BH36

BH35
BH35
BH35
BH35 COORDINATE SYSTEM: MGA ZONE 56
revision
PLOT DATE: 7/21/2011 10:21 AM

title:

1EP15
1EP15
1EP15
1EP15
1EP14
1EP14
1EP14
1EP14
LEGEND
1TP36
1TP36
1TP36
1TP36
CURRENT INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS) PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS) 1TP37
1TP37
1TP37
1TP37
O
O
O
OLL
LLD
D
D
DC
BH BH
C
COO
O
OAA
AS
LDBH BH*
SSTT
LARGE DIAMETER BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER
TT R
R
ROO
O
TP
OA
BH* BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER TEST PIT LOCATIONS
A
A
AD
1EP13
1EP13
1EP13
1EP13
D
DD
EP LARGE EXCAVATOR PIT LOCATIONS 1BH52
1BH52
1BH52
1BH52
BH2104
BH2104
BH2104
BH2104 1BH51*
CPT CPT LOCATIONS 1BH51*
1BH51*
1BH51*
1TP35
1TP35
1TP35
1TP35
1BH50
1BH50
1BH50
1BH50
SL
SEISMIC LINES
M
M
MAA
ATT
TTTTTIIIC
5000 CHAINAGE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 1EP12
1EP12
1EP12
1EP12 C
CKK
KRR
RO
R O
OA
O A
AD
D
DD
O
O
OLL
LLD
1TP34
1TP34
1TP34
D
D
DC
C
C
COO
OAA
A
AS

S
STT
TRR
R
RO
TP2305
TP2305
TP2305
TP2305
O
O
OA
AAD
D
D
1TP33
1TP33
1TP33
1TP33
1EP11
1EP11
1EP11
BH2103
BH2103
BH2103
BH2103
O
O
OLLLD
1BH49*
1BH49*
1BH49*
1BH49* 1BH48
1BH48
1BH48
1BH48
D
DCC
COO
OA
1EP10
1EP10
1EP10
1EP10
A
AAS
S
S
STT
T
TRR
ROO
O
OAA
ADD
D
D
1TP32
1TP32
1TP32
1TP32
TP2304
TP2304
TP2304
TP2304
1TP31
1TP31
1TP31
1TP31
1TP30
1TP30
1TP30
1TP30
O
O DC
D
OLLLD CO
C
C A
A
OA
O
O ST
S
S
AS TR
T
T RO
R OA
O AD
A D
D
TP2302
TP2302
TP2302
TP2302
description 1TP29 approved client:

1TP29
1TP29
drawn
1TP29 date drawn CJP / AW ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY, NSW
revision
PLOT DATE: 7/33/2011 12:33 PM

title:

D
D
D
OAAA
RRROOO
TTT R
AAASSS
TP2309
S
1TP49
1TP49
1TP49 TP2309
TP2309
TP2309
1TP49
OOO
CCCO
DDD
LEGEND
OOLLL
OO
BH BH
LDBH BH* 1TP48
1TP48
1TP48
LARGE DIAMETER BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER 1TP48
BH* TP
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER TEST PIT LOCATIONS
1TP47
1TP47
1TP47
1TP47
CPT CPT LOCATIONS 1EP18

1EP18
1EP18
1EP18
SL
SEISMIC LINES BH2106
BH2106
BH2106
BH2106

1EP17
1EP17
1EP17
1EP17
A
A
OA D
D
AD
RO
R
TT R
STT O
O
1TP46
1TP46
1TP46
COOA
A
OA S
S
AS
1TP45
1TP45
1TP45
1TP45
DC
D
LLD C
TP2308
TP2308
TP2308
TP2308
OLL
O
O
O
1TP44
1TP44
1TP44
1EP16
1EP16
1EP16
1EP16 1TP43
1TP43
1TP43
1TP43
BH2105
BH2105
BH2105
BH2105
1TP41
1TP41
1TP41
1TP41 1TP42
1TP42
1TP42
1TP42
1TP40
1TP40
1TP40
1TP40
1TP39
1TP39
1TP39
1TP38
1TP38
1TP38
1TP38
1EP15
1EP15
1EP15
1EP15
1EP14
1EP14
1EP14
O
O
O
OLLLD
D
D
DCC
CO
O
OOA
A
A
ASS
S
1TP36
ST
1TP36
1TP36
1TP36
TTR
1TP37
1TP37
1TP37
1TP37
R
ROO
OAA
ADD
D
1EP13
1EP13
1EP13
1EP13
CJP
1BH52
1BH52
1BH52
1BH52 HEIGHT DATUM: A.H.D. approved
WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA
revision
1BH51*
1BH51*
1BH51*
1BH51*
PLOT DATE: 7/24/2011 10:24 AM

title:

2bBH02*
2bBH02*
2bBH02*
2bBH02* 2bEP003
2bEP003
2bEP003
2bEP003
2bEP002
2bEP002
2bEP002
2bEP002
LEGEND
BH BH
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BH2108
BH2108
BH2108
BH2108
2bBH01
2bBH01
2bBH01
2bBH01
TP 2bEP001
2bEP001
2bEP001
2bEP001
BH* BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER TEST PIT LOCATIONS
CPT CPT LOCATIONS

SL
SEISMIC LINES
RO
R OA
O AD
A D
D
D
A
A
OA
O STTT R
S
AS
DC
D CO
C
LLLD
OL
O
O
O
ROOA
O AD
A D
D
S
S
AS
A R
R
TT R
STT
DC
D
D CO
C
C OA
O
OLLLD
O
O
1TP49 TP2309
TP2309
TP2309
TP2309
1TP49
1TP49
1TP49
AAADDD
OOO
RRRO
TTTT
AAASSS
OOOA
CCO
CC
LLLLDDD
OO
OO
1TP48
1TP48
1TP48
1TP48

COORDINATE SYSTEM:
1TP47 MGA ZONE 56
1TP47
1TP47
1TP47
revision
PLOT DATE: 7/26/2011 10:26 AM
1EP18
1EP18
1EP18
1EP18 NAMBUCCA RIVER ALTERNATIVE CROSSING TECHNICAL REVIEW
title:

2bTP15
2bTP15
2bTP15
2bTP15
TP2318
TP2318
TP2318
OA
O AD
A
ADD
RO
R
TT R
R O
SSTT
ASS
A
E C
C
C OA
O
O
O A
IN NE
NEE D
LEGEND WA
W Y
AY
A
AYY LLLIIIN OLL
O
O
D
LLD
D
R
R
R A
A
A LLW
AIIIILL W
AA
AS
S
S T
T
T
ST
CO
COO
O A
R HC
H
TTH
RTT H C 2bTP14
2bTP14
2bTP14
CURRENT INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS) PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (SYMBOLS) NO
N
N
N OR
O
O R
BH BH
CS203
CS203
CS203
CS203
LDBH LARGE DIAMETER BOREHOLE LOCATIONS BH* BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER CS201
CS201
CS201
CS201
2bEP008
2bEP008
2bEP008
2bEP008
BH* TP CS202
CS202
CS202
CS202
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH STANDPIPE PIEZOMETER TEST PIT LOCATIONS 2bBH08*
2bBH08*
2bBH08*
2bBH07
2bBH07
2bBH07
2bBH07
TP N
N
NOO
ORR T
TEST N O
PIT R(BACKHOE/SMALL
R T
TH
T H
HC
H C
CO
C O
OAA
AS
AS
AS
S T
ST
TR
T R
RA
R A
AIIIILLLW
A W
WA
W AEXCAVATOR)
AY
Y
YY LL
LLIIIIN
N
NE
N E
E LOCATIONS CPT CPT LOCATIONS
E 2bEP007
2bEP007
2bEP007
2bEP007
EP BH2109
BH2109
BH2109
BH2109
LARGE EXCAVATOR PIT LOCATIONS
A D
D
AD
D
RO
R
R OA
OA TP2317
TP2317
TP2317
TP2317
CPT T
CPT LOCATIONS SSTTT
ASS
O
CO
CCOOAAA
SL D C
LLLDDD
SEISMIC LINES OOL
OO
5000 CHAINAGE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 2bTP12

2bTP12
2bTP12 2bTP13
2bTP13
2bTP13
2bTP13
DRAINAGE CHANNEL SOFT SOILS TREATMENT 2bTP11

2bTP11
2bTP11
2bTP11
2bBH06*
2bBH06*
2bBH06*
2bEP006
2bEP006
2bEP006
2bEP006
2bBH05
2bBH05
2bBH05
2bBH05
TP2314
TP2314
TP2314 TP2316
TP2316
TP2316
2bTP10
2bTP10
2bTP10
2bTP10
TP2315
TP2315
TP2315
TP2315
O
O
O
OLLLD
2bTP09
2bTP09
2bTP09
2bTP09
D
DCC
C
COO
O
OA
A
AAS
S
S
STT
TT R
R
ROO
O
OA
2bTP08
2bTP08
2bTP08
A
ADD
D
D
2bEP005
2bEP005
2bEP005
2bEP005
2bBH04*
2bBH04*
2bBH04*
2bBH04*
2bEP004
2bEP004
2bEP004
2bBH03
2bBH03
2bBH03
2bBH03
TP2313
TP2313
TP2313
TP2313
2bBH02*
2bBH02*
2bBH02*
2bBH02* 2bEP003
2bEP003
2bEP003
2bEP002
2bEP002
2bEP002
2bEP002
BH2108
BH2108
BH2108
BH2108
2bBH01
2bBH01
2bBH01
2bBH01
2bEP001
2bEP001
2bEP001
2bEP001

revision
PLOT DATE: 7/27/2011 10:27 AM

title:

Appendix B
Geotechnical Long Sections
15
BOX CULVERT BOX CULVERT

APPROX. SIZE - 6 x 2100 x 1800 APPROX. SIZE - 14 x 3600 x 2100
CH8960 CH9240
10
CPT1203
Offset -18.61m
RL 1.28mAHD
5
1TP26 BH1113 1CPT16
GC-19 Offset -9.49m Offset -26.21m Offset -26.67m GC-20
Offset -46.46m RL 1.29mAHD RL 1.21mAHD RL 1.27mAHDOffset -39.20m
RL 0.50mAHD RL 0.50mAHD
Qc (MPa) Qc (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
N=3
0
UNIT A1 3
N=2
?
-5
?
N=14
?
N=0
UNIT A1
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
?
?
N=12
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-10 UNIT D1
?
N=12
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
11.6 UNIT B1 N=15
UNIT D2
?
?
? ? ? ?
-15 ? N=35
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
?
?
? N=35
?
-20
? ? ?
DWG FILE: F:\GEOTECHNICS\1.PROJECTS\GEOTLCOV240\GEOTLCOV24043AB WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA\FIGURES\GEOTLCOV24043AF_FIGURES B1-B10.DWG
20.66 ?
N=33
? ? ? 21 UNIT B2
? ?
UNIT D1
?
N=R ?
?
?
-25
N=R
25.47
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT D1
? ? ? ? ? ?
-30 M SW ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
31.8
UNIT D2
-35
DATUM: RL -37
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
4.01
4.08
4.18
4.28
4.38
4.48
4.58
4.68
4.78
4.88
4.98
5.08
5.18
5.28
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
2.05
1.83
2.63
1.03
1.03
1.45
1.05
0.93
1.03
2.18
1.19
1.37
1.31
1.18
0.96
1.07
1.16
1.10
1.00
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
8700
8750
8800
8850
8900
8950
9000
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
9550
9600
CHAINAGE (m)
HEIGHT DATUM: A.H.D.

drawn date LONGITUDINAL SECTION drawn CJP / MH ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY, NSW

HORIZONTAL SCALE - 1:2500 @ A3 / 1:1250 @ A1 approved CJP WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA
revision
PLOT DATE: 14/7/2011 10:07 AM

VERTICAL SCALE - 1:250 @ A3 / 1:125 @ A1
title: GEOTECHNICAL LONGITUDINAL SECTION
scale AS SHOWN
CH8700 TO CH9600 - SHEET 1 OF 10
( VERTICAL EXAGGERATED - TEN TIMES ) original project no: drawing no:
size A3 GEOTLCOV24043AF FIGURE B1
15
BOX CULVERT BOX CULVERT

APPROX. SIZE - 16 x 3600 x 2100 APPROX. SIZE - 14 x 3600 x 2100
CH9730 CH10220
10
-5
UNIT A1
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
? ? ?
-10
?
? ? ?
-15 ? ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
?
-20
UNIT B2
-25
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
UNIT D1
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-30
UNIT D2
-35
DATUM: RL -37
5.28
5.38
5.48
5.58
5.68
5.76
5.76
5.68
5.58
5.48
5.38
5.28
5.18
5.08
4.98
4.88
4.78
4.68
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
1.93
1.93
1.55
1.22
1.31
1.21
1.22
1.87
1.68
1.61
1.42
1.59
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.54
1.54
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
10000
10050
10100
10150
10200
10250
10300
10350
10400
10450
9600
9650
9700
9750
9800
9850
9900
9950
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/55/2011 10:55 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH9600 TO CH10450 - SHEET 2 OF 10
15
END OF BRIDGE
10
-5
UNIT A1
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-10
FIRM TO STIFF
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-15 ? ? ? ?
UNIT A1 ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
?
?
-20
? ? ?
?
UNIT B2 ?
?
?
-25 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT D1 ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-30
UNIT D2
-35
DATUM: RL -37
6.22
7.22
8.12
10.07
10.47
10.75
4.68
4.58
4.48
4.38
4.28
4.18
4.09
4.21
4.61
5.29
8.89
9.54
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
1.83
1.59
1.76
1.86
1.76
1.52
1.62
1.68
1.69
1.76
1.71
1.72
2.07
2.19
1.90
1.90
2.20
1.84
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
10450
10500
10550
10600
10650
10700
10750
10800
10850
10900
10950
11000
11050
11100
11150
11200
11250
11300
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/11/2011 10:11 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH10450 TO CH11300 - SHEET 3 OF 10
END OF BRIDGE PIPE CULVERT
APPROX. SIZE - 1800-1950
CH12120
15
10
MANGROVES PACIFIC HIGHWAY SMALL

HILL
END OF RIDGELINE
5
APPROXIMATELY 100m
WEST OF ALIGNMEN
NAMBUCCA RIVER
? ?
?
?
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
-5 ?
?
? ? ? ?
? ?
UNIT A2 ?
?
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
?
? UNIT D1
? ?
? ? ? ? ?
-10
? ? ? ? ?
UNIT B1 ? ?
? UNIT D2
? ?
? ?
-15 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? UNIT A1 ? ?
?
UNIT B1 ? ? ?
?
?
?
-20 ?
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ?
?
-25
?
?
UNIT B2
? ? ?
? ?
?
?
? ? ? ?
-30 ? ? ?
? ?
? ? ? ?
? ?
? UNIT D1
? ? ?
? ?
-35 UNIT D2
DATUM: RL -37
10.75
11.25
11.75
12.25
12.75
13.25
13.75
14.25
14.65
14.31
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.00
13.50
14.00
14.50
14.58
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
2.19
2.28
0.27
-0.13
-0.11
-0.15
-0.15
0.28
0.65
0.85
1.19
1.87
2.34
-0.14
-0.06
2.64
3.00
3.20
3.14
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
11300
11350
11400
11450
11500
11550
11600
11650
11700
11750
11800
11850
11900
11950
12000
12050
12100
12150
12200
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/12/2011 10:12 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH11300 TO CH12150 - SHEET 4 OF 10
20
PIPE OR BOX CULVERT

PIPE CULVERT
APPROX. SIZE - 2100
APPROX. SIZE - 1800-1950
CH12700
15
10
END OF RIDGELINE ?
5 NUMEROUS SMALL CHANNELS ?
APPROXIMATELY 100m TO
WEST OF ALIGNMENT
AND ?
CREEKS IN THIS AREA
?
0
? ?
? ?
UNIT A1
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
? ?
-5
?
? ?
? ?
?
?
?
?
? ? ? ?
-10 ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? UNIT D1 ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
UNIT D2
-15
-20
-25
-30
DATUM: RL -32
9.25
8.25
7.25
6.25
5.35
4.15
4.25
4.45
4.65
4.85
14.31
13.83
13.15
12.25
11.25
10.25
4.70
4.30
14.58
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
2.53
3.93
3.20
3.07
2.86
2.61
2.28
4.96
3.51
3.26
2.50
2.77
4.01
4.07
6.09
7.38
3.14
4.14
4.14
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
12150
12200
12250
12300
12350
12400
12450
12500
12550
12600
12650
12700
12750
12800
12850
12900
12950
13000
13050
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/15/2011 10:15 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH12150 TO CH13050 - SHEET 5 OF 10
20
BOX CULVERT BOX CULVERT PIPE CULVERT

APPROX. SIZE - 2700 x 1500 APPROX. SIZE - 2 x 2700 x1500 APPROX. SIZE - 1500
CH13200 CH13620 CH13840
15
10
SURFACE WATER
OBSERVED AT TIME OF
SITE VISIT
(8 NOVEMBER 2011)
?
5 ?
? ?
?
?
?
? UNIT A1
?
? ? ? UNIT C
? ? GULLY ALLUVIUM
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? UNIT D1
? UNIT D1 ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
UNIT D2
UNIT D2
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
DATUM: RL -32
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/16/2011 10:16 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH13050 TO CH13900 - SHEET 6 OF 10
20
?
PIPE OR BOX CULVERT
APPROX. SIZE - 1500 APPROX. SIZE - 2100
?
CH14420
?
15
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
10 SCARP FEATURE
?
NOTED DURING SITE
?
VISIT.
?
POSSIBLE LOCALISED
SLIP.
?
?
?
5 ? ?
?
?
?
?
GULLY ?
ALLUVIUM
0
? ? ? UNIT C
?
? ?
? UNIT D1 ?
? ? ? ?
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
UNIT D2
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
DATUM: RL -32
8.25
8.45
8.65
8.85
9.05
9.25
9.45
9.65
9.85
10.05
10.92
12.82
15.75
19.25
10.36
11.74
14.16
17.50
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
1.25
12.93
11.15
8.82
7.27
5.19
7.68
1.46
1.17
2.26
3.89
7.12
15.28
15.06
21.86
2.30
3.60
1.44
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
13900
13950
14000
14050
14100
14150
14200
14250
14300
14350
14400
14450
14500
14550
14600
14650
14700
14750
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/41/2011 10:41 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH13900 TO CH14750 - SHEET 7 OF 10
45
EXPOSURES IN CUTTINGS ON OLD

COAST ROAD 0.8m TO 1m OF
SOIL / EXTREMELY WEATHERED
PHYLLITE
40
PIPE CULVERT
APPROX. SIZE - 1050 ?
?
CH14980
? UNIT D1
? ?
?
35 ? ? ?
?
CUT ON OLD COAST ROAD
COMPRISING 1m OF SOIL
OVERLYING XW/HW UNIT D2
PHYLLITE
?
30
?
?
?
25
?
?
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
?
20
?
?
?
?
?
?
15
LARGE
RESERVOIR
?
AT EASTERN
?
END OF GULLY
10
?
?
?
UNIT D1 ?
5
?
UNIT D2
-5
DATUM: RL -7
19.25
22.75
26.25
27.83
31.07
31.65
32.07
31.65
31.15
30.65
21.00
24.50
29.16
30.24
31.98
31.90
31.40
30.90
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
15.81
11.01
27.95
28.65
26.42
35.71
39.12
36.89
36.73
37.33
38.33
20.43
7.52
21.86
23.27
37.88
37.28
27.38
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
14750
14800
14850
14900
14950
15000
15050
15100
15150
15200
15250
15300
15350
15400
15450
15500
15550
15600
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/42/2011 10:42 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH14750 TO CH15600 - SHEET 8 OF 10
45
2bEP003
Offset -69.57m
RL 39.39mAHD
2bBH02
BH2108 Offset -59.36m
Offset -3.63m RL 38.69mAHD
40 RL 38.17mAHD
TP2313 2bBH03
2bBH01 Offset -58.38m Offset -35.36m
Offset -33.32m RL 36.17mAHD RL 36.02mAHD 2bBH04
N=13 2bEP004
RL 35.39mAHD
N=22 Offset 19.39m Offset -11.97m
N=23 RL 34.64mAHD RL 34.82mAHD
2bEP005
N=R VL2bEP002 EWtoHW Offset -11.99m
35 ? L
Offset HW
-25.10m
CBR=2
N=38 RL 33.24mAHD
VL EW
RL L32.56mAHD
HW
2bEP001N=R
?
CBR=6 N=13
Offset
? -49.09m VL EW L HW5 N=R
RL 31.07mAHD L HW ?
L HW
?
M
HW
CBR=6 L HW
2.9 EL EW
UNIT D1
VL N=47 ?CBR=5
VL
EL
EWL
EW VL HW
? ? HW CBR=6
?
?
L HW VL EW N=R
UNIT D1
?
EL L
L
?
30 VL CBR=4
? VL EW
?
UNIT D2 EL EW
HW L
?
MtoH MW HW
? ? VL
HW
HW
CBR=12 5.2
VL/L
MW
? UNIT D2
M HW
?
? M
? ? ? HW 5.2
?
5 M
L
? LtoM
?
HW
25
5 M L-M SW
LtoM VL
MW L
MW EW-HW
M
MtoH MW VL/L
15
?
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
HW
13 M HW-SW
M
15.7
13
20 ?
? ? 15
?
15
10
-5
DATUM: RL -7
30.65
30.15
29.65
29.15
28.65
28.15
27.87
27.53
27.12
26.13
24.92
30.40
29.90
29.40
28.90
28.40
26.66
25.54
24.30
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
20.43
30.91
28.99
32.23
37.01
29.35
32.79
33.15
35.82
31.71
32.52
20.77
22.26
30.94
34.44
35.77
28.56
28.06
31.34
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
15600
15650
15700
15750
15800
15850
15900
15950
16000
16050
16100
16150
16200
16250
16300
16350
16400
16450
16500
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/47/2011 10:47 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH15600 TO CH16500 - SHEET 9 OF 10
45
TP2314
Offset -198.63m
RL 38.99mAHD
40
2bBH04
Offset -11.97m TP2316
RL 34.82mAHD Offset 45.12m
2bEP005 RL 30.01mAHD
Offset -11.99m 2.2
RL 33.24mAHD 2bEP006
35 Offset 2.44m
RL 32.31mAHD 2bBH06
N=13 Offset -13.96m
RL 31.27mAHD
N=47 ?CBR=5 PIPE CULVERT 2bBH05
CBR=4.5
CBR=6 APPROX. SIZE - 1500 Offset 15.10m ?
N=R CH16690 RL 28.96mAHD
?
N=17
?
30 EL EW
CBR=4.5
?
CBR=2 N=R
?
VL/L CBR=1.5 VL EW
N=21 2bTP11
?
HW 5.2 2 Offset 6.12m

N=R RL 24.73mAHD
L 5.2 VL-L EW-HW
?
L
25
?
VL N=R
2bTP08 VL EW-HW
? ?
L
EW-HW Offset 10.29m CBR=3.5
VL/L
RL 21.40mAHD
L
ELEVATION (RL mAHD)
HW
?
M HW-SW HW HW
L
?
TP2315
13 Offset 57.69m 3
CBR=7
20 RL 18.31mAHD L-M
?
L
VL-L HW
12
?
VL-L HW
3
?
2bTP10
Offset -11.99m 12
RL 13.49mAHD
15
?
UNIT D1 2.8
?
2bTP09 CBR=5
Offset 58.41m
?
RL 9.71mAHD CBR=1.5
?
UNIT D2
10
?3
CBR=6
?
3
5
-5
DATUM: RL -7
24.92
22.57
22.35
22.12
21.67
24.30
23.68
23.14
22.80
21.90
PROPOSED RL (mAHD)
31.71
32.52
25.32
14.82
17.09
22.05
29.85
22.18
11.00
31.77
EXISTING RL (mAHD)
16450
16500
16550
16600
16650
16700
16750
16800
16850
16900
16934
CHAINAGE (m)


revision
PLOT DATE: 14/48/2011 10:48 AM

scale AS SHOWN
CH16450 TO CH16934 - SHEET 10 OF 10

Warrell Creek Aar Working Geotech

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Warrell Creek Aar Working Geotech

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WARRELL CREEK TO URUNGA

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd ABN 93 056 929 483

Roads and Maritime Services

Attention: Shane Green

RE: Warrell Creek to Urunga

Alternative Alignment Review

For and on behalf of Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

Associate Geotechnical Engineer

Distribution: Original held by Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

Important Information About Your Coffey Report

Table 3.1 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs for Former Quarry

Table 4.1 Alternative Alignment Geotechnical Units

Table 6.1 Summary of Weathered Rock CBR Testing

Table 6.2 Summary of Cuttings

Table 6.3 Summary of Embankments

Table 6.4 Summary of Soft Ground Locations

Table 6.6 Estimated Surcharge Requirements and Associated Settlements

Table 6.7 Potential Ground Treatment Methods

Table 6.8 Design Concepts for CIC Supported Embankments

Table 6.9 Suitability of Ground Improvement Methods

Table 6.10 Summary of Culverts

Table 7.1 Geotechnical Issues – Approved and Alternative Alignment

Figure 3.1 Weathering Profile Developed on Schistose Rock

Photo 3.1 Nambucca River Floodplain (southern side of river)

Photo 3.2 End of Ridgeline near Ch 12 150m

Photo 3.3 Nambucca River Floodplain looking North

Photo 3.5 Weathered Phyllite Exposure in Cutting on Old Coast Road

Appendix A: Site Plans

Appendix B: Geotechnical Long Sections

Coffey Geotechnics iii

2.1 Approved alignment

2.2 Alternative Alignment

3.1 Regional Topography and Terrain

3.2 Regional Geological Setting

3.2.1 Holocene Sediments

3.2.2 Pleistocene Sediments

3.2.3 Gully Alluvium

Petrographically, the Phyllite is typically a tuffaceous low-grade metasedimentary rock consisting of

Figure 3.1 – Weathering profile

3.3 Geotechnical Information Available

3.4 Alternative Alignment Topography and Assessed Subsurface Conditions

Ch 8 700m to Ch 8 950– Nambucca River Floodplain (Southern Portion)

Ch 8 950m to Ch 10 650m – Nambucca River Floodplain (Deeper Alluvium)

The groundwater table in the alluvium is within 1m to 2m of the surface.

Ch 10 650m to Ch 12 050m – Nambucca River Bridge

Ch 12 050 to Ch 13 600 Nambucca River Floodplain (Northern Portion)

Ch 13 600 to Ch 16 900– Undulating Farmland Slopes and Old Coast Road

• 0m to 2m – Residual soil/extremely weathered Phyllite over,

3.5 Land Use

Date Chainages Aerial Photograph Description Surrounding Landuses

Table4.1: Alternative Alignment Geotechnical Units

Material Unit Name Sub Unit Description Common Description

5 ACID SULPHATE SOIL AND CONTAMINATION

6.1.1 Excavation of Cuttings

6.1.2 Cut Batter Design

• For slopes steeper than 2H:1V, batter heights must be 7m or less.

• Cut batters slopes must not be between 0.75H:1V to 1.5H:1V.

• Minimum bench width of 4.5m.

6.1.3 Material from Cuttings and Reuse Potential

Table 6.1 Summary of Weathered Rock CBR testing

Geotechnical Unit CBR Number of Mean CBR, Number Mean CBR,

Unit D1 EW Phyllite 10 days 31 tests 5.2% 1 7%