Construction Impacts – Response to Submissions

Taylor Thomson Whitting (NSW) Pty Ltd (ACN 113 578 377) as trustee for the Taylor Thomson Whitting NSW Trust (ABN 59 514 956 558) I Consulting Engineers Level 3, 48 Chandos Street, St Leonards NSW 2065

Construction Impacts –

Response to

Submissions

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

25 SEPTEMBER 2019

181375 - SAAB

SCEGGS Darlinghurst 25 SEPTEMBER 2019 Construction Impacts – Response to Submissions 181375 - SAAB

Taylor Thomson Whitting (NSW) Pty Ltd © 2019 Taylor Thomson Whitting Page 2 of 8

Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Site Location ............................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................ 4

4.0 Geotechnical Investigation ........................................................................................................ 4

4.1 Foundations .................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Adjacent Structures ........................................................................................................ 5

5.0 Excavation and Retention System ............................................................................................ 5

5.1 Monitoring of Excavation ................................................................................................ 5

6.0 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 6

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................ 8

SCEGGS Darlinghurst 25 SEPTEMBER 2019 Construction Impacts – Response to Submissions 181375 - SAAA


1.0 Introduction

Taylor Thomson Whitting has been commissioned to prepare a report to advise on the construction impacts of the development at SCEGGS Darlinghurst on the adjacent heritage buildings, and the potential risk to their structural integrity from excavation equipment and methodologies. These queries have been raised by the City of Sydney and adjacent residents in the response to the DA Submission. This report illustrates the proposed excavation and foundation system; and assess any likely impacts to the adjacent heritage structures.

The proposed masterplan development consists of the Multi-purpose building, the Administration Building and the Wilkinson House redevelopment. This report only considers the Multi-Purpose Building and Administration Building, which include excavation adjacent to existing heritage buildings.

The Multipurpose Building includes a large basement that will be excavated adjacent to existing buildings on the site; the Chapel Building, Barham Building, Yellow Building, Art Building, and terrace houses in Forbes and Thomson Street. Bourke Street is situated along the Western edge of the site. The Administration Building includes a basement that will be excavated adjacent to the Barham Building.

A geotechnical investigation report has been provided to TTW that covers investigations for a previous development, of similar size and type, within the same site. This report has been prepared by Douglas Partners, Report number 45427, dated April 2008. The proposed excavation and retention system has been based on the recommendations stated within this report and our own experience with other similar types of development. TTW recommends this development undertaking further geotechnical investigations to confirm these assumptions.

2.0 DA Response to Submissions

This report is to address the following responses:

- The proposed excavation is significant in scale and located in close proximity to the Chapel with the potential to affect the structural integrity of the Chapel. The Southern façade of the multi purpose building is also located in very close proximity to the heritage listed terraces on Thomson Street. There is insufficient information to determine whether the likely impacts are acceptable or not’

- Concerns regarding potential damage to heritage buildings during construction:

o Potential structural and vibration damage to adjoining heritage properties during construction – on-going monitoring and remedial actions where needed



3.0 Site Location

The overall site is bounded by Bourke St, Forbes St and St Peters Street in Darlinghurst. The Multipurpose Building is located at approximately 188 Bourke St, Darlinghurst. An overall masterplan image is provided in the figure below.

Figure 1: Overall site plan, excavation zone denoted in green

Responses to the DA Submission included queries on the construction impacts of the proposed excavation for the basement structures, on the Chapel Building and any adjacent heritage buildings, including terrace houses in Forbes and Thomson Street.

4.0 Proposed Development

The masterplan includes up to seven levels of new learning space for the school. The Multipurpose Building will consist of a basement parking, with up to three levels of excavation. The lowest basement RL is approximately RL 26.94. The existing Bourke Street level is approximately RL 28.50. The Chapel Building ground floor is approximately RL 38.30. The lowest basement RL of the Administration Building is approximately RL 37.14.

The proposed structure will consist of a concrete framed building. The basement retention system is expected to be high level shoring system of soldier piles at approximately 2m centres to restrain the fill layer, up to 1m deep. The sandstone will be vertically cut without temporary restraint. A geotechnical engineer is to inspect the excavation at intervals to verify if any rock bolting is required.

5.0 Geotechnical Investigation

The report prepared by Douglas Partners involved a geotechnical investigation for the adjacent site, the Science and Technology Building. This investigation involved test pits and boreholes up to 10m in depth.

The site subsurface conditions have been described as:

- Approximately 1m of clayey sand fill overlying;

- Weathered medium strength sandstone down to 2m in depth,



- High to medium strength sandstone extending for quite some depth

Groundwater is predicted to be well below the bulk excavation level, with no noticeable groundwater found in the test drilling. It is expected some seepage will occur through the rock profile, but this is not expected to be significant.

5.1 Foundations

The proposed development will be founded on the medium to high strength sandstone, and is likely to be high level pad footings. The foundation system will be detailed so as not to place additional load on the adjacent existing foundations or structure. The foundation material will be inspected and verified by a geotechnical engineer prior to construction of the footing.

5.2 Adjacent Structures

It is predicted that the existing foundations are high-level pad or strip footings. This is common for the construction era of these buildings. It is likely these footings are resting on the weathered sandstone level, however during the proposed construction these footings are to be investigated and the founding material verified.

The structural engineer is to be notified if the supporting ground profile to these existing footings is found not to be sandstone, as underpinning will be required. The contractor is not to continue with excavation in this case until underpinning can be completed and the existing structure is founded on competent bedrock.

6.0 Excavation and Retention System

The proposed excavation for the basement is expected to be within the high to medium strength sandstone. Due to the proximity of the adjacent buildings, a rock saw and small rock breakers are expected to be used around the perimeter of the basement to limit the vibrations on the adjacent structures.

The report prepared by Wilkinson Murray on Construction and Operational Noise Report (report number 18180, dated July 2019) outlines the acceptable vibration criteria for the occupants in the adjacent buildings, and for the acceptable limits without impact on the adjacent buildings during construction. Excavation equipment is to be chosen based on the criteria setout in the Wilkinson Murray report.

Excavation trials are to be carried out, as recommended by the geotechnical report. During these trials, the adjacent structures are to be monitored for movement and vibrations levels to ensure no impact on the structure. These trials are to prove the vibration limits set out in the Wilkinson Murray report are not exceeded. Rock saws, line drilling or mill drilling are to be used in close proximity of the adjacent structures, in lieu of major rock breaking equipment. Hydraulic rock hammering is not to be used within 10m of adjacent structures.

6.1 Monitoring of Excavation

A monitoring plan is to be submitted by the contractor to the client, including inclinometers and tilt meters. All movements are to be continuously reported to the client and structural engineer during excavation; at a minimum of weekly reports.

The apparatus’ are to be installed on the existing adjacent structures, on every wall elevation that faces the proposed excavation at 2m above ground.

7.0 Adjacent Heritage Structures

The excavation is significant in scale, adjacent to the existing Heritage Chapel Building and the existing Heritage terrace structures. These risks in construction will be mitigated by:



- Using construction equipment and drilling equipment that are low vibration impacts through the ground profile. This will reduce any significant ground movement and protect the adjacent structures. A vibration and/or acoustic consultant is to provide advice on the allowable vibration limits at certain distances from the adjacent structures. The contractor is to choose construction and drilling equipment that are within these limits set, and to perform excavation tests to ensure the ground movement is minimised.

- The adjacent heritage structures are to be protected throughout the construction period with hoarding rated to the Australian Standards. No dangerous construction activity is to occur within proximity of the existing buildings.

- The retention system designed to hold back the excavation will be designed by a qualified structural engineer, and for minimal lateral movements in the temporary and permanent case. Less than 10mm of deflection will be experienced at the top of the retention system design. Movements of this magnitude will not be detrimental to the adjacent buildings. Localised cracking that may occur can be remediated easily with crack filler. The retention systems movement will be monitored using the approach mentioned in Section 6.1

- The proposed excavation will not undermine the adjacent buildings. The ground profile will remain intact and in place during construction. The foundations of the existing buildings will not be disturbed in any way

8.0 Conclusions

If the strategies and methodologies recommended in this report are implemented, the proposed excavation and any vibrations to construct this excavation, will have a negligible impact on the adjacent heritage buildings. The construction impacts will be minor to the heritage buildings, consisting of localised cracking at mortar joint locations. These will not affect the structural integrity of the existing buildings and can be remediated simply.

Prepared by Authorised By

TAYLOR THOMSON WHITTING (NSW) PTY LTD in its capacity as trustee for the TAYLOR THOMSON WHITTING NSW TRUST

TAYLOR THOMSON WHITTING (NSW) PTY LTD in its capacity as trustee for the TAYLOR THOMSON WHITTING NSW TRUST

JANE ARMSTRONG BARRY YOUNG Associate (Structural) Director

P:\2018\1813\181375\Reports\TTW\Response to Submissions\190925_SCEGGS Darlinghurst_Response to Submissions_Construction Impacts_Rev B.docx



Appendix A

Geotechnical Report

REPORT on GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING SYDNEY CHURCH OF ENGLAND GIRLS GRAMMAR SCHOOL DARLINGHURST Prepared for SCEGGS Darlinghurst Project 45427 April 2008

REPORT on GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING SYDNEY CHURCH OF ENGLAND GIRLS GRAMMAR SCHOOL DARLINGHURST Prepared for SCEGGS Darlinghurst Project 45427 April 2008

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd ABN 75 053 980 117

96 Hermitage Road West Ryde NSW 2114 Australia

PO Box 472 West Ryde NSW 1685 Phone (02) 9809 0666 Fax (02) 9809 4095 [email protected]

Geotechnical Investigation Project 45427 St Peters Street, Darlinghurst April 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 2. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGY ................................................................... 3 4. FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................... 4

4.1 Methods ....................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Results ......................................................................................................... 4

5. Proposed Development ........................................................................................... 6 6. Engineering Evaluation............................................................................................ 6

6.1 Ground Conditions ....................................................................................... 6 6.2 Excavation ................................................................................................... 7 6.3 Excavation Support...................................................................................... 7 6.4 Underpinning of Adjoining Structures .......................................................... 8 6.5 Foundations ................................................................................................. 8 6.6 Vibrations ..................................................................................................... 9 6.7 Groundwater ................................................................................................ 10 6.8 Pavement Design......................................................................................... 10 6.9 Seismic Design ............................................................................................ 11

Appendix A: Locality and Borehole Plans Appendix B: Test Bore and Test Pit Logs and Notes Relating to this Report B1: Previous Investigations B2: Current Investigation

Page 1 of 11


MJT:jlb

Project 45427

5 April 2008

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

1. INTRODUCTION

This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out on the site of the

proposed Science and Technology Building to be constructed within the grounds of Sydney

Church of England Girls Grammar School in Forbes Street (SCEGGS), Darlinghurst. The work

was undertaken for SCEGGS and was carried out in consultation with Hughes Trueman,

Consulting Engineers for the project.

The project is for the construction of a new six storey school teaching building which will include

two levels of below ground parking. Site investigation was carried out to determine the

subsurface conditions and subsequently provide advice on:

• Suitable foundation types and design bearing pressures;

• Stability of permanent and temporary excavation slopes;

• The depth of the water table and potential seasonal fluctuations;

• Seismic design parameters for earthquake loading;

• Recommendations on methods of underpinning existing structures;

• Recommended vehicle and pedestrian pavement profiles.

Page 2 of 11


The investigation comprised test bore drilling and test pit excavation followed by engineering

evaluation and geotechnical analysis where appropriate. Details are given in the report

together with comments on design and construction practice.

The geotechnical investigation was carried out simultaneously with a contamination assessment

and waste classification for material to be disposed of off-site as a result of the basement

excavation. Laboratory testing for the contamination assessment is currently in progress and

the results of this investigation will be reported separately.

2. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION

In June 1994, Douglas Partners (DP) carried out a geotechnical investigation for the sports

building which is located immediately to the south of the proposed structure. This investigation

comprised six bores drilled to depths of up to 8.5 m below the existing surface level to obtain

detailed information on the soil and rock stratigraphy. The results of the investigation were

provided in a Report No 20080 for Tierney & Partners, Consulting Engineers for the sports

building design.

The investigation indicated that sandstone bedrock was generally located less than 0.5 m below

surface level. Furthermore, the sandstone was medium or high strength from near the surface

and DP assessment was that the vertical excavations could be made in the sandstone but that

rock bolts would be required to stabilise areas where steeply dipping joints intersect the

excavation faces at unfavourable orientations. It was also determined that localised shotcreting

of low and very low strength bands would be required to minimise weathering and deterioration

of these beds.

The investigation also comprised mapping of the sandstone cliff-face on the site which was

eventually excavated for the sports complex. This mapping identified a weak zone in the

Hawkesbury Sandstone and contended that this weak zone could have been caused by a fault

in the sandstone or by an igneous dyke intersecting the excavation at about right angles to the

Forbes Street frontage. If the weak zone was a dyke, it is possible that similar geological

features could intersect the site of the current proposed building.

Page 3 of 11


3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGY

SCEGGS is located in an intensely developed residential and commercial area of Darlinghurst

about 1 km from the Sydney Central Business District. Overall the site occupies an irregular

shaped area measuring about 150 m x 60 m and is currently occupied by many school buildings

which range in age from relatively recent to in excess of 50 years old. The school itself is

located on the corner of Forbes Street and St Peters Street with the particular site being

currently developed having a frontage of approximately 40 m on St Peters Street and an overall

depth of some 30 m. Most of the area being considered for development is currently used as

car parking with the eastern portion presently occupied by an elevated demountable classroom

over car parking. Immediately adjacent to the development site, to the east, is Wilkinson House

which is a multi-storey brick building of some considerable age. On the southern boundary of

the development site is Barbara Chisholm Hall and on the western boundary is the backyard of

private residences.

SCEGGS is located in undulating country with gentle slopes to the north towards

Woolloomooloo Bay estimated to be about 5%. The area being considered for development is

relatively level with an overall fall in a north-westerly direction diagonally across the site

estimated to be of the order of 2 m.

The 1:100 000 Series Geological Sheet for Sydney indicates that the site is underlain by

Hawkesbury Sandstone. This geological formation usually comprises medium to coarse

grained quartz sandstone with minor shale lenses. Previous investigations on the site confirm

the geological mapping with Hawkesbury Sandstone at shallow depths below the surface.

Sandstone was also exposed in a cutting along Forbes Street prior to excavation for the existing

sports hall.

An extract from the aerial photograph of the area is given on Drawing 1 in Appendix A and

shows SCEGGS school on the corner of Forbes Street and St Peters Street, Darlinghurst. The

proposed development site is the open car parking area and adjoining white roof area facing St

Peters Street.

Page 4 of 11


4. FIELD INVESTIGATION

4.1 Methods

The field investigation for the geotechnical assessment was carried out simultaneously with the

contamination investigation and comprised five bores and three test pits conducted at the

locations shown on the site plan in Appendix A.

Bores 101, 102 and 103 were drilled to depths of about 10 m below existing surface level using

a truck mounted auger/rotary drilling rig. Initially the bores were advanced using spiral flight

augers to the point of refusal on bedrock. Thereafter the bores were continued using rotary

drilling techniques to obtain 50 mm diameter cores of the bedrock strata. Bores 104 and 105

were drilled using spiral flight augers through the soils to collect samples for contamination

testing and were terminated at refusal.

Test Pits 202 and 203 were excavated by hand to determine bedrock levels and possibly

expose the foundations of adjacent buildings. Originally it was intended to excavate a Test Pit

201 adjacent to Wilkinson House but inspections indicated that the footings of Wilkinson House

are supported by Sandstone Bedrock above the level of the car parking beneath the

demountable building and tennis court. Consequently it was considered sufficient to map the

sandstone outcrop and photograph the footings to provide information on the need to underpin

footings of Wilkinson House.

4.2 Results

Details of the conditions encountered in the test bores and test pits are given on the respective

logs in Appendix B which also contains notes on the standard terms used to classify the strata

and on the strength classification of bedrock.

The current investigations indicate a profile comprising about 1 m of filling overlying weathered

sandstone and then medium and high strength sandstone from depths of 0.35 m to 1.0 m. The

medium and high strength sandstone had some moderately weathered zones in the upper 2 m

as indicated by some core loss and clay filled joints. Below depths of about 3 m, however,

sandstone was generally medium and high strength fresh unbroken rock with few defects.

Page 5 of 11


Table 1 below summarises the results of the current series of bores together relevant bores

conducted in the vicinity during the previous investigation.

Table 1 – Summary of Bore Data Data RL of Interface of Strata (m)

Description BH4 BH5 BH6 BH101 BH102 BH103

SL 33.2 30.3 30.1 28.15 27.15 28.28

FILLING/ CLAYEY SAND – Topsoil, Sandstone rubble and weathered residual soil

32.95 29.98 29.20 27.15 26.45 28.08

SANDSTONE – Extremely low strength NE NE NE

32.95 29.98 26.91 26.15 27.93

SANDSTONE – medium and high strength, moderately weathered

32.95 29.98 29.20 25.68 23.00 25.58

SANDSTONE – medium or high strength fresh, slightly fractured

29.7 26.3 28.1 18.15 17.15 18.28

BD BD BD BD BD BD SL = Surface level NE = Not encountered BD = Bore Discontinued

The results indicate relatively uniform conditions with approximately 1 m of filling and weathered

material overlying medium or high strength bedrock. The bedrock surface appears to be

dipping generally in a north-westerly direction, following the natural surface contours. The

overall level difference diagonally across the proposed development site of the surface of the

medium or high strength rock appears to be of the order of 4 m from the previously drilled Bore

5 to Bore 102 in the north-western corner of the site.

No free groundwater was observed during the current investigation phase and this is consistent

with observations made during the previous investigation in 1994. It is expected, however, that

after periods of heavy rainfall some seepage will occur along the bedrock surface. The

permanent water table within the intact bedrock is expected to be at many tens of metres below

the current site level with groundwater flow along bedding planes and through vertical joints

Page 6 of 11


being extremely low. Conditions encountered at the three proposed test pit locations are also

described on the test pit logs in Appendix B. The conditions are to be confirmed at a later date

but bedrock is above the surface level at TP 201.

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is understood that the proposed development will comprise a new six storey school teaching

building with two levels of below ground parking. The building will be a reinforced concrete

frame structure with column working loads indicated by the consulting engineers to be in the

range of 4,000 to 5,000 kN. The building abuts existing buildings which means that

underpinning of adjacent footings will be required if they are not founded on sandstone bedrock.

The excavation for the construction of the underground car park is expected to extend to depths

of 6 – 7 m below existing road level. As the car park will extend to the edges of the site, vertical

excavations will be required for the car park construction.

6. ENGINEERING EVALUATION

6.1 Ground Conditions

The investigation indicates that the site is underlain by approximately 1 m of filling and

weathered material over generally medium or high strength bedrock. Whilst these conditions

are favourable insofar as vertical excavations are generally feasible (as indicated below) and

relatively high bearing pressures can be adopted, on a small site such as this excavation can be

difficult and vibration issues become critical in carrying out the bulk excavation works. These

aspects of the development are discussed in the following subsections of the report.

Page 7 of 11


6.2 Excavation

The excavation for the proposed basement construction will be up to about 7 m below existing

surface level and will therefore be mostly in medium to high strength sandstone with some

minor low or very low strength bands. Generally, it is considered that the excavation of sites of

this size underlain by medium and high strength sandstone, would be difficult and under normal

circumstances would need a heavy bulldozer, such as a D10 (or larger), and also the use of

rock breakers to break some of the stronger layers and to trim the final excavation faces.

However, due to the proximity of buildings which are sensitive to vibrations it may be necessary

to utilise a rock saw around the perimeter of the excavation and to use small rock breakers to

assist in the excavation so as to limit the vibration of adjacent structures. For this reason it is

suggested that potential excavation contractors be provided with the test bore logs and core

photographs and be required to make their own assessment of the equipment needed to carry

out the excavation, being mindful of the need to limit vibration so as to not cause damage to

nearby residences and other school buildings. It should also be mandatory for an excavation

trial to be carried out using the equipment proposed for the work before the main excavation

work commences to establish whether the vibration limits given below can be achieved. If the

trial proves satisfactory, then bulk excavation works could commence but if the vibration levels

are too high it may be necessary to get the contractor to either adjust their excavation

techniques or to utilise smaller equipment.

6.3 Excavation Support

Whilst it should be generally possible to excavate medium and high strength sandstone

vertically it is considered likely that rock bolts or pins may be required to stabilise areas where

steeply dipping joints intersect the excavation faces at unfavourable orientations. Localised

shotcreting of low and very low strength bands may also be required to reduce weathering and

deterioration of these bands.

In order to determine the requirement for rock bolts or pins it is recommended that inspections

of the excavation faces be undertaken by an experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering

geologist at regular intervals during construction. For a depth of excavation of 7 m it will

probably be necessary for the inspections to take place on each excavation face at least twice

so that remedial measures on the upper part of the excavation can be implemented before

Page 8 of 11


excavation continues to a point where stabilisation measures might be difficult to install and

safety of the workers in the site is compromised.

While the overburden soils and filling are likely to be relatively thin (ie generally less than 1 m)

these materials should be battered back at a maximum slope of 2H :1V. Alternatively, they

could be supported by a retaining structure.

6.4 Underpinning of Adjoining Structures

The investigation indicates that the site is underlain by a relatively shallow depth of filling and

soil overlying medium strength bedrock. The foundations of the adjacent structures also appear

likely to be supported on medium strength bedrock so there appears to be no need for

underpinning of adjoining structures. It is, however, recommended that the entire footings of all

buildings near the excavation face be inspected when excavation commences to ensure that

the conditions observed on the site during the investigation are representative of all conditions

beneath the footings of existing buildings. If underpinning is required it will have to be done in

short panel no greater than about 1.5 m lengths by excavating under the footings and providing

temporary support until concrete blade walls can be installed from the underside of the footing

down to competent bedrock.

6.5 Foundations

The foundation material underlying the proposed science and technology building will mostly

comprise medium to high strength sandstone with the possibility of some minor low or very low

strength bands. Pad or strip footings founded on this material are considered to be suitable

footing types. For these conditions it is considered that the building footings could be designed

on the basis of an ultimate bearing pressure of 20 MPa. Even with a very low geotechnical

strength reduction factor it is still possible that excessive settlements could occur so it is

recommended that a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3.5 MPa be adopted without the

need for any spoon testing in the foundation excavation or 6 MPa if spoon testing is undertaken

in at least half of the footing excavations during construction.

Page 9 of 11


During the previous investigations weak zones were identified in the rock face along Forbes

Street. Although the area where the weak zones occurred is located some distance from the

present site, it was contended that the weak zones may have been caused by an igneous dyke.

If this were correct then the current site may also be intersected by such weak zones. It is

therefore imperative that all foundations be inspected to ensure that foundations conditions are

not impacted by igneous intrusions.

6.6 Vibrations

Excavation of the medium and high strength rock will cause some vibration but with care this

can be maintained at levels which are below the critical levels for major building damage. The

sandstone bedrock underlying the proposed development site is expected to extend into

adjacent properties and is likely to transmit vibrations generated by the excavation process.

Consequently, it will be necessary to adopt appropriate construction methodologies and

equipment to limit the vibration at adjacent buildings to acceptable levels.

If hydraulic rock hammering is required it may result in vibrations being transmitted to the

surrounding ground and any buildings or structures in the vicinity. It will generally be necessary

to use smaller excavation plant or alternatively methods such as rock sawing, line drilling or a

milling head when in close proximity to existing structures. It is DP’s experience that particular

care is warranted when using hydraulic rock hammers within 10 m of adjacent structures and

within 15 – 20 m of structures that are old or of heritage significance. To limit the risk of causing

vibration induced damage to existing structures it is recommended that monitoring of the

vibration be carried out during an initial excavation trial. If acceptable vibrations are recorded

using the techniques and equipment proposed for bulk excavation then excavation could

continue. If excessive vibrations occur it may be necessary to amend the excavation plan.

The propagation of vibrations at a site depends upon the plant used to carry out the excavation

and the prevailing ground conditions together with the type of construction and foundation of the

structures receiving the vibrations. The ground conditions such as rock strength and defects

are unique to every particular site and therefore it is recommended that excavation trials be

subject to vibration monitoring to establish the extent to which vibration are attenuated by the

local geological conditions.

Page 10 of 11


The Australian Explosives Code (AS2187.2-1993) recommends a peak particle velocity (PPV)

of 10 mm per/sec for residential structures subject to blasting vibration. Ground vibrations

arising from excavation plant, however, are continuous and not transient as would be blasting

vibrations. Therefore, more stringent vibration limits should apply. On the basis of the above it

is considered that the vibrations should be limited to a maximum PPV of 5 mm per/sec at the

building line of the existing adjacent structures.

It should also be noted that humans are very sensitive to vibration, even at levels which are

considered inconsequential for buildings and utilities. It may therefore be beneficial to give

ample notice to local residents that excavation is to commence. It would also be prudent to

undertake a dilapidation survey on all adjacent buildings so that any pre-existing damage can

be identified and therefore avoid claims that the excavation has caused deterioration in adjacent

structures.

6.7 Groundwater

As indicated above it is expected that the groundwater would be located many tens of metres

below the existing site. It is, however, probable that some seepage will occur along the

sandstone bedrock after periods of heavy rainfall. The quantity of flow should not be significant

but provision will need to be made to collect any seepage flows and to dispose of this into the

local stormwater drainage system.

6.8 Pavement Design

For areas within the excavation medium or high strength sandstone bedrock will be exposed at

subgrade level. For areas restricted to normal passenger vehicles and light delivery vehicles up

to 3 tonne it is considered that a flexible pavement thickness of 200 mm would be sufficient.

Alternatively, 130 mm of concrete on a 100 mm sub-base layer would be sufficient for the same

loads.

In areas where pedestrian traffic only is anticipated a 100 mm concrete pavement should be

sufficient. All pavements should be placed on a subgrade compacted to 100% standard density

ratio and with a moisture content suitable for achieving the compaction with the plant available.

Page 11 of 11


6.9 Seismic Design

The Earthquake Loading Code (AS1170.4-1993) indicates that general structures in Sydney

should be designed using an acceleration coefficient of 0.08. Furthermore, the site is underlain

by shallow sandstone and Table 2.4(a) of the code dictates that a site factor of 1.0 is applicable

for sites underlain by rock which is at least extremely low strength.

Yours faithfully DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD Reviewed by Michael J Thom Fiona MacGregor Principal Principal

APPENDIX A Locality and Borehole Plans

Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Wollongong, Campbelltown

Melbourne, Perth, Wyong, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin

Title Locality Map New Science & Technology BuildingSydney Church of England Girls Grammar School Darlinghurst

Client: SCEGGS Office: Sydney

Drawing No.1Drawn by: MJT Scale: NTS Project No: 45427

Approved by: Date: 25 March 2008

SITE

Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Wollongong

Melbourne, Perth, Wyong, Townsville, Cairns

Drawn by: MJT Scale: NTS Wollongong, Campbelltown, Darwin

Title Bore and Test Pit Location PlanNew Science & Technology BuildingSydney Church of England Girls Grammar School Darlinghurst

Note: TP201 was not excavated as sandstone was above ground level

Client: SCEGGS

Approved by: Drawing 2

Project Number: 45427

Date: 25March 2008

Office: Sydney

WILKINSON HOUSE

BH103

BH6

BH 6

BH 5

BH104 BH101

BH105

BH102

about 15 m

TP 202

TP 201

TP 203

APPENDIX B Test Bore and Test Pit Logs

and Notes Relating to this Report

APPENDIX B1 Previous Investigations

0.01

C

C 98

8.5

3.75

1.1

0.83

0.3

C

FractureSpacing

(m)

98

72

90

SCEGGS DarlinghurstJoan Freeman Building

100

89

PL(D) = 1.5MPa

0.83m: CORE LOSS:270mm

PL(A) = 0.7MPa

PL(A) = 1.5MPa

0.1

PL(A) = 1.2MPa

PL(A) = 1.4MPa

PL(A) = 2.2MPa

PL(D) = 0.9MPa

- with some clay seams from 6m to6.3m

0.05

- medium to high strength from7.85m

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, slightly fractured,light grey and brown mediumgrained sandstone

- with some clay seams around 3m

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, slightly fractured,purple and brown medium grainedsandstone

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, slightly fractured,orange brown and brown mediumgrained sandstone with a possibleextremely low strength band

ROADBASE - grey gravelBITUMEN

Bore discontinued at 8.5m

BORE No: 1PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 30 Jun 94SHEET 1 OF 1

Wat

er

RockStrength

Test Results&

Comments

DRILLER: Cooper

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

These bores are a summary of the original bore logsREMARKS:WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND

SURFACE LEVEL: 38.6EASTING:NORTHING:DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Degree ofWeathering

Initials:

Descriptionof

Strata

CASING: Uncased

RQ

D%

TYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 0.30m then HQ3 Coring

0.50

0.10

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

Discontinuities Sampling & In Situ Testing

TypeB - Bedding

S - ShearJ - JointD - Drill Break

St Peters Street, Darlinghurst

LOGGED: Patel

3837

3635

3433

3231

3029

1.00

A Auger sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample PID Photo ionisation detectorB Bulk sample S Standard penetration testUx Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL Point load strength Is(50) MPaW Water sample V Shear Vane (kPa)C Core drilling Water seep Water level

Cor

eR

ec. %

LOCATION:

RIG: Scout

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Gra

phic

Log

C

C

C

0.01

8.5

FractureSpacing

(m)

100

95

100


100

97

100

3.02

PL(D) = 0.3MPa

5.79

BITUMEN

PL(A) = 0.8MPa

CLAY - brown sandy clay

PL(A) = 0.2MPa

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly to moderately weathered,slightly fractured, orange brown,grey and purple medium grainedsandstone

PL(A) = 1.1MPaPL(D) = 2.1MPa

PL(D) = 1.2MPaPL(A) = 1.1MPa

PL(D) = 1.9MPaPL(A) = 1.3MPa

PL(D) = 0.9MPa

0.05

0.50.4

0.1FILLING - dark brown sand

5.39


SANDSTONE - medium strength,slightly weathered, fractured toslightly fractured, light grey fine tomedium grained sandstone withsome minor very low to low strengthbands

SANDSTONE - low to mediumstrength, slightly weathered,fractured, light brown and grey finegrained sandstone with some clayseams and a very low strength band

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, slightly fractured,light grey and brown mediumgrained sandstone with some minorclay seams

BORE No: 2PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 01 Jul 94SHEET 1 OF 1

Wat

er

RockStrength

Test Results&

CommentsEW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

These bores are a summary of the original bore logsREMARKS:WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observedTYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 0.50m then HQ3 Coring



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Degree ofWeathering

Initials:

Descriptionof

Strata

LOGGED: PatelDRILLER: Cooper

1.00

0.50

0.10

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Cor

eR

ec. %

TypeB - Bedding


Discontinuities

LOCATION:

3837

3635

3433

3231

3029

RQ

D%


CASING: HW to 0.6mRIG: Scout

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Gra

phic

Log


C

C

C

0.05

73

81

8485

100

100


8.5

PL(A) = 0.8MPa

FILLING - brown to dark brown sandwith gravel and sandstone rubble atbase

BITUMEN

SANDSTONE - extremely lowstrength, highly weathered, greysandstone

PL(A) = 0.8MPa

PL(A) = 1MPa

PL(A) = 0.3MPa

PL(A) = 0.5MPa


4.56

4.15

2.82

2.12.0

0.05

SANDSTONE - very low strengthsandstoneSANDSTONE - medium strength,slightly weathered, fractured toslightly fractured, orange brown andlight grey medium grainedsandstone with a possible extremelylow strength band


SANDSTONE - medium strength,slightly weathered, slightly fractured,light grey medium grainedsandstone with some very lowstrength bands and some clayseams above 7.2m

0.01

BORE No: 3PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 01 Jul 94SHEET 1 OF 1

CASING: HW to 0.5m

Wat

er

RockStrength

Test Results&

Comments

Degree ofWeathering

BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

These bores are a summary of the original bore logsREMARKS:WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observedTYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 0.50m then HQ3 Coring

FractureSpacing

(m)



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

LOGGED: Patel

Initials:

Descriptionof

Strata

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR


DRILLER: Cooper

RQ

D%

1.00

0.50

0.10 C

ore

Rec

. %

TypeB - Bedding


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h


3736

3534

3332

3130

2928


Discontinuities

LOCATION:

RIG: Scout

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Gra

phic

Log

0.01

FILLING - topsoil and sandstonerubbleSANDSTONE - medium strength,slightly weathered, fractured, grey,medium grained sandstone withsome slighty fractured lengths and aminor extremely low strength band

- high strength from 3.2m


0.25

3.5PL(D) = 1.5MPa

0.05

Discontinuities

J - JointD - Drill Break

B - BeddingS - Shear Ty

pe

70


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

FractureSpacing

(m)

C 75

70

100

100

100

C


C

PL(D) = 0.6MPa

PL(D) = 0.4MPa

PL(D) = 0.9MPa

Wat

er

RockStrength

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed

Test Results&

Comments

Descriptionof

Strata


BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

These bores are a summary of the original bore logs



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Initials:

TYPE OF BORING: Hand auger to 0.25m then NMLC Coring

RL

RIG: Portable

LOCATION: St Peters Street, Darlinghurst

REMARKS:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.10G

raph

icLo

g

Cor

eR

ec. %


RQ

D%

1.00

3332

3130

2928

2726

2524

0.50

LOGGED: Patel CASING: NW to 0.5mDRILLER: Chittleburgh

C

100

B - BeddingS - Shear


C

C

Discontinuities

0.01

FractureSpacing

(m)

42

88

100

78

17

CONCRETE

SANDSTONE - medium strength,slightly weathered, fractured toslightly fractured, grey mediumgrained sandstone 1m: CORE LOSS:

420mmSANDSTONE - extremely low tovery low strength, moderatelyweathered, grey fine to medium tocoarse grained sandstone

PL(D) = 1.7MPa

PL(D) = 0.7MPa

PL(D) = 1.4MPa

PL(D) = 0.4MPa


4.0

1.75

1.00.85

FILLING - sandstone rubble andsandy clay

0.1


SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, fractured, greymedium to coarse grainedsandstone with some clay bands to20mm above 3m

0.32

Wat

er

RockStrength

Test Results&

Comments

Descriptionof

Strata


BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

0.05

REMARKS:



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Initials:

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed

Gra

phic

Log


Cor

eR

ec. %

RQ

D%

1.00

TYPE OF BORING: Hand auger to 0.32m then NMLC Coring

0.10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h


Type

0.50

DRILLER: Chittleburgh CASING: NW to 0.5mLOGGED: Patel

3029

2827

2625

2423

2221


St Peters Street, DarlinghurstLOCATION:

RIG: Portable

RL

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

0.05

Discontinuities


0.9

0.1

Type


89


0.50

1.00 R

QD

%


PL(D) = 1.6MPa

100C

2.0

0.10

PL(D) = 1.7MPa

FILLING - topsoilFILLING - sandy clay and sandstonerubble

SANDSTONE - high strength,slightly weathered, fractured toslightly fractured, grey and brownmedium grained sandstone


Depth(m)

Cor

eR

ec. %

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

BOREHOLE LOG BORE No: 6PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 29 Jun 94SHEET 1 OF 1

CHECKED


RockStrength

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Descriptionof

Strata

Initials:

Test Results&

Comments

3029

2827

2625

2423

2221

Gra

phic

Log

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

RL

RIG: Portable


A Auger sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample PID Photo ionisation detectorB Bulk sample S Standard penetration testUx Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL Point load strength Is(50) MPaW Water sample V Shear Vane (kPa)C Core drilling Water seep Water level Date:

LOGGED: Patel CASING: NW to 0.9mDRILLER: ChittleburghTYPE OF BORING: Hand auger to 0.9m then NMLC CoringWATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observedREMARKS:



CLIENT:PROJECT:

APPENDIX B2 Current Investigation

4.2


69

5.2

2.85

2.47

1.24

1.0

0.6

0.20.120.02

10.0

C

A

A

C

C

C

C

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

4.9m: B0°, 5mm clayeysand

4.16m: J30°, ironstained

3.46m: B0°, 2mm clay

3.2m: J40°


2.41m: B5°, 5mm


Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough, clayveneered, planarbedding or joints dipping0°- 10°

PL(A) = 1.4MPa

PL(A) = 1.9MPa

PL(A) = 2MPa

PL(A) = 1.4MPa

PL(A) = 0.7MPa

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

PL(A) = 0.8MPa

PL(A) = 1.3MPaSANDSTONE - medium and highstrength, moderately weathered andfresh, slightly fractured, light greyand brown medium to coarsegrained sandstone


SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured then unbroken,light grey medium to coarse grainedsandstone

5.2m: B0°, 3mm clayeysand

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, light grey mediumto coarse grained sandstone

5.52m: J30°, ironstained

SANDSTONE - extremely lowstrength, light grey brown, mediumgrained sandstone

FILLING - light grey brown mediumgrained, sand filling with somegravel

SLAG FILLINGROADBASE GRAVELBITUMINOUS CONCRETE

SANDSTONE - medium strength,fresh, slightly fractured, light greymedium grained sandstone

2827

2625

2423

2221

2019

BORE No: 101PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 05 Mar 08SHEET 1 OF 1

BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

REMARKS:WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed whilst augeringTYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 1.0m; NMLC-Coring to 10.0m

DRILLER: E Grima CASING: HW to 1.0m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



RIG: Bobcat LOGGED: SI



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Test Results&

Comments

Descriptionof

Strata

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Degree ofWeathering

Wat

er

RockStrength

Initials:

RL

FractureSpacing

(m)

87

87

99

100

0.05

Discontinuities

69

100

88

100

100

Type

0.50

0.10

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.01 R

QD

%


1.00


J - JointD - Drill Break C

ore

Rec

. %

Gra

phic

Log

0.3

C

C

10.0

4.15

0.7

A0.150.02

C

1.0

100

100

A

100


100

100

PL(A) = 1.8MPa

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

PL(A) = 2.7MPa

PL(A) = 2.1MPa

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

PL(A) = 1MPa

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

PL(A) = 1.5MPa

Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough planarbedding or joints dipping0°- 10°

PL(A) = 1.7MPa


SANDSTONE - medium to high thenhigh strength, fresh, slightlyfractured and unbroken, light grey,medium to coarse grainedsandstone

SANDSTONE - high strength,moderately to slightly weathered,slightly fractured, light grey brown,medium to coarse grainedsandstone

SANDSTONE - very low strength,light brown medium grainedsandstone

CLAYEY SAND - orange brown,medium grained clayey sand

FILLING - yellow brown, fine tomedium grained sand filling

BITUMINOUS CONCRETE

C

9.8m: B0°, clayey

7.47m: B15°, clayveneer

6.07m: B0°, clay smear

3.72m: B5°, ironstained

3.55m: B15°, 2mmsandy clay

ROADBASE GRAVEL

REMARKS:

RockStrength

Test Results&

Comments

BORE No: 102PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 3-4/3/08SHEET 1 OF 1

Depth(m)

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed whilst augeringTYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 1.0m; NMLC-Coring to 10.0m

DRILLER: E Grima CASING: HW to 1.0mLOGGED: SI

BOREHOLE LOG



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

Wat

er

Initials:

Descriptionof

Strata

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Degree ofWeathering

0.05


TypeB - Bedding

S - Shear

2726

2524

2322

2120

1918

Discontinuities

0.01

FractureSpacing

(m)

98

100

100

J - JointD - Drill BreakG

raph

icLo

g



RIG: Bobcat

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

Cor

eR

ec. %

RQ

D%

1.00

0.50

0.10

10.0

4.0

1.5

0.350.2

0.11


SANDSTONE - medium to high thenhigh strength, fresh, unbroken, lightgrey, medium to coarse grainedsandstone

0.03

100

83

100

100

100

FILLING - crushed sandstone filling


97

100

PL(A) = 2.4MPa

PL(A) = 1.9MPa

PL(A) = 1.5MPa

C

C

SANDSTONE - high strength,moderately weathered and fresh,slightly fractured, light grey andbrown medium grained sandstone,with extremely low strength band at1.35-1.68m

C

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

C

1.10-1.35m: J85°

ROADBASE GRAVELBITUMINOUS CONCRETE A

A

PL(A) = 2MPa


PL(A) = 1MPa

0.6m: B0°, 15mm clay C

C

PL(A) = 1.7MPa

PL(A) = 2.1MPa

PL(A) = 2MPa

PL(A) = 2.8MPa

SANDSTONE - very low strength,light grey brown, medium grainedsandstone

Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough planarbedding planes or jointsdipping 0°- 10°

DRILLER: E Grima

Test Results&

Comments


BOREHOLE LOG

Depth(m)

REMARKS:


TYPE OF BORING: Solid flight auger to 0.35m; NMLC-Coring to 10.0m

Wat

er

CASING: HW to 3.5mLOGGED: SI

2827

2625

2423

2221

2019

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Initials:



CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED

Date:

RockStrengthDescription

ofStrata

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS FR

Degree ofWeathering

LOCATION:

97




Discontinuities

0.05

0.01

FractureSpacing

(m)

100

Type

100

100

67

RQ

D%

RIG: Bobcat

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gra

phic

Log

1.00

0.50

0.10

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h


Cor

eR

ec. %

0.17

Type

RIG: Bobcat


LOGGED: AHP

WellConstruction

Details

TYPE OF BORING: Concrete core 120mm solid filght augerWATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater obsesrvedREMARKS:

Depth(m)

BOREHOLE LOG


SANDSTONE - highly weathered, very low strength, whitesandstone

0.3

0.5

FILLING - brown silty sand filling, some sandstone gravel

CASING: Uncased

Bore discontinued at 0.5m- refusal on sandstone

CONCRETE AND BRICK

Results &CommentsD

epth


1

Initials:

Gra

phic

Log

SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING:NORTHING:DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

Sam

ple


Descriptionof

Strata


Date:

CHECKEDSAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND

1

RL

Wat

er

DRILLER: E Grima/DT

CLIENT:PROJECT:

A

A

0.5

0.4

0.170.2

1.05

0.95

WellConstruction

Details

0.6

LOGGED: AHP

0.03

Type

LOCATION:


0.2

- strong hydrocarbon odour at 0.2m

FILLING - dark brown fine gravel filling

- brick at 0.15m

FILLING - dark grey brown silty snd filling, fine gravel,strong hydrocarbon odour

FILLING - light to dark grey brown silty clayey sand,strong hydrocarbon odour and some fine gravel

SANDSTONE

Bore discontinued at 1.05m- refusal on sandstone


ASPHALT

RL


1

Results &Comments

CASING: UncasedRIG: Bobcat

Gra

phic

Log


1

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Descriptionof

Strata

TYPE OF BORING: Solid flight augerWATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater obsesrvedREMARKS:

Depth(m)

BOREHOLE LOG

Initials:

Date:

CHECKED

CLIENT:PROJECT:


DRILLER: E Grima/DT

SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING:NORTHING:DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--


A

A

0.95

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.02

A

1.05

hydrocarbon odour at0.2m

A

A

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Gra

phic

Log

Type

Initials:

Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per mm)

Descriptionof

StrataFILLING - brown sandy filling, with some sandstone gravel

Pit discontinued at 0.6m- refusal on sandstone

0.6

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Wat

er

TEST PIT LOG

Date:

3029

2827

2625

2423

2221

LOGGED: F Volbrecht

REMARKS:

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed whilst excavating

Depth(m)

PIT No: 202PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 28 Mar 08SHEET 1 OF 1

5 10 15 20

Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3 Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Surface level interpreted from Tanner Architects site plan


CLIENT:PROJECT:

CHECKED


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


RL

RIG: Hand tools



Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

Wat

er

Dep

th

Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per mm)

Descriptionof

Strata Gra

phic

Log

0.1CONCRETEFILLING - brown sandy filling, with some sandstone graveland brick fragments

SANDSTONE - very low to low strength, red brownsandstoneSANDSTONE - low to medium strength, light greysandstonePit discontinued at 0.8m- limit of investigation

0.70.750.8

Sam

ple

Surface level interpreted from Tanner Architects site plan

5 10 15 20

LOCATION:

PIT No: 203PROJECT No: 45427DATE: 28 Apr 08SHEET 1 OF 1

Type

Depth(m)

3231

3029

28

WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed whilst excavating

RIG: Hand tools


REMARKS:

LOGGED: B O'Kane

TEST PIT LOGCLIENT:PROJECT:

Initials:

Date:

Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3 Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2




1

2

3

4

RL


CHECKED

Log!

GR

AP

HIC

-SY

MB

OLS

24

/11/

2003

4:3

8:57

PM

GRAPHIC SYMBOLS FOR SOIL & ROCK

CONGLOMERATE

CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE

BOULDER CONGLOMERATE

SANDSTONE FINE GRAINED

SANDSTONE COARSE GRAINED

BITUMINOUS CONCRETE

CONCRETE

FILLING

TOPSOIL

PEAT

CLAY

SOIL

GRAVELLY CLAY

SHALY CLAY

SILT

CLAYEY SILT

SILTY CLAY

COBBLES/BOULDERS

SANDY CLAY

SANDY SILT

SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

GRAVEL

SANDY GRAVEL

LAMINITE

MUDSTONE, CLAYSTONE, SHALE

COAL

LIMESTONE

IGNEOUS ROCK

GNEISS

QUARTZITE

DOLERITE, BASALT

SEDIMENTARY ROCK

SILTSTONE

METAMORPHIC ROCK

CLAYEY GRAVEL

SLATE, PHYLITTE, SCHIST

GRANITE

TUFF

PORPHYRYTALUS

Issued: October 1998 Page 1 of 4

NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify the

geotechnical report in regard to classification methods, specialist field procedures and certain matters relating to the Discussion and Comments section. Not all, of course, are necessarily relevant to all reports.

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

Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of soils

and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726, Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In general, descriptions cover the following properties - strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.

Soil types are described according to the predominating particle size, qualified by the grading of other particles present (eg. sandy clay) on the following bases:

Soil Classification Particle Size

Clay less than 0.002 mm Silt 0.002 to 0.06 mm Sand 0.06 to 2.00 mm Gravel 2.00 to 60.00 mm

Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength

either by laboratory testing or engineering examination. The strength terms are defined as follows.

Classification Undrained

Shear Strength kPa Very soft less than 12 Soft 12—25 Firm 25—50 Stiff 50—100 Very stiff 100—200 Hard Greater than 200

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative

density, generally from the results of standard penetration tests (SPT) or Dutch cone penetrometer tests (CPT) as below:

Relative Density SPT “N” Value (blows/300 mm)

CPT Cone Value (qc — MPa)

Very loose less than 5 less than 2 Loose 5—10 2—5 Medium dense 10—30 5—15 Dense 30—50 15—25 Very dense greater than 50 greater than 25

Rock types are classified by their geological names. Where relevant, further information regarding rock classification is given on the following sheet.

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling to allow

engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.

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

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

Details of the type and method of sampling are given in the report.

Drilling Methods. The following is a brief summary of drilling methods

currently adopted by the Company and some comments on their use and application.

Test Pits — these are excavated with a backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soils if it is safe to descent into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for an excavator. A potential disadvantage is the disturbance caused by the excavation.

Large Diameter Auger (eg. Pengo) — the hole is advanced by a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally of not more than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube sampling.

Continuous Sample Drilling — the hole is advanced by pushing a 100 mm diameter socket into the ground and withdrawing it at intervals to extrude the sample. This is the most reliable method of drilling in soils, since moisture content is unchanged and soil structure, strength, etc. is only marginally affected.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers — the hole is advanced using 90—115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water


table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are very disturbed and may be contaminated. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively lower reliability, due to remoulding, contamination or softening of samples by ground water. Non-core Rotary Drilling — the hole is advanced by a rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from ‘feel’ and rate of penetration. Rotary Mud Drilling — similar to rotary drilling, but using drilling mud as a circulating fluid. The mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable identification is again only possible from separate intact sampling (eg. from SPT). Continuous Core Drilling — a continuous core sample is obtained using a diamond-tipped core barrel, usually 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in very weak rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation. Standard Penetration Tests

Standard penetration tests (abbreviated as SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in cohesive soils as a means of determining density or strength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes” — Test 6.3.1.

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

The test results are reported in the following form. • In the case where full penetration is obtained with

successive blow counts for each 150 mm of say 4, 6 and 7 as 4, 6, 7 N = 13

• In the case where the test is discontinued short of full penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for the next 40 mm as 15, 30/40 mm. The results of the tests can be related empirically to the

engineering properties of the soil. Occasionally, the test method is used to obtain samples

in 50 mm diameter thin walled sample tubes in clays. In such circumstances, the test results are shown on the borelogs in brackets.

Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as

Dutch cone — abbreviated as CPT) described in this report has been carried out using an electrical friction cone penetrometer. The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test 6.4.1.

In the tests, a 35 mm diameter rod with a cone-tipped end is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction being provided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fitted with an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the friction resistance on a separate 130 mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly are connected by electrical wires passing through the centre of the push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck.

As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20 mm per second) the information is plotted on a computer screen and at the end of the test is stored on the computer for later plotting of the results.

The information provided on the plotted results comprises: — • Cone resistance — the actual end bearing force divided

by the cross sectional area of the cone — expressed in MPa.

• Sleeve friction — the frictional force on the sleeve divided by the surface area — expressed in kPa.

• Friction ratio — the ratio of sleeve friction to cone resistance, expressed in percent. There are two scales available for measurement of

cone resistance. The lower scale (0—5 MPa) is used in very soft soils where increased sensitivity is required and is shown in the graphs as a dotted line. The main scale (0—50 MPa) is less sensitive and is shown as a full line.

The ratios of the sleeve friction to cone resistance will vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1%—2% are commonly encountered in sands and very soft clays rising to 4%—10% in stiff clays.

In sands, the relationship between cone resistance and SPT value is commonly in the range:—

qc (MPa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows per 300 mm) In clays, the relationship between undrained shear

strength and cone resistance is commonly in the range:— qc = (12 to 18) cu

Interpretation of CPT values can also be made to allow estimation of modulus or compressibility values to allow calculation of foundation settlements.

Inferred stratification as shown on the attached reports is assessed from the cone and friction traces and from experience and information from nearby boreholes, etc. This information is presented for general guidance, but must be regarded as being to some extent interpretive. The test method provides a continuous profile of engineering properties, and where precise information on soil classification is required, direct drilling and sampling may be preferable.


Hand Penetrometers

Hand penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight hammer and measuring the blows for successive 150 mm increments of penetration. Normally, there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods.

Two relatively similar tests are used. • Perth sand penetrometer — a 16 mm diameter flat-

ended rod is driven with a 9 kg hammer, dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This test was developed for testing the density of sands (originating in Perth) and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.

• Cone penetrometer (sometimes known as the Scala Penetrometer) — a 16 mm rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). The test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and published correlations of the test results with California bearing ratio have been published by various Road Authorities.

Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with

Australian Standard 1289 “Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes”. Details of the test procedure used are given on the individual report forms.

Bore Logs

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

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

Ground Water

Where ground water levels are measured in boreholes, there are several potential problems; • In low permeability soils, ground water although present,

may enter the hole slowly or perhaps not at all during the time it is left open.

• A localised perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table.

• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be

the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report.

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any ground water inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water observations are to be made. More reliable measurements can be made by installing

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

Engineering Reports

Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel and are based on the information obtained and on current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal (eg. a three storey building), the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed (eg. to a twenty storey building). If this happens, the Company will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface condition, discussion of geotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, the Company cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • unexpected variations in ground conditions — the

potential for this will depend partly on bore spacing and sampling frequency

• changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory authorities

• the actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures. If these occur, the Company will be pleased to assist

with investigation or advice to resolve the matter.

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during

construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, the Company requests that it immediately be notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed than at some later stage, well after the event.

Reproduction of Information for Contractual Purposes

Attention is drawn to the document “Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents”, published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Where information obtained from this investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section


is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. The Company would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge.

Site Inspection The Company will always be pleased to provide

engineering inspection services for geotechnical aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

Copyright © 1998 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

AN ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY

ROCKS IN THE SYDNEY AREA

This classification system provides a standardized terminology for the engineering description of the sandstone and shales in the Sydney area,but the terms and definitions may be used elsewhere when applicable.

Under this system rocks are classified by Rock Type, Degree of Weathering, Strength, Stratification Spacing, and Degree of Fracturing. These terms do not cover the full range of engineering properties. Descriptions of rock may also need to refer to other properties (e.g. durability,abrasiveness, etc.) where these are relevant.

ROCK TYPE DEFINITIONS

Rock Type Definition

Conglomerate: More than 50% of the rock consists of gravel sized (greater than 2mm) fragments

Sandstone: More than 50% of the rock consists of sand sized (.06 to 2mm) fragments

Siltstone: More than 50% of the rock consists of silt-sized (less than 0.06mm) granular particles and the rock is not laminated

Claystone: More than 50% of the rock consists of clay or sericitic material and the rock is not laminated

Shale: More than 50% of the rock consists of silt or clay sized particles and the rock is laminated

Rocks possessing characteristics of two groups are described by their predominant particle size with reference also to the minor constituents,e.g. clayey sandstone, sandy shale.

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Term Symbol Definition

ExtremelyWeathered

EW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that the rock exhibits soil properties - i.e. it can beremoulded and can be classified according to the Unified Classification System, but the texture of the original rock is still evident.

HighlyWeathered

HW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that limonite staining or bleaching affects the whole of the rock substance and other signs of chemical or physical decomposition are evident. Porosity and strength may be increased or decreased compared to the fresh rock usually as a result of iron leaching or deposition. The colour and strength of the original fresh rock substance is no longer recognisable.

ModeratelyWeathered

MW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that staining or discolouration of the rock substance usually by limonite has taken place. The colour and texture of the fresh rock is no longer recognisable.

SlightlyWeathered

SW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that partial staining or discolouration of the rock substance usually by limonite has taken place. The colour and texture of the fresh rock is recognisable.

Fresh Fs Rock substance unaffected by weathering, limonite staining along joints.

Fresh Fr Rock substance unaffected by weathering.

STRATIFICATION SPACING

Term Separation ofStratification Planes

Thinly laminated <6 mm

Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm

Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm

Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m

Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m

Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m

Very thickly bedded >2 m

ROCK STRENGTH

Rock strength is defined by the Point Load Strength Index (Is 50) and refers to the strength of the rock substance in the direction normal to the bedding. The test procedure is described by the International Society of Rock Mechanics (Reference).

Strength Term Is(50)MPa

Field Guide Approx.qu MPa*

ExtremelyLow:

VeryLow:

Low:

Medium:

High:

VeryHigh:

ExtremelyHigh:

0.03

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties

May be crumbled in the hand. Sandstone is “sugary” and friable.

A piece of core 150 mm long x 50 mm dia. may be broken by hand and easily scored with a knife. Sharp edges of core may be friable and break during handling.

A piece of core 150 mm long x 50 mm dia. can be broken by hand with considerable difficulty. Readily scored with knife.

A piece of core 150 mm long x 50 mm dia. cannot be broken by unaided hands,can be slightly scratched or scored with knife.

A piece of core 150 mm long x 50 mm dia. may be broken readily with hand held hammer. Cannot be scratched with pen knife.

A piece of core 150 mm long x 50 mm dia. is difficult to break with hand heldhammer. Rings when struck with a hammer.

0.7

2.4

7

24

70

240

* The approximate unconfined compressive strength (qu) shownin the table is based on an assumed ratio to the point load index of 24:1.This ratio may vary widely.

DEGREE OF FRACTURING

This classification applies to diamond drill cores and refers to the spacing of all types of natural fractures along which the core is discontinuous.These include bedding plane partings, joints and other rock defects, but exclude known artificial fractures such as drilling breaks

Term Description

Fragmented: The core is comprised primarily of fragments of length less than 20 mm, and mostly of width less than the core diameter.

Highly Fractured: Core lengths are generally less than 20 mm - 40 mm with occasional fragments.

Fractured: Core lengths are mainly 30 mm - 100 mm with occasional shorter and longer sections.

Slightly Fractured: Core lengths are generally 300 mm - 1000 mm with occasional longer sections and occasional sections of 100 mm - 300 mm.

Unbroken: The core does not contain any fracture.

REFERENCE

International Society of Rock Mechanics, Commission on Standardisation of Laboratory and Field Tests, Suggested Methods for Determining the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock Materials and the Point Load Strength Index, Committee on Laboratory Tests Document No. 1 Final Draft October 1972



Appendix B

Construction and Operational Noise Report

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION CONSTRUCTION & OPERATIONAL NOISE REPORT

REPORT NO. 18180

VERSION B

JULY 2019

PREPARED FOR

SCECGS DARLINGHURST

C/- SANDRICK PROJECT DIRECTIONS

SUITE 412, NEXUS NORWEST

COLUMBIA COURT, NORWEST BUSINESS PARK

BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION

CONSTRUCTION & OPERATIONAL NOISE REPORT REPORT NO. 18180 VERSION B

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Status Date Prepared By Reviewed By

A Final 3 October 2018 Brian Clarke Ben Lawrence

B Draft 22 July 2019 Brian Clarke Ben Lawrence

Note

All materials specified by Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited have been selected solely on the basis of acoustic performance.

Any other properties of these materials, such as fire rating, chemical properties etc. should be checked with the suppliers

or other specialised bodies for fitness for a given purpose. The information contained in this document produced

by Wilkinson Murray is solely for the use of the client identified on the front page of this report. Our client becomes the

owner of this document upon full payment of our Tax Invoice for its provision. This document must not be used for any

purposes other than those of the document’s owner. Wilkinson Murray undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility

to any third party who may rely upon this document.

Quality Assurance

Wilkinson Murray operates a Quality Management System which complies with the requirements of

AS/NZS ISO 9001:2015. This management system has been externally certified by SAI Global and

Licence No. QEC 13457 has been issued.

AAAC

This firm is a member firm of the Association of Australasian Acoustical Consultants and the work here

reported has been carried out in accordance with the terms of that membership.

Celebrating 50 Years in 2012

Wilkinson Murray is an independent firm established in 1962, originally as Carr & Wilkinson.

In 1976 Barry Murray joined founding partner Roger Wilkinson and the firm adopted the name which

remains today. From a successful operation in Australia, Wilkinson Murray expanded its reach into Asia

by opening a Hong Kong office early in 2006. Today, with offices in Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong,

Orange, Queensland and Hong Kong, Wilkinson Murray services the entire Asia-Pacific region.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 AMBINET NOISE MONITORING 3

2.1 Ambient Noise Levels at the Site 3

3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 5

3.1 Construction Noise Criteria 5 3.1.1 Construction Noise Management Levels 5

3.2 Hours of Operation & Programme 6

3.3 Vibration Criteria 7 3.3.1 Building Damage 8

3.4 Construction Equipment & Noise Source Levels 9

3.5 Construction Noise Predictions 10

3.6 Discussion of Results 11

3.7 Construction Vibration Assessment 12

3.8 Construction Noise & Vibration Mitigation Measures 13

3.9 Community Liaison & General Approaches to Mitigation 13

3.10 Noise & Vibration Management Plan 14

3.11 Management of Construction Noise & Vibration to the School 14

4 OPERATIONAL NOISE & VIBRATION 15

4.1 Operational Noise Criteria 15

4.2 Project Noise Trigger Levels 17

4.3 Mechanical Services 19

4.4 Wilkinson Building Noise Emissions 20

4.5 New Multi-Purpose Building 20

4.6 New Administration Building & Restoration of Barham 21

4.7 School Announcements & Bells 21

5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 22

5.1 Construction Noise 22

5.2 Operational Noise 23

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



6 CONCLUSION 24

APPENDIX A – Noise Measurement Results

APPENDIX B – Response to Submissions

APPENDIX C – Draft Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS

Most environments are affected by environmental noise which continuously varies, largely as a result of road

traffic. To describe the overall noise environment, a number of noise descriptors have been developed and

these involve statistical and other analysis of the varying noise over sampling periods, typically taken as 15

minutes. These descriptors, which are demonstrated in the graph below, are here defined.

Maximum Noise Level (LAmax) – The maximum noise level over a sample period is the maximum level,

measured on fast response, during the sample period.

LA1 – The LA1 level is the noise level which is exceeded for 1% of the sample period. During the sample

period, the noise level is below the LA1 level for 99% of the time.


period, the noise level is below the LA10 level for 90% of the time. The LA10 is a common noise descriptor

for environmental noise and road traffic noise.


period, the noise level is below the LA90 level for 10% of the time. This measure is commonly referred to as

the background noise level.

LAeq – The equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) is the energy average of the varying noise over the

sample period and is equivalent to the level of a constant noise which contains the same energy as the

varying noise environment. This measure is also a common measure of environmental noise and road traffic

noise.

ABL – The Assessment Background Level is the single figure background level representing each assessment

period (daytime, evening, and night time) for each day. It is determined by calculating the 10th percentile

(lowest 10th percent) background level (LA90) for each period.

RBL – The Rating Background Level for each period is the median value of the ABL values for the period

over all of the days measured. There is therefore an RBL value for each period – daytime, evening and

night time.

Typical Graph of Sound Pressure Level vs Time

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00

Monitoring or Survey Period (5 sec samples)

So

un

d P

ressu

re L

evel

(dB

A) L Amax

L A1

L A10

L Aeq

L A50

L A90

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION PAGE 1


1 INTRODUCTION

This noise impact assessment (NIA) has been prepared to accompany a State Significant

Development Application for the proposed masterplan and redevelopment of the Sydney Church

of England Girls’ Grammar School, Darlinghurst (SCEGGS) site at 215 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst.

It accompanies an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in support of State Significant

Development Application SSD 8993 for the staged development of the SCECGS Darlinghurst

Campus.

The State Significant Development is for:

– a Masterplan Concept Development Application for building envelopes, building locations and

land uses across the campus, to guide development over the next 20 years, and;

– a Stage 1 Detailed Design Proposal for the first stage of works, comprising the replacement

of Wilkinson House with a new building. Details of the project are described in the following

sections.

This assessment responds to the issue raised in item 8 of the SEARs as follows:

8. Noise and Vibration

Identify and provide quantitative assessment of the main noise and vibration generation sources

during construction and operation, including consideration of public address system, school bell

and the use of the school hall for concerts etc. (both during and outside school hours) Outline

measures to minimise and mitigate the potential noise impacts on surrounding occupiers of land.

Relevant Policies and Guidelines:

• Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (EPA)

• Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC)

• Assessing Vibration: A technical Guideline 2006

• Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline (Department of Planning

2008)

This report consists of the original NIA that was submitted to the Department of Planning along

with Appendix B which includes a response to submissions that relate to noise and vibration. In

addition, Appendix C includes a draft construction noise and vibration management plan.

Figure 1-1 shows the Masterplan site.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Figure 1-1 2040 Masterplan Site

Wilkinson House

The redevelopment of Wilkinson House will involve the demolition of the existing structure and

the construction of a new building maximising the potential of the site.

The design for a new building will provide the opportunity to:

• reconfigure the planning to provide large open spaces through a more efficient location of

the circulation core and the provision of a column free structure;

• align the floor levels with Joan Freeman Building;

• provide an additional floor level to the current number of levels;

• efficiently integrate services;

• improve the accessibility and amenity of the building; and

• improve security for the building.

The design is for flexible learning spaces, specialised learning areas, student facilities, and

administration areas.

New Multi-Purpose Building

The design will remain as a Masterplan concept. The Masterplan will allow the school options for

the final use and facilities to be provided in the building. This includes an option to provide an

indoor swimming pool or to use the space for another educational use. There may also be an

option to include a child-minding facility. It is envisaged that the new multi-purpose building will

be air-conditioned, and it will be designed to meet a 4-Greenstar rating or equivalent.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



2 AMBINET NOISE MONITORING

2.1 Ambient Noise Levels at the Site

Residential receivers surrounding the site that may be affected by construction and operational

noise have been identified in four areas and are detailed in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 Aerial showing Noise Monitoring Locations

Table 2-1 Surrounding Receivers

Receivers Comments

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences Terrace residences

B – Bourke Street Terrace residences and Commercial receivers

C – Forbes Street Mix of single and multi-storey residential buildings

D – St Peters Street Church on the opposite of St Peters Street

In order to quantify the existing noise environment, long-term ambient noise levels were

monitored at two (2) locations surrounding the site, selected to cover the range of environments

in the potentially affected areas.

The locations are presented in Table 2-2. The noise logger locations are shown in Figure 2-1.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 2-2 Long-Term Noise Monitoring Locations

Logger Location Monitoring Period

1 Thomson Street boundary 14 – 24 September 2018

2 Horizon Apartments Forbes Street 14 – 24 September 2018

The noise monitoring equipment used for the Wilkinson Murray noise measurements consisted of

ARL Type EL-215 environmental noise loggers set to A-weighted, fast response, continuously

monitoring over 15-minute sampling periods. This equipment is capable of remotely monitoring

and storing noise level descriptors for later detailed analysis. The equipment calibration was

checked before and after the survey and no significant drift was noted.

The logger determines LA1, LA10, LA90 and LAeq levels of the ambient noise. LA1, LA10 and LA90 are

the levels exceeded for 1%, 10% and 90% of the sample time respectively (see Glossary for

definitions). The LA1 is indicative of maximum noise levels due to individual noise events such as

the occasional pass-by of a heavy vehicle. The LA90 level is normally taken as the background

noise level during the relevant period.

Detailed results for each monitoring location are shown in graphical form in Appendix A. The

graphs show measured values of LAeq, LA90, LA10 and LA1 for each 15-minute monitoring period.

Table 2-3 summarises the noise results, for daytime, evening and night time periods as defined

in the EPA’s Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (ICNG) and the NSW Noise Policy for Industry

(NPfI).

Table 2-3 Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels

Noise

Logging

Site

RBL (dBA) LAeq,period (dBA)

Daytime

7am-6pm

Evening

6-10pm

Night Time

10pm-7am

Saturday

8am-1pm

Daytime

7am-6pm

Evening

6-10pm

Night Time

10pm-7am

Saturday

8am-1pm

1 47 45 44 47 56 52 49 57

2 50 49 47 50 55 55 53 54

Background noise levels at all locations were free of the influence of extraneous noise sources,

such as plant or construction activities. Noise data measured during inclement weather was

excluded in accordance with EPA procedures.

Results of noise monitoring are presented in Appendix A.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

This section of the assessment relates to Stage 1 works, whereby other stages of the development

will be assessed when applications are made for these works. It should be noted that the noise

and vibration criteria detailed in the following sections is applicable to all stages of the Masterplan.

3.1 Construction Noise Criteria

The following sections detail the applicable site-specific noise and vibration criteria based on the

EPA Interim Construction Noise Guideline.

3.1.1 Construction Noise Management Levels

The EPA released the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) in July 2009. The guideline

provides noise goals that assist in assessing the impact of construction noise.

For residences, the basic daytime construction noise goal is that the LAeq,15min noise management

level should not exceed the background noise by more than 10dBA. This is for standard hours:

Monday to Friday 7.00am-6.00pm, and Saturday 8.00am-1.00pm. Outside the standard hours,

where construction is justified, the noise management level would be background + 5dBA.

Table 3-1 details the ICNG noise management levels.

Table 3-1 Construction Noise Management Levels at Residences using

Quantitative Assessment

Time of Day

Management

Level

LAeq,(15min)

How to Apply

Recommended

Standard Hours:

Monday to Friday

7am to 6pm

Saturday

8am to 1pm

No work on Sundays

or Public Holidays

Noise affected

RBL + 10dBA

The noise affected level represents the point above which there may

be some community reaction to noise.

Where the predicted or measured LAeq,(15min) is greater than the

noise affected level, the proponent should apply all feasible and

reasonable work practices to minimise noise.

The proponent should also inform all potentially impacted residents

of the nature of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels

and duration, as well as contact details.

Highly noise

affected

75dBA

The highly noise affected level represents the point above which

there may be strong community reaction to noise.

Where noise is above this level, the proponent should consider very

carefully if there is any other feasible and reasonable way to reduce

noise to below this level.

If no quieter work method is feasible and reasonable, and the works

proceed, the proponent should communicate with the impacted

residents by clearly explaining the duration and noise level of the

works, and by describing any respite periods that will be provided.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Time of Day

Management

Level

LAeq,(15min)

How to Apply

Outside

recommended

standard hours

Noise affected

RBL + 5dB

A strong justification would typically be required for works outside

the recommended standard hours.

The proponent should apply all feasible and reasonable work

practices to meet the noise affected level.

Where all feasible and reasonable practices have been applied and

noise is more than 5dB(A) above the noise affected level, the

proponent should negotiate with the community.

For guidance on negotiating agreements see Section 7.2.2.

In addition, the following construction noise management levels LAeq,15 min are recommended for

other receivers and areas:

• Active recreation areas (such as parks): external LAeq,15min 65dBA

• Industrial premises: external LAeq,15min 75dBA

• Offices, retail outlets: external LAeq,15min 70dBA

• Classrooms at schools and other educational institutions: internal LAeq,15min 45dBA

Based on the above, Table 3-2 presents the applicable noise management levels for construction

activities at surrounding receivers that have been adopted for all applications.

Table 3-2 Site-Specific Construction Noise Management Levels

Area

Construction Noise Management Level,

LAeq – dBA

Highly noise

affected Noise

Level, LAeq

dBA Day Evening Night Saturday*

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences 57 50 49 57 75

B – Bourke Street 57 50 49 57 75

C – Forbes Street 60 54 52 60 75

D – St Peters Street 60 54 52 60 75

* Standard Saturday construction hours.

3.2 Hours of Operation & Programme

The proposed working hours for this project are as follows:

• Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm

• Saturday 8.00am to 1.00pm

• Sunday and Public Holidays No work

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



If required, after hours permits will be sought from the relevant authorities.

3.3 Vibration Criteria

Criteria for assessment of the effects of vibration on human comfort are set out in British Standard

6472-1992. Methods and criteria in that Standard are used to set “preferred” and “maximum”

vibration levels in the document Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (2006) produced by

the NSW DECCW.

Acceptable values of human exposure to continuous vibration, such as that associated with

drilling, are dependent on the time of day and the activity taking place in the occupied space

(e.g. workshop, office, residence, or a vibration-critical area). Guidance on preferred values for

continuous vibration is set out in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Criteria for Exposure to Continuous Vibration

Place Time

Peak Particle Velocity

(mm/s)

Preferred Maximum

Critical working areas

(e.g. hospital operating theatres precision

laboratories)

Day or Night time 0.14 0.28

Residences Daytime 0.28 0.56

Night time 0.20 0.40

Offices Day or Night time 0.56 1.1

Workshops Day or Night time 1.1 2.2

In the case of intermittent vibration, which is caused by plant such as rock breakers, the criteria

are expressed as a Vibration Dose Value (VDV) and are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Acceptable Vibration Dose Values for Intermittent Vibration (m/s1.75)

Location Daytime Night Time

Preferred Value Maximum Value Preferred Value Maximum Value

Critical areas 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20

Residences 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.26

Offices, schools,

educational

institutions, and

places of worship

0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80

Workshops 0.80 1.60 0.80 1.60

Calculation of VDV requires knowledge of the number of events, and their duration in the relevant

time period.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



3.3.1 Building Damage

In terms of the most recent relevant vibration damage objectives, Australian Standard AS 2187:

Part 2-2006 “Explosives – Storage and Use – Part 2: Use of Explosives” recommends the

frequency dependent guideline values and assessment methods given in BS 7385 Part 2-1993

“Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2”, as they “are applicable to

Australian conditions”.

The British Standard sets guide values for building vibration based on the lowest vibration levels

above which damage has been credibly demonstrated. These levels are judged to give a minimum

risk of vibration-induced damage, where minimal risk for a named effect is usually taken as a

95% probability of no effect.

The recommended limits (guide values) from BS7385 for transient vibration to ensure minimal

risk of cosmetic damage to residential and industrial buildings are presented numerically in

Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Transient Vibration Guide Values – Minimal Risk of Cosmetic Damage

Type of Building

Peak Component Particle Velocity in Frequency

Range of Predominant Pulse

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above

Reinforced or framed structures

Industrial and heavy commercial buildings 50mm/s at 4 Hz and above N/A

Un-reinforced or light framed structures

Residential or light commercial type buildings

15mm/s at 4 Hz increasing to

20mm/s at 15 Hz


50mm/s at 40 Hz and above

The Standard states that the guide values in Table 3-5 relate predominantly to transient vibration

which does not give rise to resonant responses in structures, and to low-rise buildings.

Note that rock breaking / hammering, and sheet piling activities are considered to have the

potential to cause dynamic loading in some structures (e.g. residences) and it may therefore be

appropriate to reduce the transient values by 50%.

The British Standard goes on to state that “Some data suggests that the probability of damage

tends towards zero at 12.5 mm/s peak component particle velocity”. In addition, a building of

historical value should not (unless it is structurally unsound) be assumed to be more sensitive.

In addition to the British Standard, for the case of nearby heritage buildings, guidance for

structural damage is derived from the German Standard DIN 4150 -3 Structural Vibration Part 3

– Effects of Vibration on Structures. Table 3-6 details these recommendations for heritage

buildings.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Figure 3-1 Graph of Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage

Table 3-6 DIN 4150 recommended PPV Vibration Level for Heritage Buildings

Guideline Values for Velocity – mm/s

1-10 Hz 10 to 15 Hz 40 to 50 Hz

3 3 to 8 8-10

3.4 Construction Equipment & Noise Source Levels

Sound Power Levels (SWLs) for typical construction plant are identified in Table 3-7. These SWLs

have been measured at other similar construction sites. The table gives both Sound Power Level

and Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) at 7m for the equipment. Sound Power Level is independent of

measurement position.

Table 3-7 Typical Construction Plant Sound Levels – dBA

Plant Sound Power Level Sound Pressure Level at 7m

Concrete Truck 109 84

Angle Grinder 109 84

Concrete Pump – 120 mm diameter / 50 bar 112 87

Concrete Saw 116 91

Mobile Crane 98 73

Dump Truck 108 83

Compressor 100 75

Bobcat 103 78

Hand Tools 90 65

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST




Excavator 108 83

Crawler Cranes 98 73

Tower Crane 104 79

Front End Loader 112 87

Excavator 107 82

Hammer Hydraulic 122 97

Bored Pile Rig 112 87

3.5 Construction Noise Predictions

Assessment of likely construction noise at surrounding receivers has been undertaken for the

proposed construction works for stage 1 works at Wilkinson House. Assessment has been based

on the construction of a new school building on the Wilkinson House site.

Site-related noise emissions were modeled with the “CadnaA” noise prediction program, using

the ISO 9613 noise prediction algorithms. Factors that are addressed in the noise modeling are:

• equipment sound level emissions and location;

• screening effects from buildings;

• receiver locations;

• ground topography;

• noise attenuation due to geometric spreading;

• ground absorption; and

• atmospheric absorption.

Modelling has been conducted for a number of construction scenarios. The three works scenarios

considered are summarised in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Construction Scenarios for Construction Works

Scenario Description Works

A Demolition

Removal of existing structure from behind the facade of the existing

building using excavators fitted with jaw crushers and hammers.

Truck Movements – loaded into trucks sent off site.

B Building Construction

This scenario includes concreting and lifting.

1 concrete pump, 2 forklifts, 1 compressor, 1 crane, a boom truck and

tower crane are assumed to operate in 15 minutes.

Also, concrete trucks and normal delivery trucks assumed to be two

movements in 15 minutes.

C Facade / Fitout

In the event that the construction of the facade occurs in isolation.

Forklift, truck, tower crane and power tools assumed.

Two truck movements in 15 minutes assumed.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Noise modelling has been conducted for each of the above scenarios, with plant located across

the Wilkinson House construction site.

The modelling assumes a “typical worst-case” scenario whereby all plant, is running continuously.

As such, the modelling represents likely noise levels that would occur during intensive periods of

construction. Therefore, the presented noise levels can be considered in the upper range of noise

levels that can be expected at surrounding receivers when the various construction scenarios

occur.

Once noise sources have been applied to the model, the resultant noise levels at identified

surrounding receivers are predicted. These results are then compared with established

site-specific noise criteria.

Table 3-9 details results of construction noise modelling for each scenario.

Table 3-9 Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Residence – LAeq(15 min) – dBA

Residential Receiver Predicted Noise Level NML Exceedance

Scenario A – Demolition

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences 42 57 0

B – Bourke Street 51 57 0

C – Forbes Street 72 60 12

D – St Peters Street 71 60 11

Scenario B – Building Construction





Scenario C – Façade / Fitout





A review of results of construction noise indicates that these may be well above construction

noise management levels at nearby residences particularly in Forbes Street (which are the

residences immediately adjacent to the construction site), during demolition and construction

stages.

3.6 Discussion of Results

Exceedances of noise management levels of up to 12dBA at residences to the east of the site

may be expected during demolition period when major equipment is located on site. This

magnitude of exceedance is consistent with similar sites where residences overlook development

sites.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



During the structure and fitout stages, the magnitude of exceedance will reduce due to the nature

of construction activities.

Based on these findings, the adoption of reasonable and feasible noise management and

mitigation will be required. These measures should be determined in detail when a contractor,

with defined construction techniques, has been engaged on the project. However, “in-principle”

mitigation measures are detailed in the following sections.

3.7 Construction Vibration Assessment

Operation of rock breakers and the like generate ground vibration that has the potential to

transmit to nearby buildings.

Table 3-10 sets out the typical ground vibration levels at various distances for safe working

distances.

Table 3-10 Recommended Safe Working Distances for Vibration Intensive Plant

Item Description Safe Working Distance

Cosmetic Damage Human Response

Small Hydraulic Hammer (300kg – 5 to 12t Excavator) 2m 7m

Medium Hydraulic Hammer (900kg – 12 to 18t Excavator) 7m 23m

Large Hydraulic Hammer (1600kg – 18 to 34t Excavator) 22m 73m

Vibratory Pile Driver Sheet piles 2m to 20m 20m

Pile Boring ≤ 800mm 2m (nominal) N/A

Jackhammer Hand held 1m (nominal) Avoid contact with structure

• Construction Noise Strategy, 2012, Transportation Construction Authority

The highest vibration levels will occur when construction equipment is located on the eastern side

of the site near residences on the eastern boundary.

A review of the site plant and surrounding receivers indicates that the minimum distance between

the vibration generating activities and surrounding buildings will be in the order of 10 metres.

Therefore, the use of medium to large rock-breakers in the ground should be carefully managed

at distances closer than 20 metres from residences.

It is recommended that trial testing of vibration levels be conducted where identified equipment

having the potential to exceed the human comfort criteria is proposed.

Structural damage vibration criteria in residential buildings are much higher than human comfort

criteria and predicted vibration levels are within these criteria under most circumstances. The

exception, should heavy rock-breakers be used, is for areas near eastern residences on

Macpherson Street. Therefore, the uses of alternative excavation measures, such as rock-saws

on excavators are recommended. If hammers are required, test vibration monitoring is

recommended to ensure that vibration levels at residences are not excessive.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



3.8 Construction Noise & Vibration Mitigation Measures

Without mitigation, noise levels from construction activities have been predicted to exceed the

noise management levels nominated in the guidelines at some surrounding receivers. Therefore,

noise control measures are recommended to ensure that noise is reduced where feasible.

The following project specific mitigation measures are recommended;

• Installation a 2.4 metre plywood hoarding around the construction site;

• Selection of quietest feasible construction equipment;

• Use of jaw crushers in preference to rock-breakers where feasible;

• Localised treatment such as barriers, shrouds, and the like around fixed plant such as pumps,

generators, and concrete pumps; and

• Provision of respite periods.

In addition, the following measures should be included in a Noise and Vibration Management

Plan.

• Plant Noise Audit – Noise emission levels of all critical items of mobile plant and equipment

should be checked for compliance with noise limits appropriate to those items prior to the

equipment going into regular service. To this end, testing should be established with the

contractor.

• Operator Instruction – Operators should be trained in order to raise their awareness of

potential noise problems and to increase their use of techniques to minimise noise emission.

• Equipment Selection – All fixed plant at the work sites should be appropriately selected, and

where necessary, fitted with silencers, acoustical enclosures, and other noise attenuation

measures in order to ensure that the total noise emission from each work site complies with

EPA guidelines.

• Site Noise Planning – Where practical, the layout and positioning of noise-producing plant

and activities on each work site should be optimised to minimise noise emission levels.

The adoption of the above measures is aimed at working towards achieving the noise

management levels established at surrounding receivers.

3.9 Community Liaison & General Approaches to Mitigation

An effective community relations programme should be put in place to keep the community that

has been identified as being potentially affected appraised of progress of the works, and to

forewarn potentially affected groups (e.g. by letterbox drop, meetings with surrounding

owners/tenants, etc) of any anticipated changes in noise and vibration emissions prior to critical

stages of the works, and to explain complaint procedures and response mechanisms. This

programme should include a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy developed

specifically for the Project.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Close liaison should be maintained between the communities overlooking work sites and the

parties associated with the construction works to provide effective feedback in regard to perceived

emissions. In this manner, equipment selections and work activities can be coordinated where

necessary to minimise disturbance to neighbouring communities, and to ensure prompt response

to complaints, should they occur.

3.10 Noise & Vibration Management Plan

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan for the site is recommended which should

be prepared by the successful contractor. The plan should reference the findings of this

assessment. Areas that should be addressed in plan include:

• noise and vibration mitigation measures;

• noise and vibration monitoring;

• response to complaints;

• responsibilities;

• monitoring of noise emissions from plant items;

• reporting and record keeping;

• non-compliance and corrective action; and

• community consultation and complaint handling.

3.11 Management of Construction Noise & Vibration to the School

Noise and vibration levels from construction are likely to be similar to the levels predicted for

receivers immediately surrounding the site. Accordingly, measures that will be adopted to

manage the school which should are detailed in a Construction Management Plan.

Measures that can be adopted to manage noise and vibration impacts at the school will be

managed between the school and the successful contractor and could include:

• closing of classroom windows;

• relocating classes during busy construction periods; and

• scheduling works during school holidays.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



4 OPERATIONAL NOISE & VIBRATION

Operational noise from the proposed facilities will be from activities within the new buildings as

well as mechanical plant located predominantly on roofs.

4.1 Operational Noise Criteria

The NSW NPfI provides a framework and process for deriving noise criteria for consents and

licences that enable the EPA and others to regulate premises that are scheduled under the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Whilst specifically aimed at assessment and

control of noise from industrial premises regulated by the EPA, the policy is also appropriate for

use by the DP&E when assessing major development proposals.

Having been designed for large industrial and agricultural sources, the monitoring and assessment

procedures may not be applicable to the smaller developments and noise sources regulated by

local government. It is recognised however, that Councils may find the policy to be of assistance

in noise assessment and land-use planning.

The NPfI documents a procedure for assessment and management of industrial noise which

involves the following steps:

• Determining the project noise trigger levels for a development. The project noise trigger

level is a benchmark level above which noise management measures are required to be

considered. They are derived by considering short-term intrusiveness due to changes in the

existing noise environment (applicable to residential receivers only) and maintaining noise

level amenity for particular land uses for residents and other sensitive receivers;

• Predicting or measuring noise produced by the development (having regard to any associated

annoying characteristics and prevailing meteorological effects);

• Comparing the predicted or measured noise level with the project noise trigger level and

assessing impacts and the need for noise mitigation and management measures;

• Considering any residual noise impacts following the application of feasible and reasonable

noise mitigation measures;

• Setting statutory compliance levels that reflect the best achievable and agreed noise limits

for development; and

• Monitoring and reporting environmental noise levels from the development.

The project noise trigger level represents the level that, if exceeded, may indicate a potential

noise impact upon a community. It is a benchmark or objective and is not intended for use as a

mandatory requirement.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Intrusiveness Noise Level

For assessing intrusiveness, the background noise level (LA90) is measured and the Rating

Background Level (RBL) determined. The intrusiveness of an industrial noise source may

generally be considered acceptable if the equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq) of the source

(measured over a 15-minute period) does not exceed the background noise level (RBL) by more

than 5dBA.

Amenity Noise Level

The amenity assessment is based on noise criteria specific to land use and associated activities.

The criteria relate only to industrial-type noise and do not include transportation noise (when on

public transport corridors), noise from motor sport, construction noise, community noise, blasting,

shooting ranges, occupational workplace noise, wind farms, amplified music/patron noise.

The amenity noise level aims to limit continuing increases in noise levels which may occur if the

intrusiveness level alone is applied to successive development within an area.

The recommended amenity noise level represents the objective for total industrial noise at a

receiver location. The project amenity noise level represents the objective for noise from a single

industrial development at a receiver location.

To prevent increases in industrial noise due to the cumulative effect of several developments, the

project amenity noise level for each new source of industrial noise is set at 5dBA below the

recommended amenity nose level.

The following exceptions apply to determining the project amenity noise level:

• For high-traffic areas the amenity criterion for industrial noise becomes the LAeq,period(traffic)

minus 15dBA.

• In proposed developments in major industrial clusters.

• If the resulting project amenity noise level is 10dB or lower than the existing industrial noise

level, the project amenity noise level can be set at 10dB below existing industrial noise levels

if it can be demonstrated that existing industrial noise levels are unlikely to reduce over time.

• Where cumulative industrial noise is not a consideration because no other industries are

present in, or likely to be introduced into the area, the relevant amenity noise level is assigned

as the project amenity noise level for the development.

Amenity noise levels are not used directly as regulatory limits. They are used in combination with

the project intrusiveness noise level to assess the potential impact of noise, assess mitigation

options and determine achievable noise requirements.

An extract from the NSW NPfI that relates to the amenity noise levels for surrounding receivers

is given in Table 4-1.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 4-1 Amenity Noise Levels

Receiver Noise

Amenity Area Time of Day1

Recommended Amenity

Noise Level

LAeq (dBA)

Residence Suburban

Day 55

Evening 45

Night 40

Note 1: Daytime 7.00am–6.00pm; Evening 6.00pm–10.00pm; Night 10.00pm-7.00am.

Maximum Noise Level Events

Noise sources of short duration and high level that may cause disturbance to sleep if occurring

during the night time need to be considered.

The approach recommended by the NPfI is to apply the following initial screening noise levels:

• LAeq,15min 40dBA or the prevailing RBL + 5dB, whichever is the greater; and/or

• LAFmax 52dBA or the prevailing RBL + 15dB, whichever is the greater.

The sleep disturbance screening noise levels apply outside bedroom windows during the night

time period.

Where the screening noise levels cannot be met, a detailed maximum noise level event

assessment should be undertaken. It may also be appropriate to consider other guidelines

including the NSW Road Noise Policy (RNP) which contains additional guidance relating to

potential sleep disturbance impacts.

A review of research on sleep disturbance in the RNP indicates that in some circumstances, higher

noise levels may occur without significant sleep disturbance. Based on currently available

research results, the RNP concludes that:

• “Maximum internal noise levels below 50dBA to 55dBA are unlikely to cause awakening

reactions.”

• “One or two noise events per night, with maximum internal noise levels of 65dBA to 70dBA,

are not likely to affect health and wellbeing significantly.”

4.2 Project Noise Trigger Levels

The amenity and intrusiveness noise levels and resulting project trigger levels (shown in bold)

applicable to sources of continuous operational noise associated with the project (i.e. mechanical

plant and equipment) are shown in

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 4-2.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 4-2 Project Noise Trigger Levels

Receiver Period

Intrusiveness

Noise Level1

LAeq,15min (dBA)

Project Amenity

Noise Level2

LAeq,15min (dBA)

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences

Day

Evening

Night

52

50

49

58

48

43

B – Bourke Street

Day

Evening

Night

52

50

49

58

48

43

C – Forbes Street

Day

Evening

Night

55

54

52

58

48

43

D – St Peters Street

Day

Evening

Night

55

54

52

58

48

43

Note 1: Intrusiveness noise level is LAeq,15min ≤ RBL +5. Minumum background is 35dBA in the day period whilst the

minimum background in the evening and night is 30dBA.

Note 2: Project amenity noise level (ANL) is suburban ANL minus 5dBA plus 3dBA to convert from a period level to a

15-minute level.

For maximum noise level events (night time period only), the following screening noise levels

apply.

Table 4-3 Sleep Disturbance Trigger Levels

Receiver LAeq,15min LAFmax

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences 49 59

B – Bourke Street 49 59

C – Forbes Street 52 52

D – St Peters Street 52 52

4.3 Mechanical Services

The major mechanical noise sources associated with the development will be exhaust fans and

plant that will be located on the roof of the new buildings. These will consist of roof mounted

condensers or plant that have yet to be determined.

Noise from most major plant, such fan coil units and pumps will be contained by the building

structure. Therefore, it is the roof condensers and air handling units that may require noise

mitigation to achieve the established site-specific noise criteria at surrounding receivers.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Detailed specifications of mechanical services equipment that would otherwise allow an acoustic

assessment of noise emissions from the site are not available at this stage of the project as

selection and design is conducted after project approval.

In line with the approvals for other developments, detailed assessment of operational noise

emission should form a conditional requirement of the development, to be satisfied to the PCA,

prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

To mitigate noise from mechanical plant, it is likely the some or all of the following noise control

measures may need to be adopted at the design stage to meet noise objectives:

• Silencers on carpark and other fans,

• Acoustic louvres,

• Noise barriers, and;

• Variable speed controls on condenser fans.

The mechanical plant will be designed to meet the criteria presented in Table 4-3 at the identified

nearby receivers.

4.4 Wilkinson Building Noise Emissions

The proposed use of the Wilkinson Building is for classes and, as such, noise generated within

this area is expected to be general classroom noise which will be adequately contained by the

facade of the building.

No special measures are required to protect the acoustic amenity of nearby residents.

4.5 New Multi-Purpose Building

The new multi-purpose building that will be subject to a separate project application in the future,

will at times, generate significant internal noise levels due to sports and musical events.

Therefore, adequate control of noise breakout will be required. Measures that will be adopted to

ensure that compliance with established noise criteria include:

• Ceiling and wall treatments to improve the sound isolation of these elements;

• Laminated or double glazing of doors and windows;

• Acoustic treatment of mechanical services; and

• Sound system design and installation of sound limiters where deemed necessary.

Given that the design of the multi-purpose building has not been developed in any detail, the

exact nature of these treatments cannot be specified, suffice to say that noise criteria has been

established for the development, consistent with the SEARs, and can be adequately addressed at

the appropriate point in time.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



4.6 New Administration Building & Restoration of Barham

Noise generated by activities in these areas will be acoustically insignificant. Any noise will be

contained within the facade of the buildings.

4.7 School Announcements & Bells

Announcements and school bells are typical activities associated with school operations.

Typically, these are produced by the school PA system and can vary significantly depending on

the final volume settings of the system.

At this stage, no design of the PA system has been determined. However, the following measures

should be adopted to ensure that their impact at all surrounding residences is minimised:

• Speakers should be located and orientated to provide good coverage of the school areas

whilst being directed away from residences. The coverage of the system should be subject

of the detail design of the system.

• The volume of the system should be adjusted on site so that announcements and bells are

clearly audible on the school site without being excessive. The system should initially be set

so that noise at surrounding residences does not exceed the ambient noise levels by more

than 5dBA.

• Once the appropriate level has been determined on site, the system should be limited to the

acceptable level so that staff cannot increase noise levels.

The system bell should be set so that it only occurs on school days.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on Wilkinson Murray’s acoustic assessment of the project, the following findings have been

determined.

5.1 Construction Noise

Noise objectives for construction have been established based on EPA guidelines. The noise

management levels should be adopted as objectives to work toward in minimising any noise

impact at surrounding residences.

Table 5-1 presents applicable noise management levels at residential receivers in the vicinity of

the site.

Table 5-1 Site-Specific Construction Noise Management Levels – dBA

Area


LAeq – dBA

Highly noise

affected Noise

Level, LAeq






* 8.00am to 1.00pm.

It has been determined that noise from construction activities for the construction of Stage 1

(Wilkinson House) during the day period will potentially exceed established construction noise

management levels. Therefore, the planning and management of construction activities must

consider the sensitivities of surrounding residents so as to minimise the impact of construction

activities at these receivers.

The control of construction noise and vibration should be addressed in a Noise & Vibration

Management Plan developed when the successful contractor has been appointed for the project.

The following project-specific mitigation measures are recommended:


• A 2.4m plywood hoarding around the construction site and between the Healy Gym site and

western residences;

• Use of jaw crushers or smaller rock breakers where feasible;

• Localised treatment, such as barriers, shrouds, and the like around fixed plant, such as

pumps, generators, and concrete pumps; and

• Provision of respite periods, particularly on Saturdays.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



5.2 Operational Noise

Site-specific noise criteria for the development have been established based on the lower of

intrusive and amenity noise criteria.

The applicable operational noise levels at residential and commercial receivers in the vicinity of

the site are presented in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Project Noise Trigger Levels – dBA

Receiver Period

Intrusiveness

Noise Level1

LAeq,15min (dBA)

Project Amenity

Noise Level2

LAeq,15min (dBA)

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences

Day

Evening

Night

52

50

49

58

48

43

B – Bourke Street

Day

Evening

Night

52

50

49

58

48

43

C – Forbes Street

Day

Evening

Night

55

54

52

58

48

43

D – St Peters Street

Day

Evening

Night

55

54

52

58

48

43

Note 1: Intrusiveness noise level is LAeq,15min ≤ RBL +5dBA. Minumum background is 35dBA in the day period whilst the

minimum background in the evening and night is 30dBA.

Mechanical plant, such as rooftop exhausts and major plant associated with the development

should be assessed at the time of detailed design and selection, having regard to nearby

residential and commercial properties surrounding the development, and to future uses in the

school area.

To mitigate noise from mechanical plant, silencers could be incorporated in the outlets of the

exhaust fans. Silencers can be installed to the fans if required. The mechanical plant noise

emission would be designed to meet the criteria present in Table 5-2 at the closest receivers.

Noise from Wilkinson House, the New Administration Building and restoration of Barham will not

be acoustically significant and will be adequately contained by the building facade.

In the case of the proposed multi-function hall, noise will need to be contained by appropriate

design of the facade and roof. Given that the design of the multi-purpose building has not been

developed in any detail the exact nature of these treatments cannot be specified suffice to say

that noise criteria has been established for the development, consistent with the SEARs, and can

be adequately addressed at the appropriate point in time.

Noise from bells and announcements will be managed by design and adjustment techniques.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



6 CONCLUSION

A construction and operational noise and vibration assessment of SCEGGS Darlinghurst

Masterplan and Stage 1 (Wilkinson House) development has been conducted. Site-specific noise

criteria that are applicable to this project have been presented.

A noise assessment has been conducted for the proposed construction activities associated with

the Stage 1 development to determine the potential for noise and vibration impact at surrounding

receivers. Exceedances of noise management levels are expected at surrounding receivers to the

east of construction site on Forbes Street.

Vibration associated with on-site construction activities is unlikely to impact on surrounding

receivers. Accordingly, management of noise from construction activities should be included in

the Site Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Site-specific operational noise criteria have been determined for the project based on ambient

noise monitoring. A review of likely major plant indicates that noise levels can comply with

established noise criteria during proposed operation with the inclusion of acoustic treatment. A

review of all plant with respect to site-specific noise criteria is required at detailed design stage.

Noise emissions from the proposed new multi-purpose building will be designed to achieve the

site-specific assessment criteria under operation. Noise from other facilities associated with the

Masterplan will be contained by standard facade design.

APPENDIX A

NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION APPENDIX A-1


SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



APPENDIX B

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION APPENDIX B-1


The following items relate to issues regarding noise and vibration in the Project Application noise

and vibration assessment. It should be noted that the description of operations contained in this

report is not comprehensive whereby the assessment uitilised descriptions contained in the EIS

that accompanied the application.

As such, items that have been raised in submissions that were not deemed “acoutsically

significant” were not been included in in the initail report.

Item 1 – Construtcion Noise and Vibration Assessment.

Sydney City Council has raised the following:

Wilkinson House building is proposed to be demolished as part of this application, with noise

management levels predicted to exceed the noise criteria by up to 12dB (i.e. background noise

level +22dB.) An updated acoustic report should be provided that includes site-specific noise

mitigation measures. If major exceedances are still predicted, alternative demolition

methodologies need to be considered to ensure that all reasonable and feasible measures to

reduce the noise level are fully explored.

Generic recommendations are inadequate. In addition, adequate respite periods must be

nominated.

The Department should also ensure that a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is

submitted for approval prior to any construction certificate or demolition works commencing at

Wilkinson House.

Response

A preliminary assessment of potentail construction noise and vibration has been conducted to

deterimine the likley impact on surrounding noise sensitive receivers. The predictions are based

on indicative likley construtcion methods as the actual contractor will not be engaged until the

project is approved and designed. At such time, the exact contruction methedology will be know

and therefore can be assessed which is normal practice.

Site-specfic Noise Manangement Levels have been established based on noise monitring which

are not noise criteria but rather objectives to work towards where reasonable and feasible

meaures can be adopted.

The DA report conducted an assessment of likley impacts from noise and vibration whereby the

magnitude of prediected noise levels, which are typical worst case levels, are not unusual in the

context of the Sydney Area. As such, measures to reduce impacts on surrpounding receivers

have been identfied.

Consistent with the EPA’s Interim Contruction Noise Guideline noise mitigation meaures have

been recommended to be adopted where “reasonal and feasible”. These have been included in

the draft noise and vibration management plan in Apprendix C.

Tyically, where construtcion noise and vinration has been identified as an issue to manage the

project is conditioned so that a specific noise and vinration management plan is prepared prior

to issue of the Construtcion Certficate. As specific equipment and program will be know at this

time, appropraite site-specific noise mitiation meaures, including the need for respite can be

determined.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



As previously inidictaed the Draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan can by

uitilsed in addressing Councils concerns and manageing noise and vibration asscoisted with

construction.

Given that the assessment has been based on the EPA policy it is recommdned that the hours

are consistent with EPA guidelines being:




This compares with council’s recommended hours of 7.30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday and

7.30am to 3.30pm on Saturday.

Item 2 – Noise from Students

One respondant raised the issue of noise from Students during sport and lunchtime. This indiates

that student noise from otuside areas is an issue to at least one respondant.

Response:

The is proposed to be no increase in the Student population, apart from the potentail Childcare

Area which is discussed in further sections. As such, no increase in noise associsted with students

can be expected.

Item 3 – Mechanical Services Noise Emissions

Rooftop air-conditioning and other services should be silenced.

Response:

Site-specific noise criteria for emissions from the site have been established based on site noise

logging. All new mechancial plant will be silenced where necessary to meet the establihsed noise

criteria. Meaures shuch as silencers, linned duct and barriers will be deterined when the deatiled

design and selection of plant is know, as is standard practice.

Item 4- Multi-Purpose Building

No indication of the future use of the multi-purpose building so impacts of future noise have not

been assessed or considered.

Response

The future use of the multi-purpose building will be confirmed as part of a subsequent detailed

DA for it’s construction, operation, and fit out of the building. However it could accommodate an

information and research centre (contemporary library), early learning centre (maximum 90

children), classrooms and general learning areas, meeting rooms.

It is noted that the above activies are not what can be classified as “acoutsically significant”

activitities that could not be contained within the fabric of a future building. This fact and the

fact that a separate DA will be submitted when deatiled uses are known will ensure that noise

emssions from the facility will not adversely impact on surrouning residences.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



The only noise source associsted with the building will be mechancial plant that would be subject

to the same conditions as mentioned earelier and would be controlled using standard engineering

noise control.

It is noted that a early learning centre with up to 90 children is one of the likley uses. Whilst

details of the exact configuration of this area has yet to be defined it is likley that any outdoor

play area noise to be loacted on the northern side of the new building will be contained by

surrounding school buildings.

Should an outdoor play area be located on the southern side of the new multi-purpose building

resultant noise levels of 50dBA can be expected at Terraces on Thomson Steet. This assumes

30 children aged bewteen 3 and 6 playing in an eastern area at any one time (Sound Power Level

of 90dBA), distance attenuation and shielding by a boundary fence. This compares to a daytime

noise citerion of 52dBA at these residences.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the the operation of the muti-purpose nuilding is unlikley to

adverslely impact on surrouning residents not that a project specific assessment of oiperation will

be submitted when the Development Application for this stage is submitted.

Item 5 – Rooftop After Hours Activities on Rooftop Level

Rooftop level on the proposed multi-purpose building could be utilised for after school hour

activities which may have noise impacts to the surrounding properties.

Response:

A review of the EIS indicates that there is no proposal for the use of the rooftop level of the multi-

purpose for after hour functions. None the less, we have conducted a preliminary assessment of

noise emissions based on a scenario that up to 100 persons are located on the roof up to 10.00pm.

Based on a sound power of 90 persons speaking on the roof terrace (Sound Power Level of

96dBA) and distance of 15 metres to Thomson Street residences a resultant noise level of 53dBA

is predicted. This compares to an established evening criterion of 48dBA.

Therefore, if the roof terrace were to be used for after-hours functions additional measures such

as a southern acoustic screen would be required to protect the amenity of nearby residences.

Such a measure could be included in any future development application should the roof terrace

use be proposed.

It is noted the above calculation has been provided to demonstrate acoustic feasibility should the

roof terrace, in future, be proposed for after school functions. Such as use is not proposed in the

current application.

Item 6 – Number of Students

Acoustic Impact Report does not make any reference to the number of students.

Response:

A review of the EIS indicates that “The proposed Concept and Detailed DA does not include an

increase in the population of staff or students”. As there is no change in students, there will be

no acoustic change in student noise levels.

APPENDIX C

DRAFT CONSTRUCTION NOISE & VIBRATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST

MASTERPLAN & STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION APPENDIX C-1


The following draft construction noise and vibration managemant plan has been prepared to be

included in Tender documentaion to ensure that noise and vibration from construction activities

in Stage 1 of the project are approaprotely managed. This plan should be finalised by the

sucessful contractor taking into account, conitions of consent, the recommended noise mitigation

measures, noise management levels and vibration objectives contained in the Plan.

In addition the plan should be prepared to compliment and be consistent with the SCEGGS

Preliminary Construction Management Plan dated 26 November 2018 prepared by Tracey

Brunstrom & Hammond.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



1 INTRODUCTION

The Contractor xxx Pty Ltd proposes the replacement of Wilkinson House with a new building.

The development was approved State Significant Development Application SSD 8993. The

Approval Conditions required preparation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

(CNVMP).

This document is the draft CNVMP and addresses all conditions relating to construction noise and

vibration. The contents of this plan are to be reviewed by the successful contractor and

incorporated where appropriate into site management procedures.

The site location is shown in Figure 1-1. The proposal includes: (To be modified as required by

the contractor).

• Demolition of Wilkinson House;

• Building Construction; and

• Facade Installation.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



2 SENSITIVE NOISE RECEIVERS

The locations of noise sensitive receivers are listed in Table 1-1 and shown in Figure 1-1.

Table 1-1 Noise Sensitive Receivers

Receivers Comments

A – Thomson Street & Lane Residences Terrace residences

B – Bourke Street Terrace residences and Commercial receivers

C – Forbes Street Mix of single and multi-storey residential buildings

D – St Peters Street Church on the opposite of St Peters Street

Figure 1-1 Noise Sensitive Receivers

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



3 NOISE MANAGEMENT LEVELS

Construction Noise Management Levels, based on ambient noise logging, are detailed in the

following table.

Table 3-1 Site-Specific Construction Noise Management Levels

Area


LAeq – dBA

Highly noise

affected Noise

Level, LAeq






* Standard Saturday construction hours.

In addition, the following construction noise management levels LAeq,15 min are recommended for

other receivers and areas:

• Active recreation areas (such as parks): external LAeq,15min 65dBA

• Industrial premises: external LAeq,15min 75dBA

• Offices, retail outlets: external LAeq,15min 70dBA

• Classrooms at schools and other educational institutions: internal LAeq,15min 45dBA

3.1 Hours of Operation

The proposed working hours for this project are as follows:




If required, after hours permits will be sought from the relevant authorities.

3.2 Vibration Criteria

Criteria for assessment of the effects of vibration on human comfort are set out in British Standard

6472-1992. Methods and criteria in that Standard are used to set “preferred” and “maximum”

vibration levels in the document Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (2006) produced by

the NSW DECCW.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Acceptable values of human exposure to continuous vibration, such as that associated with

drilling, are dependent on the time of day and the activity taking place in the occupied space

(e.g. workshop, office, residence, or a vibration-critical area). Guidance on preferred values for

continuous vibration is set out in Table 3-3.

Table 3-2 Criteria for Exposure to Continuous Vibration

Place Time

Peak Particle Velocity

(mm/s)

Preferred Maximum

Critical working areas

(e.g. hospital operating theatres precision

laboratories)

Day or Night time 0.14 0.28

Residences Daytime 0.28 0.56

Night time 0.20 0.40

Offices Day or Night time 0.56 1.1

Workshops Day or Night time 1.1 2.2

In the case of intermittent vibration, which is caused by plant such as rock breakers, the criteria

are expressed as a Vibration Dose Value (VDV) and are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-3 Acceptable Vibration Dose Values for Intermittent Vibration (m/s1.75)

Location Daytime Night Time

Preferred Value Maximum Value Preferred Value Maximum Value

Critical areas 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20

Residences 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.26

Offices, schools,

educational

institutions, and

places of worship

0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80

Workshops 0.80 1.60 0.80 1.60

Calculation of VDV requires knowledge of the number of events, and their duration in the relevant

time period.

3.2.1 Building Damage

In terms of the most recent relevant vibration damage objectives, Australian Standard AS 2187:

Part 2-2006 “Explosives – Storage and Use – Part 2: Use of Explosives” recommends the

frequency dependent guideline values and assessment methods given in BS 7385 Part 2-1993

“Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2”, as they “are applicable to

Australian conditions”.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



The British Standard sets guide values for building vibration based on the lowest vibration levels

above which damage has been credibly demonstrated. These levels are judged to give a minimum

risk of vibration-induced damage, where minimal risk for a named effect is usually taken as a

95% probability of no effect.

The recommended limits (guide values) from BS7385 for transient vibration to ensure minimal

risk of cosmetic damage to residential and industrial buildings are presented numerically in

Table 3-5.

Table 3-4 Transient Vibration Guide Values – Minimal Risk of Cosmetic Damage

Type of Building

Peak Component Particle Velocity in Frequency

Range of Predominant Pulse

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above

Reinforced or framed structures

Industrial and heavy commercial buildings 50mm/s at 4 Hz and above N/A

Un-reinforced or light framed structures

Residential or light commercial type buildings


20mm/s at 15 Hz


50mm/s at 40 Hz and above

The Standard states that the guide values in Table 3-5 relate predominantly to transient vibration

which does not give rise to resonant responses in structures, and to low-rise buildings.

Note that rock breaking / hammering, and sheet piling activities are considered to have the

potential to cause dynamic loading in some structures (e.g. residences) and it may therefore be

appropriate to reduce the transient values by 50%.

The British Standard goes on to state that “Some data suggests that the probability of damage

tends towards zero at 12.5 mm/s peak component particle velocity”. In addition, a building of

historical value should not (unless it is structurally unsound) be assumed to be more sensitive.

In addition to the British Standard, for the case of nearby heritage buildings, guidance for

structural damage is derived from the German Standard DIN 4150 -3 Structural Vibration Part 3

– Effects of Vibration on Structures. Table 3-6 details these recommendations for heritage

buildings.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Figure 3-2 Graph of Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage

Table 3-5 DIN 4150 recommended PPV Vibration Level for Heritage Buildings

Guideline Values for Velocity – mm/s

1-10 Hz 10 to 15 Hz 40 to 50 Hz

3 3 to 8 8-10

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES & SCHEDULE

The following works and indicative equipment are proposed:

• Demolition – Include description.

• Construction – Include description.

• Façade – Include description.

Table 4-1 lists typical source sound power level of equipment.

Table 4-1 Sound Power Levels for Construction Equipment


Concrete Truck 109 84

Angle Grinder 109 84

Concrete Pump – 120 mm diameter / 50 bar 112 87

Concrete Saw 116 91

Mobile Crane 98 73

Dump Truck 108 83

Compressor 100 75

Bobcat 103 78

Hand Tools 90 65

Excavator 108 83

Crawler Cranes 98 73

Tower Crane 104 79

Front End Loader 112 87

Excavator 107 82

Hammer Hydraulic 122 97

Bored Pile Rig 112 87

4.2 Predicted Noise Levels

Noise levels at receiver locations will vary considerable depending on the location and nature of

work being undertaken.

Table 4-2 shows predicted noise levels from each stage of construction.

Due to the proximity of the nearest receivers, significant exceedances of the NML will be expected

during demolition and excavation activities near the boundaries of the site. During the longest

phase, the construction phase, noise will generally comply once with building envelope is

commenced.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 4-2 Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Residence – LAeq(15 min) – dBA

Residential Receiver Predicted Noise Level NML Exceedance

Scenario A – Demolition





Scenario B – Building Construction





Scenario C – Façade / Fitout





4.3 Construction Vibration Assessment

Sources of minor vibration would be expected during demolition phases. In the demolition /

excavation phase a 15-20t rockbreaker with a 500 kg head will result in vibration levels typically

of around 1mm/s at a distance of 10 metres from a receiver. Vibration levels of this magnitude

would be clearly perceptible at adjacent residences.

At a distance of 5m vibration levels would approach 4 – 5mm/s which would most likely cause

significant complaint by residences. Therefore, the following mitigation should be considered:

• Use of alternative methods, such as rock saws and / or rock crushers,

• Use smaller hydraulic hammers after saw cuts have been made.

• Use of smaller hydraulic hammers for finishing works.

Mitigation of vibration impacts is discussed in Section 5.

Should part of the Heritage Facade be retained compliance with criteria detailed in Table 3-6 is

to be achieved. Low vibration methods should be adopted within 5 metres of Heritage facades

such as auger piling, rock saws and smaller rockbreakers. Should large rockbreakers be proposed

in this zone trial hammering with rockbreakers is recommended.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



5 NOISE & VIBRATION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

The following project specific mitigation measures are to be adopted;

• Installation a 2.4 metre plywood hoarding around the construction site;


• Use of jaw crushers in preference to rock-breakers where feasible;

• Localised treatment such as barriers, shrouds, and the like around fixed plant such as pumps,

generators, and concrete pumps; and

• Provision of respite periods.

In addition, the following measures should be included in a Noise and Vibration Management

Plan.

• Plant Noise Audit – Noise emission levels of all critical items of mobile plant and equipment should be checked for compliance with noise limits appropriate to those items prior to the

equipment going into regular service. To this end, testing should be established with the

contractor.

• Operator Instruction – Operators should be trained in order to raise their awareness of

potential noise problems and to increase their use of techniques to minimise noise emission.

• Equipment Selection – All fixed plant at the work sites should be appropriately selected, and

where necessary, fitted with silencers, acoustical enclosures, and other noise attenuation measures in order to ensure that the total noise emission from each work site complies with

EPA guidelines.

• Site Noise Planning – Where practical, the layout and positioning of noise-producing plant

and activities on each work site should be optimised to minimise noise emission levels.

The adoption of the above measures is aimed at working towards achieving the noise

management levels established at surrounding receivers.

The following is a summary of the recommended procedure to manage noise and vibration.

The single most critical aspect it to ensure complete engagement with the nearby receivers so

that sufficient notifications are provided, complaints/enquires are handled quickly and that ALL

site personnel are briefed on the importance of undertaking what is reasonable and feasible in

reducing noise and vibration impacts.

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Table 5-1 Noise and Vibration Management Procedures

Issue Area of

Concern Manage Measures Responsibility

Noise Site Induction

All personnel, contractors and sub-contractors to work on site

will be given an environmental induction prior to the

commencement of work. This induction will include the

following:

• Advice of any operational restrictions and environmental

noise management levels;

• Explanation of the nearby noise and vibration sensitive

receivers and the level of sensitivity expected;

• The approved hours of operation;

• Site-specific noise and vibration mitigation measures; and

• Complaints procedures;

• All site employees, contractors and sub-contractors will be

made aware of the importance of following the procedures

in this CNVMP.

Site Manager

Noise

Neighbour

Friendly

Behaviour

Some basic rules are required at the site to ensure that

unnecessary noise is not created in a way that may affect

nearby residential receivers:

• No swearing on site;

• No unnecessary shouting or loud radios;

• No dropping of materials during work or unloading, such

as formwork;

• No unnecessary use of equipment on site which should be

turned off or left on low idle when not used.

All

Noise Site Monitoring

Monitoring maybe undertaken on the basis of noise complaints.

Monitoring should be carried out by qualified personnel.

LAeq and LAmax noise levels at or near the residential boundary

are to be measured.

Site Manager

Noise Equipment

Monitoring

Equipment may require noise testing if, for example:

• It is new to the site;

• Is the subject of repeated noise complaints.

Monitoring should be carried out by qualified personnel.

LAeq should be determined at 7m from the equipment and

should be compared to the levels in Table 4-1.

Site Manager

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST



Issue Area of Concern Manage Measures Responsibility

All Complaints

Handling

All complaints or enquiries will be kept in a register,

including the following details:

• Date and time of complaint or enquiry;

• Means by which the complaint or enquiry was made;

• Details of the complainant;

• The nature of the complaint or enquiry; and

• Any action taken to investigate the complaint or

enquiry and the date of follow up with the

complainant.

All complaints of noise and vibration shall be investigated

and action to be taken to remove the cause of the

complaint (where feasible and possible) shall be

determined and registered. In all cases, a response shall

be provided to the complainant after investigation. Call

back as soon as possible to keep people informed of

action to be taken to address noise problems. Call back

at night time only if requested by the complainant to

avoid further disturbance.

Site Manager

Vibration Monitoring

Vibration monitoring is to be conducted at the two

residential properties immediately adjacent to the site.

This is to be supplemented by trial testing at the

beginning of excavation works.

Where predicted vibration levels potentially exceed the

criteria for cosmetic damage to buildings, vibration

monitoring will be done.

Monitoring to be done by suitably qualified personnel.

Measure ppv vibration levels on the building foundations

or at an equivalent location. Where levels exceed the

10mm/s damage alert level, the offending operation must

cease, and alternate construction methods devised. It is

likely that human comfort limits will be exceeded in the

first instance and need to be managed.

Site Manager

Vibration Equipment Use of rocksaws during excavation, thereby minimising

rockbreakers.

All Communication

with Community

A noise and vibration complaint protocol shall be

developed for the site to apply during the construction

period. The contact details (phone number, email address

and postal address) shall be widely distributed to the

surrounding residential area.

The communication should include details of construction

timing.

Site Manager

All Site Notice

A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work

commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works

period.

The site notice must:

• be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the

site for the purposes of informing the public that

unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted;

• display project details including, but not limited to

the details of the builder, Principal Certifying

Authority and structural engineer;

Site Manager

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST




• be durable and weatherproof and display the

approved hours of work, the name of the

site/project manager, the responsible managing

company (if any), its address and 24 hour contact

phone number for any inquiries, including

construction/noise complaint are to be displayed on

the site notice be mounted at eye level on the

perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that

unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted.

All Working Hours

Working hours must be within the hours stipulated in the

CoA:

• 7.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am to

1pm Saturday. Work is not to be carried out on

Sundays and public holidays.

Site Manager

All Work outside

Normal Hours

Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these

hours (ie) placement of concrete for large floor areas on

large residential/commercial developments or where

building processes require the use of oversized trucks

and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from

travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or

remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels,

beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site,

approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of

an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well

as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be

affected by the proposed works.

Site Manager

All Tenders &

Contracts

Include in tenders, employment contracts, subcontractor

agreements and work method statements clauses that

require minimisation of noise and vibration and require

compliance with directions from management to minimise

noise.

Site Manager

All Worker Concerns

Workers may at times need to discuss or negotiate

practices with their managers if they are concerned

about noise and vibration.

Site Manager

All Maintain

equipment

• Regularly inspect and maintain equipment to ensure

it is in good working order;

• Also check the condition of mufflers;

• Equipment must not be operated until it is

maintained or repaired, where maintenance or repair

would address the annoying character of noise

identified;

• For machines with enclosures, check that doors and

door seals are in good working order and that the

doors close properly against the seals;

• Return any hired equipment that is causing noise

that is not typical for the equipment – the increased

noise may indicate the need for repair;

• Ensure air lines on pneumatic equipment do not

leak.

Site Manager

SCEGGS DARLINGHURST




Noise

Operate

equipment in a

quiet and efficient

manner

Reduce throttle setting and turn off equipment when not

being used.

Site Manager

Noise Location of Plant Place as much distance as possible between the plant or

equipment and residences and other sensitive land uses. Site Manager

Noise Hoarding Hoarding to the side boundaries to be 2.4mm solid

plywood to act as a noise barrier to adjacent residences Site Manager

Noise Scheduling Nominate an off-site truck parking area, away from

residences, for trucks arriving prior to gates opening. Site Manager

Noise Scheduling Schedule deliveries to nominated hours only. Site Manager

Noise Reversing Alarms

Where possible minimise the use of reversing on-site OR

ensure that non-tonal reversing alarms are fitted to all

vehicles.

Site Manager