Proposed Mixed-Use Development...Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 85837.07.R.001.Rev2 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park January 2020 carried out in order

Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Mixed-Use Development 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park

Prepared for John Holland Group Pty Ltd

Project 85837.07 January 2020

Document History

Document details

Project No. 85837.07 Document No. R.001.Rev2

Document title Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Mixed-Use Development

Site address 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park

Report prepared for John Holland Group Pty Ltd

File name 85837.07.R.001.Rev2

Document status and review

Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued

Revision 0 Joel Huang Scott Easton 11 September 2019

Revision 1 Joel Huang Scott Easton 25 September 2019

Revision 2 Joel Huang Scott Easton 30 January 2020

Distribution of copies

Status Electronic Paper Issued to

Revision 0 1 0 Andrew Ridge, John Holland Group Pty Ltd



The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached

drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and inaccuracies.

Signature Date

Author 30 January 2020

Reviewer 30 January 2020

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

ABN 75 053 980 117

www.douglaspartners.com.au

96 Hermitage Road

West Ryde NSW 2114

PO Box 472

West Ryde NSW 1685

Phone (02) 9809 0666

Fax (02) 9809 4095

FS 604853

Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 85837.07.R.001.Rev2 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park January 2020

Executive Summary

As requested by John Holland Group Pty Ltd (JHG), Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has undertaken a

geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed-use development (Building AB) at 45-61 Waterloo

Road, Macquarie Park. The subject site is located in the south-east part of a broader 3.2-hectare precinct

fronting Waterloo Road, currently under renewal by JHG.

The development of Building AB will include the construction of an eleven-storey (inclusive of a plant

level) building with a two-level basement carpark. The currently proposed floor level of the lower

basement (i.e. Basement 02) will require a bulk excavation to depths of approximately 6 m to 7 m. Part

of basement excavation and the final building foundation is within the 2nd reserve of the Epping to

Chatswood Rail Line (ECRL) tunnels and the west service shaft of Macquarie Park Metro Station. A

decommissioned and backfilled decline tunnel, previously used for access during construction of the

ECRL, runs diagonally below the central part of the Building AB site. The crown of the decline tunnel is

expected to range from about 8 m to 11 m below the floor level of Basement 02.

The geotechnical investigation included drilling of eight boreholes (BH101 to BH108) using solid flight

augering and NMLC diamond core drilling techniques to depths between 10.1 m to 27.8 m. One

borehole (BH107) was located over the decline tunnel and drilled through the tunnel backfill and then

into the rock below the base of the tunnel. Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed for

measurement of groundwater levels.

The results of the investigation confirm the geological mapping in the area, with the subsurface materials

comprising existing pavement and shallow fill 0.2 to 0.3 m thick, over residual clay, followed by extremely

low to very low strength Ashfield Shale, Siltstone and Laminite, grading to medium strength to high

strength with varying degrees of fracturing with some very high strength bands. The Ashfield Shale is

underlain by medium, high and very high strength Hawkesbury Sandstone which was encountered in

BH107 just above and below the decline tunnel.

The basement excavation is expected to involve removal of mostly soil and extremely low to low strength

shale and laminite, and medium to high strength shale and laminite in the deeper parts of the excavation

in some areas. Excavation of soil and extremely low to low strength rock should be achievable using

conventional earthmoving equipment, whereas excavation of medium and high strength rock may

require heavy ripping with a large bulldozer together with the use of hydraulic rock breakers for effective

removal of this material.

Excavation of vertical basement faces within fill, soils and shale/laminite will require both temporary and

permanent lateral support during and after excavation. Anchored soldier pile walls with reinforced

shotcrete infill panels are often used. Design of the shoring walls should consider suitable earth

pressure distribution for different lateral support, with additional allowance for potential rock wedge

failure loading, all surcharge loads and potential hydrostatic pressures unless drainage behind the walls

can be provided. Batter slopes for unsupported excavations could also be used if there is sufficient

room.

High-level footings are considered suitable for supporting the building loads in most areas as it is

expected that medium strength or stronger shale and laminite will be exposed close to the bulk

excavation level. However, the presence of weaker or highly fractured rock in some localised areas

should be taken into account and a downgrade of the bearing pressure may be necessary. ln relation to

footings over and near the decline tunnel, further geotechnical review and numerical modelling could be


carried out in order to assess whether high-level footings could be used, otherwise, piles founded below

the ‘zone-of-influence’ of the decline tunnel would be necessary.

It is expected that the regional groundwater table would be encountered well below the proposed

basement, however, perched groundwater seepage will occur along the soil-rock interface and through

rock defects exposed in the basement. During construction and in the long term, the seepage into the

basement could be controlled by perimeter and subfloor drainage connected to a sump-and-pump

system.

Based on the drawings attached in ECRL Project Guidelines, the proposed basement excavation will

be partially within the 2nd reserve of the tunnel protection zone. As such, it will generally be required by

TfNSW that a detailed impact assessment be carried out by numerical modelling of the interaction

between the proposed basement excavation and final building loading and the existing ECRL tunnels

and western shaft.

In summary the report concludes that:

• from a geotechnical point of view the proposed development can be achieved with conventional

shoring and footings that are designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report;

• part of the basement excavation and building foundation is within the 2nd reserve of the ECRL

tunnels and the west service shaft of Macquarie Park Metro Station. TfNSW may require a detailed

impact assessment with numerical modelling of the interaction between the proposed basement

excavation and building loading and the existing ECRL tunnels and western shaft;

• further geotechnical review and numerical modelling is required for footings over the decline tunnel.

Piles founded below the ‘zone-of-influence’ of the decline tunnel may be necessary;


Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Previous Geotechnical Investigation on Adjoining Site .................................................................. 2

3. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 3

4. Sydney Metro and Decline Tunnel ................................................................................................. 3

5. Geology and Acid Sulphate Soils ................................................................................................... 4

6. Field Work Methods ....................................................................................................................... 4

7. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 5

7.1 Subsurface Soils .................................................................................................................. 5

7.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 6

8. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 6

9. Geotechnical Model ....................................................................................................................... 6

10. Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 8

11. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 9

11.1 Excavation Conditions ......................................................................................................... 9

11.2 Vibrations ............................................................................................................................. 9

11.3 Dilapidation Surveys ............................................................................................................ 9

11.4 Disposal of Excavated Material .........................................................................................10

11.5 Excavation Support ............................................................................................................10

11.5.1 Batter Slopes .........................................................................................................10

11.5.2 Shoring Walls ........................................................................................................10

11.5.3 Passive Resistance ...............................................................................................12

11.5.4 Ground Anchors ....................................................................................................12

11.6 Excavation Induced Ground Movement and Adjacent Rail Infrastructure .........................13

11.7 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................13

11.8 Foundations .......................................................................................................................14

11.9 Footings Adjacent to Rail Corridor and Sydney Trains Stratum Easement .......................15

11.10 Subgrade Preparation and Engineered Fill .......................................................................16

12. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 16


Appendix A: About This Report

Appendix B: Drawings

Appendix C: Results of Fieldwork

Appendix D: Extract from ECRL Report (2008) and TfNSW standard (2016)

Thiess Hochtief Joint Venture Drawings

Page 1 of 17


Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Mixed-Use Development

45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

(DP) for a proposed mixed-use development (Building AB) at 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park.

The investigation was commissioned by John Holland Group Pty Ltd (JHG) and was undertaken in

accordance with DPs proposal SYD190589.P.001.Rev1 dated 25 June 2019.

The site is located at 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park within the City of Ryde Local Government

Area. It is located centrally within the Macquarie Park corridor which is a specialised commercial

precinct approximately 12 kilometres north-west of Sydney CBD in Sydney’s inner north and

approximately 170 metres to the north east of Macquarie Park metro station.

The site is part of a broader 3.2 hectare precinct currently under renewal by John Holland. The subject

application is located in the south-east part of the site, fronting Waterloo Road, as shown below.

Page 2 of 17


The application seeks approval for the construction of an eleven storey (inclusive of plant level) mixed

use commercial and retail building (known as Building AB). Refer to the detailed project description by

Ethos Urban within the Statement of Environmental Effects.

The development of Building AB will include a two-level basement carpark. The lowest basement level

is expected to require excavation to depths of approximately 6 m to 7 m. A decommissioned and

backfilled decline tunnel previously used for access during construction of the Epping to Chatswood Rail

Link (ECRL) runs diagonally below the central part of the Building AB site and terminates at the west

service shaft of Macquarie Park Station, which is located adjacent to the southern corner of the site.

The crown of the decline tunnel is expected to range from about 8 m to 11 m below the expected

basement level (refer to Section 4 for further discussion on the tunnel). The basement excavation is

within the 2nd reserve of the ECRL main tunnels and the west service shaft.

The investigation was carried out to provide information on the subsurface conditions for design and

planning purposes, and was also used to confirm the depth of the tunnel and the characteristics of the

backfill material.

The investigation included the drilling of eight boreholes, installation of two temporary groundwater

monitoring wells and measurement of water levels within the wells. Details of the field work are given

in the report, together with comments on design and construction.

Greencap-NAA Pty Ltd prepared a ‘Detailed Site Assessment’ report for contamination (Ref J142067,

Issue No. 1, February 2016) for the overall site. DP subsequently carried out additional investigations

and prepared a “Report on Detailed Site Investigation” for the overall site (Project 85837.01, dated July

2017). The investigations included some boreholes and test pits on the Building AB site. Reference

should be made to these reports for further details on the investigations, results, and conclusions in

relation to soil and groundwater contamination.

2. Previous Geotechnical Investigation on Adjoining Site

DP previously carried out a geotechnical investigation for the Building C site immediately to the north of

the subject site. The investigation included drilling of twelve boreholes with four boreholes (BH6, 7, 8

and 10) located near the northern boundary of the Building AB site. The previous boreholes generally

encountered extremely low strength grading to very low to low strength shale to depths of about 6 m,

over low to medium strength grading to medium and high strength shale, siltstone and laminite to depths

of 17 m. Six boreholes (BH1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11) encountered the underlying high strength sandstone.

Borehole 10 was drilled through the decline tunnel with the crown of the tunnel about 14 m below the

ground surface.

Page 3 of 17


3. Site Description

The Building AB site (referred to as “the site” in this report) is roughly rectangular shaped covers a plan

area of about 7,000 m2. It is located in the south-eastern corner of the overall site and is immediately

to the north of Waterloo Road.

A single storey building is located on the subject site and is currently used as the site office.

The adjacent site to the north is known as the Building C site, which is near the completion of the

construction. The area to the west (within 45-61 Waterloo Road) is generally vacant and covered with

grass and asphalt paved areas and currently used as a site carpark.

The natural ground surface on the site falls gently towards the west and north-west from RL59 m to

RL56 m relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

Commercial developments are located on the adjacent properties to the north and east of the overall

site.

4. Sydney Metro and Decline Tunnel

The Sydney Metro Tunnels, converted from the former Epping to Chatswood Railway Line (ECRL)

tunnels, run below Waterloo Road. Macquarie Park Metro Station is situated to the south of the subject

site, with the station entry located about 100 m to the south-east. Specific details on the tunnel and

station locations, depths and reserve boundaries will need to be confirmed with TfNSW, however

preliminary comments based on the ECRL Underground Infrastructure Protection Guidelines Report No.

20007300/PO-4532, prepared by Transport Infrastructure (2008) are provided below. Extracts from the

ECRL report are provided in Appendix D.

The ECRL tunnels running below Waterloo Road adjacent to the southern site boundary are twin 6 m to

7 m diameter tunnels with the top of the tunnels at about RL33 m to RL34 m (i.e. about 19 m to 25 m

below Waterloo Road). The invert levels of the railway tunnels are at about RL 26 m (approximately 15

m below Waterloo Road).

The Macquarie Station drawings in Appendix D indicate infrastructure (marked as “West Service Shaft”)

associated with Macquarie Park station extending up to the south-east corner of the site. The perimeter

of the shaft is expected to coincide with a small building at ground surface at this location, with an

approximate 6 m offset from the common boundaries. The approximate Sydney Metro protection

reserve zones (1st Reserve and 2nd Reserve), based on ECRL Underground Infrastructure Protection

Guidelines, are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. These need to be checked with TfNSW, since the

ECRL has been merged into the Sydney Metro network, which might have different technical

requirements.

A decommissioned and backfilled decline tunnel used for access during construction of the ECRL runs

diagonally below the central part of the site. Details of the tunnel are shown on drawings prepared by

Thiess Hochtief Joint Venture (Drg. No. PRL-CSD161542 and PRL-CSD161541, dated 28 May 2008)

which were provided to DP by JHG. The drawings are included in Appendix D. The approximate

alignment of the decline ramp and tunnel is shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The drawings indicate

Page 4 of 17


that a decline ramp commenced at the north-western corner of the overall site. The arch tunnel is

understood to be 6.5 m high and the crest of the tunnel is expected to range from about 15 m to 19 m

below the existing surface level (about 8 m to 11 m below the assumed basement level) for the Building

AB site. The drawings provide details of the backfilling requirements and indicate that the decline ramp

was to be mostly backfilled with material compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 100% relative to

Standard compaction. The tunnel was to be backfilled with “sand/tunnel spoil” in the lower half and

“sand/sandstone” in the top half using “horizontal compaction equipment”. The tunnel backfill was to be

compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 85% relative to Standard compaction. Our experience on

Building C indicates the backfill material was not compacted.

5. Geology and Acid Sulphate Soils

Reference to the Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet indicates that the site is underlain by the

Ashfield Shale Formation. Ashfield Shale typically comprises black to dark grey shale and laminite

(interbedded shale, siltstone and fine grained sandstone) and typically weathers to form clays of medium

to high plasticity. Ashfield Shale is underlain by Hawkesbury Sandstone which typically consists of

medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone with minor shale and laminite lenses. The Mittagong

formation is a transitional unit often found between the Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone and

typically includes laminite and fine grained sandstone of variable strength. The geological mapping was

consistent with the investigation which encountered shale, siltstone and laminite overlying sandstone.

The Homebush Bay Fault Line is known to run approximately NNE along Lane Cove Road to the east

of the site. Rock surrounding the fault line may have more jointing and include zones of variable and

weaker rock due to large scale movements experienced in the past.

Reference to Acid Sulphate Soil mapping for the area indicates that the site is in an area of no known

occurrence.

6. Field Work Methods

The field work for the investigation included:

• Drilling of eight boreholes (BH101 to BH108) using geotechnical drilling rigs at the locations shown

on Drawing 1 in Appendix B;

• BH107 was located over the decline tunnel and was drilled through the tunnel backfill and into the

rock below the base of the tunnel;

• All boreholes were drilled into the weathered rock to depths of between 3.2 m and 6.4 m using solid

flight augers and then continued to depths of between 10.1 m and 27.8 m using diamond core

drilling equipment to obtain continuous core samples of the bedrock;

• Standard penetration tests were undertaken within the soil strata at 1.5 m depth intervals to obtain

samples and to assess the insitu strength of the soils;

• Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in BH101 and BH108 to allow for the measurement of

groundwater levels.

Page 5 of 17


The boreholes were logged and sampled by a geotechnical engineer. The rock cores recovered from

the boreholes were photographed, followed by Point Load Strength Index (Is50) testing on selected

samples.

The ground surface levels and coordinates at the borehole locations were measured using a high

precision differential GPS with an accuracy of about 0.1 m.

7. Field Work Results

7.1 Subsurface Soils

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered are given in the borehole logs in Appendix C, together

with notes explaining descriptive terms and classification methods used. The sequence of subsurface

materials encountered at the test locations is described below:

Fill (Topsoil) encountered at BH103 and BH104 to depths of between 0.2 m and 0.3 m. The fill

generally included dark brown sandy or silty sand;

Existing

Pavement

Encountered at BH101, BH105, BH106, BH107 and BH108. The pavement

generally comprised a thin asphalt layer (25 mm thick) over 200 mm thick

roadbase;

Tunnel

Backfill:

BH107 was located over the backfilled tunnel and encountered the top of the

tunnel at a depth of 19.1 m, with a 0.6 m thick void directly below the obvert of the

tunnel, then sand and clayey sand fill with some crushed sandstone to depths of

24.5 m. The SPT values were consistent with very loose sand indicating the filling

is generally poorly compacted. Concrete 160 mm thick was encountered at the

base of the backfilled tunnel but there was no evidence of concrete lining near the

obvert. It should be noted that the borehole may not have been drilled directly

over the centreline of the tunnel. At the borehole location the backfilled tunnel

was 5.4 m in height, whereas the design drawings suggest that the decline tunnel

is 6.5 m in height;

Silty Clay: below the surface fill were residual clays typically comprising stiff to very stiff then

hard silty clay to depths of 2.5 m to 3.2 m; over

Shale/Siltstone

Laminite:

extremely low to very low strength grading to low to medium strength, highly

fractured shale to depths of about 5.5 m to 7.7 m, over medium to high strength,

fractured shale/laminate to depths of about 6.3 m to 11.2 m, grading to medium

and high strength, slightly fractured to unbroken shale, siltstone and laminite to the

termination depths of most boreholes. Some very high strength laminite was also

encountered within the stronger rock profile; over

Sandstone: mostly slightly fractured and unbroken very high strength sandstone above the

decline tunnel at 18.3 m in BH107 then medium to high strength sandstone below

the tunnel at a depth of 24.5 m.

Page 6 of 17


7.2 Groundwater

No groundwater was observed during auger drilling of the boreholes to depths of up to 6.4 m. A

summary of the measured groundwater levels within the two monitoring wells is provided in Table 1.

The previous measurements from the wells on the Building C site are also shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Depths (RL, m AHD)

Location Surface

(m AHD) 21 July 2017 14 August 2019

BH101 56.8 - 10.1 (RL46.7)

BH108 58.5 - 8.6 (RL49.9)

BH2 57.0 8.1 (RL48.9)** -

BH6 56.9 11.9 (RL45.0) -

BH8 57.6 15.2 (RL42.4) -

Note ** the measured water in BH2 was impacted by drilling fluids/cuttings

The groundwater levels were somewhat irregular and did not indicate an obvious groundwater flow

direction which may be partly due to the decline tunnel which changes in depth and probably drains

water from the surrounding rock mass. The measured water in BH2 was impacted by drilling

cuttings/fluid and is not considered to accurately represent the groundwater level at this location. A

groundwater table was not encountered during excavation on Building C and only very minor seepage

was observed in some areas after rainfall.

8. Laboratory Testing

Selected samples of the rock core were tested in the laboratory to determine the Point Load Strength

Index (Is50) values to assist with the rock strength classification. The results of the testing are shown on

the borehole logs at the appropriate depth. The Is50 values for the rock ranged from 0.1 MPa to 3.7 MPa,

indicating that the rock samples tested were of very low strength to very high strength

9. Geotechnical Model

Two geotechnical cross-sections (Sections D-D’, and E-E’) showing the interpreted subsurface profile

between selected boreholes, are presented as Drawings 2 and 3 in Appendix B. The cross-section C-

C’ (Drawing 5) from the previous Building C report, near the northern boundary of Building AB, is also

included in Appendix B. The sections show interpreted geotechnical divisions of underlying soil and

rock together with the proposed basement level and approximate location of the decline tunnel.

It should be noted that the interpreted boundaries shown on the sections are accurate at the borehole

locations only and layers shown diagrammatically on the drawings are inferred only. Bands of lower

and higher strength rock should be expected within the generalised layers.

Page 7 of 17


The rock encountered in the cored boreholes has been classified in accordance with the procedures

given in Reference 1, which use a combination of rock strength and fracture spacing to divide the rock

into five classes ranging from Class I (high strength and very few defects) to Class V (extremely low to

very low strength and/or highly fractured). The interpreted depth and Reduced Level (RL) at the top of

the various rock classes are shown in Tables 2A and 2B. In some cases the classification for the

stronger rock has been downgraded due to fracture spacing and the presence of weaker seams.

The nearest boreholes from the previous investigation for Building C are also included in the tables.

Table 2A: Summary of Depths to Top of Various Rock Strata

Bore

Surface

RL

(AHD)

Depth to Shale/Siltstone/Laminite Strata (units in m) Depth to Sandstone

Strata (units in m)

Class V-IV Class III-IV Class II-III Class II-I Class II-III Class II-I

101 56.8 2.5 3.2 7.7 - - -

102 57.0 2.5 4.5 7.7 9.8 - -

103 57.9 2.7 3.8 7.4 - - -

104 58.7 3.0 4.3 6.0 6.8 - -

105 56.7 3.2 4.5 6.9 9.5 - -

106 57.5 3.0 - 7.7 10.0 - -

107 58.3 3.0 4.1 - 7.0 - 24.6

108 58.5 2.9 4.2 5.5 6.3 - -

6 56.9 2.5 3.4 6.0 11.1 - 17.0

7 57.5 1.5 - 5.5 12.5 - -

8 57.6 1.4 4.4 7.5 12.2 - -

10 57.2 1.4 3.6 6.0 11.0 - 20.3

Page 8 of 17


Table 2B: Summary of RL (AHD) to Top of Various Rock Strata

Bore

Surface

RL

(AHD)

RL to Shale/Siltstone/Laminite Strata (units in m) RL Sandstone Strata

(units in m)

Class V-IV Class III-IV Class II-III Class II-I Class II-III Class II-I

101 56.8 54.3 53.6 49.1 - - -

102 57.0 54.5 52.5 49.3 47.2 - -

103 57.9 55.2 54.1 50.5 - - -

104 58.7 55.7 54.4 52.7 51.9 - -

105 56.7 53.5 52.2 49.8 47.2 - -

106 57.5 54.5 - 49.8 47.5 - -

107 58.3 55.3 54.2 - 51.3 - 33.7

108 58.5 55.6 54.3 53.0 52.2 - -

6 56.9 54.4 53.5 50.9 45.8 - 39.9

7 57.5 56.0 - 52.0 45.0 - -

8 57.6 56.2 53.2 50.1 45.4 - -

10 57.2 55.8 53.6 51.2 46.2 - 36.9

10. Proposed Development

The proposed development (Building AB) will include the construction of a multi-storey building with a

two level basement carpark. Based on the architectural drawings prepared by Turner (ref: Project No.

19002, dated 19 December 2019), the design floor level of Basement 02 is at RL50.42 m and will require

excavation to depths of approximately 6 m to 7 m. The design and construction of the shoring and

footing system will need to consider the presence of the decommissioned and backfilled tunnel under

the building footprint, as well as the proximity to the main ECRL tunnels and the associated west service

shaft.

Requirements for developments near rail infrastructure are outlined in the ECRL Underground

Infrastructure Protection Guidelines Report No. 20007300/PO-4532, prepared by Transport

Infrastructure (2008). The Sydney Metro Underground Corridor Protection Technical Guidelines

prepared by TfNSW (Ref NWRLSRT-PBA-SRT-TU-REP-000008, Rev1 dated 16 October 2017)

provides further comments and assessment criteria on the ECRL and also other tunnels. The Technical

Guidelines specify the “first reserve” boundary to extend 5 m from the outer edge of the tunnel, and the

“second reserve” boundary to extend a further 25 m from the “first reserve” boundary. The southern

part of the site along Waterloo Road and adjacent to the west service shaft of the tunnels are expected

to be within the 2nd reserve boundary therefore the proposed development will probably require a

detailed engineering impact assessment and review by TfNSW/Sydney Metro.

The rail reserve boundaries should be confirmed by TfNSW/Sydney Metro and properly set out by

registered surveyors prior to detailed design and construction.

Page 9 of 17


11. Comments

11.1 Excavation Conditions

Excavation for the two level basement to about 7 m depth is expected to require the removal of mostly

soil and extremely low to low strength shale and laminite, and medium to high strength shale and laminite

in the deeper parts of the excavation in some areas.

Excavation of soil and extremely low to low strength rock should be achievable using conventional

earthmoving equipment, however, the assistance of rock hammering or ripping will probably be required

for effective removal of any medium to high strength rock or ironstone bands within the weathered rock

profile. Excavation of medium and high strength rock may require heavy ripping with a large bulldozer

together with the use of hydraulic rock breakers for effective removal of this material.

11.2 Vibrations

During excavation, it will be necessary to use appropriate methods and equipment to keep ground

vibrations at adjacent buildings and structures within acceptable limits. Excavations within soil and

extremely low to low strength rock are not expected to generate excessive vibrations. The use of heavy

ripping and rock hammers in the deeper parts may generate vibrations which should be monitored.

Ground vibration can be strongly perceptible to humans at levels above 2.5 mm/s peak particle velocity

(PPVi). This is generally much lower than the vibration levels required to cause structural damage to

buildings. The Australian Standard AS2670.2-1990 “Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body

vibrations – continuous and shock induced vibrations in buildings (1-80 Hz)” indicates an acceptable

day time limit of 8 mm/s PPVi for human comfort.

Based on the experience of DP and with reference to AS2670, it is suggested that a maximum PPVi of

8 mm/s (applicable at the foundation level of existing buildings/structures) be employed at this site for

both architectural and human comfort considerations, although this vibration limit may need to be

reduced if there are sensitive buildings, structures or equipment in the area.

In relation to rail tunnels below Waterloo Road, further advice on the vibration criteria will need to be

sought from TfNSW. Based on our experience, it is anticipated that TfNSW may nominate a vibration

limit of 12.5 mm/s for the rail tunnels and west shaft.

As the magnitude of vibration transmission is site specific, it is recommended that a vibration trial be

undertaken at the commencement of rock excavation. The trial may indicate that smaller or different

types of excavation equipment should be used for bulk (or detailed) excavation purposes.

11.3 Dilapidation Surveys

Dilapidation surveys should be carried out on adjacent buildings, pavements and infrastructure that may

be affected by the excavation works. The dilapidation surveys should be undertaken before the

commencement of any excavation work in order to document any existing defects so that claims for

damage due to construction related activities can be accurately assessed. If NSW may require

Page 10 of 17


dilapidation surveys if the tunnels and rest shaft depending on the final layout and depth of the

excavation.

11.4 Disposal of Excavated Material

All excavated materials will need to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the current

legislation and guidelines including the Waste Classification Guidelines (EPA, 2014). This includes

filling and natural materials that may be removed from the site. Accordingly, environmental testing will

need to be carried out to classify spoil prior to transport from the site. Reference should be made to

DP’s “Report on Detailed Site Investigation” for the overall site (Project 85837.01, dated July 2017) for

details on the contamination status of the soils.

11.5 Excavation Support

Vertical excavations within the filling, soils and shale/laminite will require both temporary and permanent

lateral support during and after excavation. Excavations in shale and laminite will also need to consider

jointing and potential wedges that may be formed, although this is unlikely to govern design for the

relatively shallow two level basement excavation.

11.5.1 Batter Slopes

Suggested temporary and permanent batter slopes for unsupported excavations up to a maximum

height of 4 m are shown in Table 3. If surcharge loads are applied near the crest of the slope then

further specific geotechnical review and probably flatter batters or stabilisation using rock bolts or soil

nails may be required.

Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes for Exposed Material

Exposed Material

Maximum Temporary Batter

Slope

(H : V)

Maximum Permanent Batter

Slope

(H : V)

Filling / Clay 1 : 1 2 : 1**

Class V Shale/Laminite 1 : 1 1.5 : 1*

Class IV / III Shale/Laminite or

better 1 : 1 1 : 1*

Note: * Subject to jointing assessment by experienced Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist

** Permanent batters in soil may need to be reduced to 3H: 1V to facilitate maintenance of grassed slopes, if required

11.5.2 Shoring Walls

Where batter slopes cannot be accommodated, shoring walls will be required to support the filling, soils

and rock. Anchored soldier pile walls are often used to provide temporary retaining support to residual

soils and weathered rock.

Page 11 of 17


The soldier piles are usually spaced at approximately 2 m to 2.5 m centres, and should be founded at

least two pile diameters below the lowest excavation level (including detailed excavation). More closely

spaced piles may be required to reduce wall movements, or prevent collapse of infill materials,

particularly where pavements, structures or services are located in close proximity to the excavation.

At the completion of each 1.5 m to 2.0 m drop in excavation level, reinforced shotcrete infill panels

should be constructed. At no stage should progressive vertical excavation proceed beyond 2 m without

infill panel support being constructed. Regular inspections by a geotechnical professional should be

carried out following each progressive drop in excavation level to confirm that the conditions

encountered are consistent with the design assumptions.

It is suggested that preliminary design of cantilevered shoring systems (or shoring with one row of

anchors or propping) be based on a triangular earth pressure distribution using the earth pressure

coefficients provided in Table 4. DP could carry out further analysis if required to refine the shoring

design.

Table 4: Recommended Design Parameters for Shoring Systems

Material Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

Earth Pressure Coefficient

Active (Ka) At Rest (Ko)

Filling and Residual Clay 20 0.4 0.6

Class V Shale/Laminite 22 0.3 0.5

Class IV/III Shale/Laminite 23 0.2 0.3

Class III/II Shale/Laminite 24 10 kPa uniform 10 kPa uniform

‘Active’ earth pressure coefficient (Ka) values may be used for a flexible wall where some wall movement

is acceptable, and ‘at rest’ earth pressure (Ko) values should be used where the wall movement needs

to be reduced (i.e. adjacent to existing structures or utilities). A uniform pressure of 10 kPa should be

adopted for the support of medium strength or stronger laminite/shale between soldier piles and/or

anchors to account for minor joint wedges that may become mobilised.

Where multiple rows of anchors or propping are used it is suggested that preliminary design of shoring

walls could be based on a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution with a maximum pressure calculated

based on 4H kPa where H is equal to the retained height of soil and extremely low to low strength rock.

The maximum pressure should be increased to 6H where wall movement needs to be reduced. In each

case the maximum pressure generally acts over the central 60% of the wall, reducing to zero at the top

and base.

The design of temporary and permanent support will also need to consider the possibility that 45 degree

joints in the shale and laminite will daylight near the base of the excavation leading to wedges of rock

requiring support by the temporary and permanent retaining structures. As a guide, an anchor force

equal to 4.2H2 kN per meter length of wall would be required for a continuous 45 degree joint daylighting

at the toe of the excavation. This mechanism usually only governs shoring design for deeper

excavations in stronger shale and is unlikely to be relevant for a two level basement in mostly residual

clay and extremely low to low strength rock.

Page 12 of 17


The design of the shoring should allow for all surcharge loads, including building footings, inclined slopes

behind the wall, traffic, site sheds, and construction related activities.

Shoring walls should also be designed for full hydrostatic pressures unless drainage of the ground

behind impermeable walls can be provided. Drainage could comprise 150 mm wide strip drains pinned

to the face at 1 m to 2 m centres behind the shotcrete in-fill panels. The base of the strip drains should

extend out from the shoring wall to allow any seepage to flow into a perimeter toe drain which is

connected to the stormwater drainage system

11.5.3 Passive Resistance

Passive resistance for piles founded in rock below the base of the bulk excavation (including allowance

for services and/or footings) may be based on the ultimate passive restraint values provided in Table 5.

This ultimate value represents the pressure mobilised at high displacements and therefore it will be

necessary to incorporate a factor of safety of at least 2 to limit wall movement. The top 0.5 m of the

socket should be ignored due to possible disturbance and over-excavation.

Table 5: Recommended Passive Resistance Values

Foundation Stratum Ultimate Passive Pressure (kPa)

Class V Shale/Laminite 500

Class IV/III Shale/Laminite 1,000

Class III/II Shale/Laminite 2,000

Class II/I Shale/Laminite 4,000

11.5.4 Ground Anchors

The design of temporary and permanent ground anchors/rock bolts for the support of excavations and/or

shoring systems may be carried out on the basis of the bond stresses given in Table 6.

Table 6: Recommended Bond Stresses for Rock Anchor Design

Material Description Maximum Allowable

Bond Stress (kPa)

Maximum Ultimate Bond

Stress (kPa)

Class V Shale/Laminite 75 150

Class IV/III Shale/Laminite 100 200

Class III/II Shale/Laminite 200 400

Class II/I Shale/Laminite 500 1000

The parameters given in Table 6 assume that the drilled holes are clean and adequately flushed. The

anchors should be bonded behind a line drawn up at 45 degrees from the base of the shoring and "lift-

off" tests should be carried out to confirm the anchor capacities. It is suggested that ground anchors

should be proof loaded to 125% of the design Working load and locked-off at no higher than 80% of the

Working load.

Page 13 of 17


11.6 Excavation Induced Ground Movement and Adjacent Rail Infrastructure

Based on the drawings attached in ECRL Project Guidelines, the proposed basement excavation will

be partially within the 2nd reserve of the tunnel protection zone. As such, a detailed impact assessment

and review by TfNSW will most likely be required.

The detailed assessment of the interaction between the proposed basement excavation (and building

construction) and the existing ECRL tunnels and western shaft could be carried out by numerical

modelling and will probably be required by TfNSW.

Precise survey monitoring of excavation faces and nearby buildings/structures should be carried out to

assess vertical and horizontal movements during the excavation. The survey should commence prior

to excavation to provide a baseline and should continue every 1.5 m drop of the excavation. If surveyed

deflections show a rapid increase in the rate of movement or exceed the predicted movements, then the

structural engineer and geotechnical engineer should be contacted for immediate review.

11.7 Groundwater

It is expected that perched groundwater seepage will occur along the top of the clay and rock and

through joints and along bedding planes within the rock exposed in the basement floor and walls.

Seepage flows are likely to increase following periods of extended wet weather. It is expected that the

decommissioned decline tunnel and also the Macquarie Park station cavern would drain groundwater

from the overlying rock mass in the area. It is expected that the regional groundwater table would be

encountered well below the proposed basement. The Building C excavation was relatively dry during

construction with only very minor seepage observed after rainfall.

During construction and in the long term, it is anticipated that seepage into the excavation could be

controlled by perimeter and subfloor drainage connected to a sump-and-pump system. On this basis,

a drained basement may be considered for this site. Generally, water collected from dewatering

operations should be suitable for disposal by pumping to stormwater drains subject to confirmation

testing of groundwater quality and approval from the Council.

DPI Office of Water prepared the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy (Sept 2012). An extract from Section

1.2 is reproduced below.

“1.2 What is an aquifer?

Under the Water Management Act 2000 an aquifer is a geological structure or formation, or an artificial

landfill, that is permeated with water or is capable of being permeated with water. More generally, the

term ‘aquifer’ is commonly understood to mean a groundwater system that is sufficiently permeable to

allow water to move within it, and which can yield productive volumes of groundwater. Groundwater is

all water that occurs beneath the ground surface in the saturated zone. A groundwater system is any

type of saturated geological formation that can yield anywhere from low to high volumes of water. For

the purposes of this Policy the term aquifer has the same meaning as groundwater system and includes

low yielding and saline systems”.

Based on the definition of an aquifer given in the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, it is expected that

excavations to depths of 7 m on this site will not intercept the “saturated zone” or a “saturated geological

formation” and therefore it is considered that the basement excavations will not intercept an aquifer.

Page 14 of 17


11.8 Foundations

It is expected that medium strength or stronger shale will be exposed close to the bulk excavation level

over most of the site. However, in some areas over the western part of the site, rock with closely-spaced

defects or weak seams will be exposed below the bases of high-level footings so a downgrade of the

bearing pressure may be necessary. Some footings for Building C encountered highly fractured rock

and had to be locally deepened. Pad footings may be suitable in some areas depending on loads and

settlement tolerances. Alternatively piles could be used to reach stronger rock, particularly in areas

where weaker rock is exposed.

Bored piles should be suitable, however some form of casing will be required where piles are required

to penetrate through the decline ramp and tunnel backfill if required. The use of bentonite to support

the backfill material could be considered but further advice should be sought from a specialist piling

contractor. Alternatively Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles could be considered to avoid the issues

associated with collapsing filling in the tunnel backfill material. Selection of piling rigs will need to

consider the presence of high and very high strength rock if rock sockets are required to be drilled in

these materials, and also the presence of granular filling which could lead to grout/concrete loss.

Seepage should be expected within the open piles and therefore allowance for pumping to remove water

or the use of tremmie methods to place concrete should be considered. Relatively high seepage flows

can sometimes occur within the fractured shale/laminite and at the shale/sandstone interface.

In relation to footings near the decline tunnel the following general requirements are suggested as

adopted for Building C:

• Footings within 3 m from the edge of the tunnel to be founded on piles below the base of the tunnel;

• Footings set back more than 3 m from the edge of the tunnel should be founded below a 60 degree

line (above horizontal) from the base of the tunnel;

The existing drawings and borehole data indicate that the crest of the decline tunnel may be about 8 m

below the assumed bulk excavation level (RL51.2 m) at the northern end of Building AB and about 12 m

below the basement at the southern end. The boreholes suggest that the decline tunnel is formed in

shale/laminate at the northern end and sandstone at the southern end of Building AB footprint.

Further geotechnical review and numerical modelling could be carried out once the proposed

column/footing layout has been developed, in order to assess whether some high level pad footings can

be founded near the decline tunnel alignment to reduce the piling requirements. This may be possible

at the southern end where the tunnel is deeper and formed in sandstone but will be marginal and

associated with higher risk at the northern end where the tunnel is shallower and formed in

shale/laminite. This will essentially depend on the tunnel depth below the footing level, rock

strength/type, footing load and settlement tolerances. It is suggested that the core should be located

outside the zone of influence or otherwise supported on piles.

Design of footings may be based on the parameters provided in Table 7. For bored piles, if required,

shaft adhesion values for uplift (tension) may be taken as being equal to 70% of the shaft adhesion

values for compression in Table 7.

Page 15 of 17


Table 7: Design Parameters for Foundation Design

Foundation Stratum

Maximum Allowable Pressure Maximum Ultimate Pressure

End Bearing

(kPa)

Shaft Adhesion

(Compression)*

(kPa)

End

Bearing

(kPa)

Shaft Adhesion

(Compression)*

(kPa)

Extremely low strength

shale/laminite (Class V) 700 70 1,500 150

Very low to low strength

shale/laminite (IV) 1,000 100 3,000 150

Medium strength or stronger

shale/laminite (Class III) 3,500 350 15,000 600

Medium to high strength

shale/laminite (Class II or

better)

6,000 500 30,000 1,000

High strength sandstone

(Class II or better) 10,000 800 80,000 2,000

Foundations proportioned on the basis of the allowable bearing pressures in Table 7 would be expected

to experience total settlements of less than 1% of the footing width under the applied working load, with

differential settlements between adjacent columns expected to be less than half of this value.

Spoon testing will be required in about 50% of pad footings that are designed for an allowable end

bearing pressure of more than 6000 kPa.

All footings should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to confirm that foundation conditions are

suitable for the design parameters.

11.9 Footings Adjacent to Rail Corridor and Sydney Trains Stratum Easement

TfNSW standard requirements are usually that no footings can be located above a line which extends

at 45 degrees up from the lowest excavation level for the existing station or rail tunnels (i.e. Influence

Zone). However, these requirements have been developed to cover all sites, including those with deep

soils. On this site, it is likely that numerical modelling would show that high level footings or piles (non-

sleeved) founded at relatively shallower depths would have minimal impact on the rail infrastructure.

This solution, if required, would require detailed modelling to be undertaken during the detailed design

stage and would require negotiations and agreement with TfNSW.

Page 16 of 17


11.10 Subgrade Preparation and Engineered Fill

Following stripping of topsoil and external existing pavement, it is suggested that site preparation and

engineered filling for lightly loaded external pavements and/or raising of site levels should incorporate

the following:

• stripping of vegetation, organic topsoil and obvious unsuitable material;

• rolling of the exposed subgrade with at least 8 passes of a vibrating smooth drum roller with a

minimum static weight of 10 tonnes. The final pass (proof roll) of the subgrade should be inspected

by a geotechnical engineer to detect any soft or heaving areas. Any soft spots detected during

proof rolling would generally need to be stripped to a stiff base or depth of approximately 0.5 m,

subject to confirmation by a geotechnical engineer, and replaced with engineered filling;

• engineered filling for replacing soft spots or raising site levels should be placed in layers of 300 mm

maximum loose thickness and compacted to a dry density ratio of between 98% and 102% relative

to Standard compaction with moisture contents strictly within 2% of Standard optimum moisture

content (OMC). The density ratio should be increased to between 100% and 102% Standard

compaction within 0.3 m of the finished surface. The existing filling and clayey soils on site should

generally be suitable for re-use as engineered filling provided it has a maximum particle size of

150 mm and moisture content within 2% of Standard OMC. Reuse of material should also consider

the contamination status of the soil, which may require further assessment;

• density testing of each layer of filling should be undertaken in accordance with AS 3798-2007

“Guidelines for Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments” to verify that specified

density ratios have been achieved.

Based on DP’s experience, preliminary design of pavements on clayey subgrade could be based on a

design California bearing ratio (CBR) of 3%. Further inspection and possibly laboratory testing of the

exposed subgrade soils should be carried out by an experienced geotechnical engineer during the

earthworks.

12. Limitations

Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park

in accordance with DP’s proposal SYD190589.P.001.Rev0 dated 25 June 2019. This report is provided

for the exclusive use of John Holland Group (JHG) for this project only and for the purposes as described

in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other

site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as

stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without

recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon

information provided by the client and/or their agents.

The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the

specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the

work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes

and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been

completed.

Page 17 of 17


DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation and previous

investigations by DP. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by

undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or

testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site

accessibility.

This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without

separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or

conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,

outcome or conclusion stated in this report.

This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without

review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather

than instructions for construction.

The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the

Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards

likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design

process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent upon

factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life. This,

in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role respectively

of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential

hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works,

if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk

assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the geotechnical components set out in this

report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and

demolition.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A

About This Report

July 2010

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's

report in regard to classification methods, field

procedures and the comments section. Not all are

necessarily relevant to all reports.

DP's reports are based on information gained from

limited subsurface excavations and sampling,

supplemented by knowledge of local geology and

experience. For this reason, they must be

regarded as interpretive rather than factual

documents, limited to some extent by the scope of

information on which they rely.

Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty

Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose

for which it was commissioned and in accordance

with the Conditions of Engagement for the

commission supplied at the time of proposal.

Unauthorised use of this report in any form

whatsoever is prohibited.

Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this

report are an engineering and/or geological

interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and

their reliability will depend to some extent on

frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or

excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed

sampling or core drilling will provide the most

reliable assessment, but this is not always

practicable or possible to justify on economic

grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits

represent only a very small sample of the total

subsurface profile.

Interpretation of the information and its application

to design and construction should therefore take

into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the

frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other

than 'straight line' variations between the test

locations.

Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in

boreholes there are several potential problems,

namely:

• In low permeability soils groundwater may

enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all

during the time the hole is left open;

• A localised, perched water table may lead to

an erroneous indication of the true water

table;

• Water table levels will vary from time to time

with seasons or recent weather changes.

They may not be the same at the time of

construction as are indicated in the report;

and

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will

mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to

be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must

first be washed out of the hole if water

measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by

installing standpipes which are read at intervals

over several days, or perhaps weeks for low

permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a

particular stratum, may be advisable in low

permeability soils or where there may be

interference from a perched water table.

Reports The report has been prepared by qualified

personnel, is based on the information obtained

from field and laboratory testing, and has been

undertaken to current engineering standards of

interpretation and analysis. Where the report has

been prepared for a specific design proposal, the

information and interpretation may not be relevant

if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,

DP will be pleased to review the report and the

sufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates to

interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion

of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and

recommendations or suggestions for design and

construction. However, DP cannot always

anticipate or assume responsibility for:

• Unexpected variations in ground conditions.

The potential for this will depend partly on

borehole or pit spacing and sampling

frequency;

• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy

by statutory authorities; or

• The actions of contractors responding to

commercial pressures.

If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with

investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

July 2010

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site

during construction appear to vary from those

which were expected from the information

contained in the report, DP requests that it be

immediately notified. Most problems are much

more readily resolved when conditions are

exposed rather than at some later stage, well after

the event.

Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is

provided for tendering purposes, it is

recommended that all information, including the

written report and discussion, be made available.

In circumstances where the discussion or

comments section is not relevant to the contractual

situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a

specially edited document. DP would be pleased

to assist in this regard and/or to make additional

report copies available for contract purposes at a

nominal charge.

Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide

engineering inspection services for geotechnical

and environmental aspects of work to which this

report is related. This could range from a site visit

to confirm that conditions exposed are as

expected, to full time engineering presence on

site.

Appendix B

Drawings

W

A

T

E

R

L

O

O

R

O

A

D

101

102

103

104

108

107

106

105

BH2

BH3

BH4

BH5

BH6

BH7

BH8

BH9

BH10

D'

D

E'

E

C'

C

85837.07

03.9.2019

Sydney PSCH

1:1000 @A3

Test Location Plan

Proposed Mixed-Use Development (Building AB)

45-61 Waterloo Road, MACQUARIE PARK

1DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

CLIENT:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: DATE:

OFFICE:

TITLE:

N

SITE

John Holland Group Pty Ltd

LEGEND

Previous borehole location (Proj. 85837.02-1

dated 25.7.2017)

Current borehole location

Backfilled decline tunnel

Approximate 1st Reserve (ECRL/Metro)

Approximate 2nd Reserve (ECRL/Metro)

Interpreted Geotechnical Cross-Section (using previous boreholes)

Interpreted Geotechnical Cross-Section

Locality Plan

NOTE:

1: Base image from Nearmap.com

(Date 1.7.2019)

2: The tunnel reserve zones are based on "Rail Protection

Reserves Plan" Sheet 12 of 20, Drawing No. PRL GD 02478.

Rev B. in "ECRL Underground Infrastructure Protection

Guidelines"

3: The alignment of backfilled decline tunnel is based on

"Macquarie Park Station Reinstatement Works - Waterloo

Road Decline Sheet 1", Drawing No. PRL-CSD 1618541.Rev3.

2

n

d

R

E

S

E

R

V

E

1

s

t

R

E

S

E

R

V

E

0 10 20 30 40 50

1:1000 @ A3

100m75

C C'

D D'

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

N = 36

refusal

Offset - 2.7m

Bottom Depth

11 m

BH101

N = 44

refusal

N = 49

Offset - 0.9m

Bottom Depth

11.41 m

BH102

N = 33

refusal

Offset 2.6m

Bottom Depth

10.8 m

BH103

N = 25

refusal

refusal

Offset - 2.7m

Bottom Depth

10.57 m

BH104

OFFICE: DRAWN BY:

CLIENT: TITLE: PROJECT No:

DRAWING No:

REVISION:19.11.2019

2

1

JH

ELE

VA

TIO

N (A

HD

)

Core Loss

Filling

Laminite

1:300 (H)

1:150 (V)

0 6

Horizontal Scale (metres)

SCALE: @ A3

Sydney

DATE:

LEGEND

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (m)

Roadbase

Shale

Siltstone

Silty Clay


D D'

Vertical Exaggeration = 2.0



Interpreted Geotechnical Cross-Section D-D'

85837.07

Geotechnics Environment GroundwaterDouglas Partners

ROCK STRENGTH

EL - Extremely low

VL - Very low

L - Low

M - Medium

H - High

SOIL STRENGTH/CONSISTENCY

f - Firm

st - Stiff

vst - Very stiff

h - Hard

l - Loose

md- Medium dense

d - Dense

vd - Very dense

NOTE:

1. Subsurface conditions are accurate at borehole locations. Variations in subsurface

conditions may occur between borehole locations. Interpreted strata boundaries are

approximate and should be used as a guide only.

2. See report for more detailed strata unit descriptions.

3. Summary logs only. Should be read in conjunction with detailed logs.

TESTS / OTHER

N - Standard penetration test value

- Water level

- Inferred Geology

SILTY CLAY: st-h

SILTSTONE/LAMINITE/SHALE: Class III-II

SILTSTONE/LAMINITE: Class II-I

SHALE/SILTSTONE: Class V-IV

FILLING

SHALE/SILTSTONE: Class IV-III

RL 50.42m AHD Basement 02 Floor Level

vst-h

h

EL

L

M

M-H

H

M-H

M

vst-h

h

EL-VL

M

M

M-H

h

L-M

M

st-vst

h

VL

L-M

M & H

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

N = 26

N = 28

refusal

Offset 0.7m

Bottom Depth

12.41 m

BH105

N = 42

N = 41

refusal

Offset - 5.0m

Bottom Depth

10.33 m

BH106

N = 32

refusal

N = 0

N = 39

Offset - 0.9m

Bottom Depth

27.75 m

BH107

N = 46

refusal

refusal

Offset 0.7m

Bottom Depth

10.14 m

BH108

OFFICE: DRAWN BY:


DRAWING No:

REVISION:19.11.2019

3

1

JH

ELE

VA

TIO

N (A

HD

)

Core Loss

Asphaltic Concrete

Concrete

1:300 (H)

1:150 (V)

0 6

Horizontal Scale (metres)

SCALE: @ A3

Sydney

DATE:

LEGEND


E E'

Vertical Exaggeration = 2.0



Interpreted Geotechnical Cross-Section E-E'

85837.07

SILTY CLAY: st-h

SILTSTONE/LAMINITE/SHALE: Class III-II

SILTSTONE/LAMINITE: Class II-I

SHALE/SILTSTONE: Class V-IV

FILLING

SHALE/SILTSTONE: Class IV-III

SANDSTONE: Class II-I

BACKFILLED TUNNEL

RL 50.42m AHD Basement 02 Floor Level

Filling Shale

Laminite

Roadbase

Sandstone

Siltstone

Silty Clay

Void

Geotechnics Environment GroundwaterDouglas Partners

ROCK STRENGTH

EL - Extremely low

VL - Very low

L - Low

M - Medium

H - High

SOIL STRENGTH/CONSISTENCY

f - Firm

st - Stiff

vst - Very stiff

h - Hard

l - Loose

md- Medium dense

d - Dense

vd - Very dense

NOTE:

1. Subsurface conditions are accurate at borehole locations. Variations in subsurface

conditions may occur between borehole locations. Interpreted strata boundaries are

approximate and should be used as a guide only.

2. See report for more detailed strata unit descriptions.

3. Summary logs only. Should be read in conjunction with detailed logs.

TESTS / OTHER


- Water level

- Inferred Geology


st-vst

h

VL

M

M-H

st-vst

h

VL-L

M-H

vst-h

h

VL

L

M-H

H

VH

H

VH

M-H

H

vst

h

VL

M

M-H

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

h

EL-L

L-M

M

H-M

L-M

H

H-VH

H

H

3,4,9

N = 13

6

st

h

EL

VL

M

H-M

M

H

10,18,30/130mm

refusal

7

vst

EL

EL-VL/M

EL-VL

L-M/M

M-H

M

H

4,14,19

N = 33

8

h

EL-VL

VL

L

M-H

M

H-VH

H

APPARENT

VOID

(tunnel

backfill)

CONCRETE

(base

of

tunnel)

H

M-H

H

9,29,25/130mm

refusal

2,2,3

N = 5

3,2,5

N = 7

10

OFFICE: DRAWN BY:


DRAWING No:

REVISION:25.07.2017

4STE/LD

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (A

HD

)

Core Loss

Clay

Concrete

1:300 (H)

1:150 (V)

SCALE: @ A3

Sydney

DATE:

LEGEND


Blank Lithology (with border)

Filling

Laminite

Sandstone coarse grained

Sandstone fine grained

Shale

Shaly Clay

Siltstone

Topsoil

Proposed Mixed Use Development

C C'



Interpreted Geotechnical Cross Section C-C'

85837.02

ROCK STRENGTH

EL - Extremely Low

VL - Very Low

L - Low

M - Medium

H - High

VH - Very High

TESTS / OTHERSOIL CONSISTENCY

f - firm

st - stiff

vst - very stiff

h - hard


- Water level

FILLING

CLAY: st-h

SHALE: EL

SHALE: EL-VL

RL 51.0 PROPOSED BASEMENT

NOTE:

1. Subsurface conditions are accurate at the borehole

locations only and variations may occur away from

the borehole locations.

2. Strata layers and rock classification shown are

generalised and each layer can include bands

of lower or higher strength rock and also bands

of less or more fractured rock.

3. Summary logs only. Should be read in conjunction

with detailed logs.

ROCK CLASSIFICATION (Pells et al 1998)

Class 5

Class 4

Class 3

Class 2

Class 1

0

BACKFILLED

TUNNEL

SHALE/LAMINITE: L-M&M

SHALE: M-H

SILTSTONE: M

SHALE/SILTSTONE: H

SANDSTONE/LAMINITE: M-H&H

SANDSTONE: H

Appendix C

Results of Field Work

July 2010

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting

to allow engineering examination (and laboratory

testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide

information on colour, type, inclusions and,

depending upon the degree of disturbance, some

information on strength and structure.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-

walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it

to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively

undisturbed state. Such samples yield information

on structure and strength, and are necessary for

laboratory determination of shear strength and

compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally

effective only in cohesive soils.

Test Pits Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or

an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-

situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth

of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe

and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential

disadvantage of this investigation method is the

larger area of disturbance to the site.

Large Diameter Augers Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or

short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in

diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling

rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at

intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are

disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture

content. Identification of soil strata is generally

much more reliable than with continuous spiral

flight augers, and is usually supplemented by

occasional undisturbed tube samples.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm

diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are

withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ

testing. This is a relatively economical means of

drilling in clays and sands above the water table.

Samples are returned to the surface, or may be

collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but

they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils

from the sides of the hole. Information from the

drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs

or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low

reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing

or softening of samples by groundwater.

Non-core Rotary Drilling The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with

water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill

rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill

cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can

be determined from the cuttings, together with

some information from the rate of penetration.

Where drilling mud is used this can mask the

cuttings and reliable identification is only possible

from separate sampling such as SPTs.

Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample can be obtained using a

diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm

internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is

achieved (which is not always possible in weak

rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a

very reliable method of investigation.

Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a

means of estimating the density or strength of soils

and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed

sample. The test procedure is described in

Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing

Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.

The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50

mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of

a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is

normal for the tube to be driven in three

successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value

is taken as the number of blows for the last 300

mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak

rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be

practicable and the test is discontinued.

The test results are reported in the following form.

• In the case where full penetration is obtained

with successive blow counts for each 150 mm

of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:

4,6,7

N=13

• In the case where the test is discontinued

before the full penetration depth, say after 15

blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for

the next 40 mm as:

15, 30/40 mm

July 2010

The results of the SPT tests can be related

empirically to the engineering properties of the

soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /

Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are

carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground

using a standard weight of hammer falling a

specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil

the number of blows required to penetrate each

successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally

there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be

extended in certain conditions by the use of

extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are

commonly used.

• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter

flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer

dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This

test was developed for testing the density of

sands and is mainly used in granular soils and

filling.

• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod

with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven

using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS

1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed

initially for pavement subgrade investigations,

and correlations of the test results with

California Bearing Ratio have been published

by various road authorities.

May 2019

Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of

soils and rocks used in this report are generally

based on Australian Standard AS1726:2017,

Geotechnical Site Investigations. In general, the

descriptions include strength or density, colour,

structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.

Soil Types Soil types are described according to the

predominant particle size, qualified by the grading

of other particles present:

Type Particle size (mm)

Boulder >200

Cobble 63 - 200

Gravel 2.36 - 63

Sand 0.075 - 2.36

Silt 0.002 - 0.075

Clay <0.002

The sand and gravel sizes can be further

subdivided as follows:

Type Particle size (mm)

Coarse gravel 19 - 63

Medium gravel 6.7 - 19

Fine gravel 2.36 – 6.7

Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36

Medium sand 0.21 - 0.6

Fine sand 0.075 - 0.21

Definitions of grading terms used are:

Well graded - a good representation of all

particle sizes

Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of

particular sizes within the specified range

Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular

particle size

Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular

particle size with the range

The proportions of secondary constituents of soils

are described as follows:

In fine grained soils (>35% fines)

Term Proportion

of sand or

gravel

Example

And Specify Clay (60%) and

Sand (40%)

Adjective >30% Sandy Clay

With 15 – 30% Clay with sand

Trace 0 - 15% Clay with trace

sand

In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)

- with clays or silts

Term Proportion

of fines

Example

And Specify Sand (70%) and

Clay (30%)

Adjective >12% Clayey Sand

With 5 - 12% Sand with clay

Trace 0 - 5% Sand with trace

clay

In coarse grained soils (>65% coarse)

- with coarser fraction

Term Proportion

of coarser

fraction

Example

And Specify Sand (60%) and

Gravel (40%)

Adjective >30% Gravelly Sand

With 15 - 30% Sand with gravel

Trace 0 - 15% Sand with trace

gravel

The presence of cobbles and boulders shall be

specifically noted by beginning the description with

‘Mix of Soil and Cobbles/Boulders’ with the word

order indicating the dominant first and the

proportion of cobbles and boulders described

together.

May 2019

Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the

basis of undrained shear strength. The strength

may be measured by laboratory testing, or

estimated by field tests or engineering

examination. The strength terms are defined as

follows:

Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength

(kPa)

Very soft VS <12

Soft S 12 - 25

Firm F 25 - 50

Stiff St 50 - 100

Very stiff VSt 100 - 200

Hard H >200

Friable Fr -

Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are

classified on the basis of relative density, generally

from the results of standard penetration tests

(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic

penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms

are given below:

Relative Density

Abbreviation Density Index (%)

Very loose VL <15

Loose L 15-35

Medium dense MD 35-65

Dense D 65-85

Very dense VD >85

Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin

of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:

Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering

of the underlying rock;

Extremely weathered material – formed from

in-situ weathering of geological formations.

Has soil strength but retains the structure or

fabric of the parent rock;

Alluvial soil – deposited by streams and rivers;

Estuarine soil – deposited in coastal estuaries;

Marine soil – deposited in a marine

environment;

Lacustrine soil – deposited in freshwater

lakes;

Aeolian soil – carried and deposited by wind;

Colluvial soil – soil and rock debris

transported down slopes by gravity;

Topsoil – mantle of surface soil, often with

high levels of organic material.

Fill – any material which has been moved by

man.

Moisture Condition – Coarse Grained Soils For coarse grained soils the moisture condition

should be described by appearance and feel using

the following terms:

Dry (D) Non-cohesive and free-running.

Moist (M) Soil feels cool, darkened in

colour.

Soil tends to stick together.

Sand forms weak ball but breaks

easily.

Wet (W) Soil feels cool, darkened in

colour.

Soil tends to stick together, free

water forms when handling.

Moisture Condition – Fine Grained Soils For fine grained soils the assessment of moisture

content is relative to their plastic limit or liquid limit,

as follows:

‘Moist, dry of plastic limit’ or ‘w <PL’ (i.e. hard

and friable or powdery).

‘Moist, near plastic limit’ or ‘w ≈ PL (i.e. soil can

be moulded at moisture content approximately

equal to the plastic limit).

‘Moist, wet of plastic limit’ or ‘w >PL’ (i.e. soils

usually weakened and free water forms on the

hands when handling).

‘Wet’ or ‘w ≈LL’ (i.e. near the liquid limit).

‘Wet’ or ‘w >LL’ (i.e. wet of the liquid limit).

May 2019

Rock Strength Rock strength is defined by the Unconfined Compressive Strength and it refers to the strength of the rock

substance and not the strength of the overall rock mass, which may be considerably weaker due to defects.

The Point Load Strength Index Is(50) is commonly used to provide an estimate of the rock strength and site

specific correlations should be developed to allow UCS values to be determined. The point load strength

test procedure is described by Australian Standard AS4133.4.1-2007. The terms used to describe rock

strength are as follows:

Strength Term Abbreviation Unconfined Compressive Strength MPa

Point Load Index *

Is(50) MPa

Very low VL 0.6 - 2 0.03 - 0.1

Low L 2 - 6 0.1 - 0.3

Medium M 6 - 20 0.3 - 1.0

High H 20 - 60 1 - 3

Very high VH 60 - 200 3 - 10

Extremely high EH >200 >10

* Assumes a ratio of 20:1 for UCS to Is(50). It should be noted that the UCS to Is(50) ratio varies significantly

for different rock types and specific ratios should be determined for each site.

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

Term Abbreviation Description

Residual Soil RS Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and fabric of original rock are no longer visible, but the soil has not been significantly transported.

Extremely weathered XW Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass structure and material texture and fabric of original rock are still visible

Highly weathered HW The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the colour of the original rock is not recognisable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary minerals have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores.

Moderately weathered

MW The whole of the rock material is discoloured , usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the colour of the original rock is not recognisable, but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.

Slightly weathered SW Rock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.

Fresh FR No signs of decomposition or staining.

Note: If HW and MW cannot be differentiated use DW (see below)

Distinctly weathered DW Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly discoloured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by leaching or may be decreased due to deposition of weathered products in pores.

May 2019

Degree of Fracturing The following classification applies to the spacing of natural fractures in diamond drill cores. It includes

bedding plane partings, joints and other defects, but excludes drilling breaks.

Term Description

Fragmented Fragments of <20 mm

Highly Fractured Core lengths of 20-40 mm with occasional fragments

Fractured Core lengths of 30-100 mm with occasional shorter and longer sections

Slightly Fractured Core lengths of 300 mm or longer with occasional sections of 100-300 mm

Unbroken Core contains very few fractures

Rock Quality Designation The quality of the cored rock can be measured using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index, defined

as:

RQD % = cumulative length of 'sound' core sections 100 mm long

total drilled length of section being assessed

where 'sound' rock is assessed to be rock of low strength or stronger. The RQD applies only to natural

fractures. If the core is broken by drilling or handling (i.e. drilling breaks) then the broken pieces are fitted

back together and are not included in the calculation of RQD.

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

Term Separation of Stratification Planes

Thinly laminated < 6 mm

Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm

Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm

Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m

Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m

Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m

Very thickly bedded > 2 m

May 2017

Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly

used on borehole logs and test pit reports.

Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core drilling

R Rotary drilling

SFA Spiral flight augers

NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia

NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia

HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia

PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia

Water Water seep

Water level

Sampling and Testing A Auger sample

B Bulk sample

D Disturbed sample

E Environmental sample

U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)

W Water sample

pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)

PID Photo ionisation detector

PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa

S Standard Penetration Test

V Shear vane (kPa)

Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should

be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,

Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling

and handling breaks are not usually included on

the logs.

Defect Type

B Bedding plane

Cs Clay seam

Cv Cleavage

Cz Crushed zone

Ds Decomposed seam

F Fault

J Joint

Lam Lamination

Pt Parting

Sz Sheared Zone

V Vein

Orientation

The inclination of defects is always measured from

the perpendicular to the core axis.

h horizontal

v vertical

sh sub-horizontal

sv sub-vertical

Coating or Infilling Term

cln clean

co coating

he healed

inf infilled

stn stained

ti tight

vn veneer

Coating Descriptor

ca calcite

cbs carbonaceous

cly clay

fe iron oxide

mn manganese

slt silty

Shape

cu curved

ir irregular

pl planar

st stepped

un undulating

Roughness

po polished

ro rough

sl slickensided

sm smooth

vr very rough

Other

fg fragmented

bnd band

qtz quartz

May 2017

Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General

Soils

Sedimentary Rocks

Metamorphic Rocks

Igneous Rocks

Road base

Filling

Concrete

Asphalt

Topsoil

Peat

Clay

Conglomeratic sandstone

Conglomerate

Boulder conglomerate

Sandstone

Slate, phyllite, schist

Siltstone

Mudstone, claystone, shale

Coal

Limestone

Porphyry

Cobbles, boulders

Sandy gravel

Laminite

Silty sand

Clayey sand

Silty clay

Sandy clay

Gravelly clay

Shaly clay

Silt

Clayey silt

Sandy silt

Sand

Gravel

Talus

Gneiss

Quartzite

Dolerite, basalt, andesite

Granite

Tuff, breccia

Dacite, epidote

Unless specified defectsare B0°-5°, pl, ro-smsome with fe co/st

3.2m: CORE LOSS:100mm3.44-3.65m: B(x4) 0°, pl,infill 1-2mm cly

3.82m: CORE LOSS:240mm4.13m: B0°, pl, sm. fe co4.28m: J 20°, pl, sm

4.48m: J 80°, pl, ro, fe st4.61m: B 0°, pl, 2mminfill clay4.66m: Cs 2mm4.68m: Cs 2mm4.71m: B 0°, pl, he fe2mm4.78-4.82m: Ds4.84m: Cs 5mm5.08m: J 40°, pl, ro, fe st5.44-5.56m: Ds5.65m: J 30°, pl, ro, fe st5.8m: CORE LOSS:70mm6.11m: B 0°, pl, fe 1mm

6.56-7.04m: J(x3)30-40°, pl, ro, cln

8.15-8.56m: J(x3)20-40°, pl, ro, cln

8.7-9.01m: B 0°-10°, pl,ro

9.2m: J 45°, pl, ro

9.49m: CORE LOSS:120mm9.68m: J 20°, pl, ro

ROADBASE

Silty CLAY: very stiff to hard orangepale grey Silty CLAY with ironstonegravel, MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard, pale grey silty claywith ironstone bands, MC<PL

SHALE: extremely low strength,extremely weathered, grey andbrown shale

SILTSTONE: low strength,moderately weathered with highlyweathered bands, fractured, greybrown siltstone

SILTSTONE: low strength,moderately weathered with highlyweathered bands, highly fractured,grey brown siltstone

SILTSTONE: medium strength,slightly weathered, highly fractured,dark grey and orange siltstone5.42-5.55m: very low strengthsiltstone band

SILTSTONE: medium to highstrength, fresh, fractured, dark greysiltstone

SILTSTONE: high strength, freshfractured to slightly fractured, darkgrey siltstone

SILTSTONE: (see next page)

6,12,24N = 36

19,25/50refusal

PL(A) = 0.25

PL(A) = 0.35

PL(A) = 0.57

PL(A) = 0.91

PL(A) = 1.1

PL(A) = 1.05

16

0

95

96

66

56

88

97

100

92

S

S

C

C

C

C

C

0.1

0.7

2.5

3.23.3

4.06

5.0

5.58

5.87

7.7

9.61

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5655

5453

5251

5049

4847

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH101PROJECT No: 85837.07DATE: 2-8-2019SHEET 1 OF 2

DRILLER: BG Drilling LOGGED: NB CASING: HW to 3.2m

John Holland Pty LtdProposed Mixed-Use Development (Building AB)

REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Hand auger to 1.5m; Auger 1.5-3.2m; NMLC coring to 11.0m

No surface samples-material was lost

SURFACE LEVEL: 56.8 AHDEASTING: 326614.7NORTHING: 6260285DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

9.78-10.28m: J(x6)30-50°, pl, ro, cln

10.69-10.75m: fracture10.86-10.94m: Ds

SILTSTONE: medium to highstrength, fresh, fractured to slightlyfractured, dark grey siltstone

SILTSTONE: medium strength,fresh, fractured, light grey to greysiltstoneBore discontinued at 11.0m

PL(A) = 0.8

PL(A) = 1.16692C

14-0

8-19

10.75

11.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4645

4443

4241

4039

3837

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Hand auger to 1.5m; Auger 1.5-3.2m; NMLC coring to 11.0m

No surface samples-material was lost


BOREHOLE LOG

BORE: 101 PROJECT: 85837.07 AUGUST 2019

3 . 2 – 7 . 0 m


8 . 0 – 1 1 . 0 m


4.5m: B 0°, pl, he, fe2mm4.55-4.58m: B0°un, ro,fe, st 3x4.62m: B 0°, un, ro4.67-4.7m: Fractured4.77-4.78m: Fractured4.8m: J 30°, pl, sm4.84-4.85m: J 20°, pl,he, fe 1mm4.87m: B 4°, un, he, fe2mm5.06-5.09m: B 0°, pl, ro,fe, co5.24-5.4m: Fractured5.4m: CORE LOSS:100mm5.6-5.72m: B(x8) 0°-5°,un, ro, fe, st5.72-5.82m: Fractured5.92m: B 10°, pl, ro6.02m: J 40°, pl, he, fe2mm6.12-6.16m: Fractured6.21m: J 25°, pl, sm6.23-6.6m: B(x12) 0°-2°,pl, sm6.62m: J 20°, pl, sm6.72m: J 90°, pl, sm7.25-7.3m: Fractured7.3m: CORE LOSS:80mm7.48m: J 80°, pl, sm7.67m: J 40°, pl,sm7.94m: J 30-45°, cu, pl,ro7.99m: J 40°, pl, sm8.21m: B 0°, pl, 2mm8.24m: J 40°, pl, sm8.28-8.43m: B(x3) 0°, pl,

Silty CLAY: very stiff to hard, orangepale grey silty CLAY with ironstonegravel, MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard pale grey siltyCLAY with ironstone bands MC<PL

SHALE: extremely low to very lowstrength, extremely to highlyweathered grey brown shale

SHALE: medium strength,moderately weathered, highlyfractured, grey brown shale

SILTSTONE: medium strength,slightly weathered, fresh, highlyfractured to fractured, dark greysiltstone

SILTSTONE: medium strength,fresh, highly fractured to fractured,dark grey siltstone

9.57m: becomes light grey

LAMINITE: (see next page)

10,23,21N = 44

15,20,25/75refusal

13,24,25N = 49

PL(A) = 0.66

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 1.14

PL(A) = 0.78

PL(A) = 0.79

PL(A) = 0.84

0

0

0

72

100

96

95

100

A

S

A

S

S

C

C

C

C

0.7

2.5

4.45

4.8

5.5

7.38

9.8110.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5756

5554

5352

5150

4948

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger 4.2m; NMLC coring to 11.41m

20% water loss at 6.8m


BOREHOLE LOG

ro8.54m: J 30°, pl, sm8.61m: J 30°, st, ro8.71-8.8m: Fractured8.9-8.94m: Fractured9.57m: Ds 10mm9.72-9.81m: Ds10.45m: J 45°, pl, ro, st10.78m: J 40°, st, ro

LAMINITE: medium to high strength,fresh, slightly fractured, dark greywith light grey laminite withapparently 25% fine sandstonelaminations

Bore discontinued at 11.41m

PL(A) = 1.97

PL(A) = 2.01

72100C

11.41

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4746

4544

4342

4140

3938

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger 4.2m; NMLC coring to 11.41m



BOREHOLE LOG


4 . 2 – 9 . 0 m


9 . 0 – 1 1 . 4 1 m


2.7m: CORE LOSS:1070mm

3.83m: B 0°, pl, sm,2mm3.9m: Cs 2mm3.98-4.0m: Fractured4.03m: J 90°, un, sm4.1m: Cs 2mm4.25-4.26m: Cs4.26-4.29m: Fractured4.51m: J 20°, pl, ro, feco4.57-4.61m: Fractured4.97m: B, pl, he fe 4mm5-5.1m: Fractured5.2m: Cs 1mm5.37m: J 45°, un, ro5.4m: CORE LOSS:240mm6m: J 40°, pl, ro,fe6.19m: Cs 10mm6.2-6.38m: Fractured

6.67m: J 60°, pl, he fe2mm6.74m: J 40°, pl, ro, feco6.82-6.93m: Ds6.93-7.1m: Fractured7.1m: CORE LOSS:100mm7.19m: J 45° pl, ro, fe7.2m: J 70°, pl, sm, feco 1mm7.27m: J 90°, pl, sm7.34-8.26m: J(x3)30-50°, pl, sm8.44m: J 5-90°, cu, sm8.69m: J 45°, un, sm8.86m: J 45°, pl, sm9.01m: J 20°, pl, sm

9.34-9.37m: J(x2) 40°,pl, sm

FILLING: medium dense, fine tomedium grained silty sand FILLING,dark brown, moist (topsoil)

Silty CLAY, hard orange and greywith ironstone gravel, MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard, pale grey with redbrown grey ironstone bands,MC<PL

CORE LOSS

SHALE: low to medium strength,moderately weathered, highlyfractured, dark grey shale with 10%fine sandstone laminations

SILTSTONE: low to mediumstrength, slightly weathered, highlyfractured, dark grey siltstone

SILTSTONE: medium strength,fresh, fractured to slightly fractured,dark grey siltstone

5,14,19N = 33

30,25/50refusal

PL(A) = 0.33

PL(A) = 0.34

PL(A) = 0.19

PL(A) = 0.27

PL(A) = 0.92

PL(A) = 1.33

PL(A) = 0.99

0

0

62

88

60

84

93

100

A

A

S

A

S

C

C

C

C

0.3

1.0

2.7

3.77

5.64

7.2

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5756

5554

5352

5150

4948

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger to 2.7m; NMLC coring 2.7- 10.80m

Water loss 2.8-3.5m, casinig advanced to 3.9m

SURFACE LEVEL: 57.9 AHDEASTING: 326646NORTHING: 6260258DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

9.9m: J 80-90°, cu, sm

10.3m: J90°, st, ro10.41-10.44m: Ds

SILTSTONE: medium strength,fresh, slightly fractured, light greysiltstone

LAMINITE: medium strength, freshslightly fractured, dark grey to lightgrey with approximately 10%sandstone fine laminationsBore discontinued at 10.8m

PL(A) = 0.58

88100C10.49

10.8

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4746

4544

4342

4140

3938

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger to 2.7m; NMLC coring 2.7- 10.80m

Water loss 2.8-3.5m, casinig advanced to 3.9m

SURFACE LEVEL: 57.9 AHDEASTING: 326646NORTHING: 6260258DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG


2 . 7 – 7 . 0 m


7 . 0 – 1 0 . 8 m

<<


4.2m: CORE LOSS:130mm4.46m: B 0°, pl, ro, feinfill 3mm4.54m: Cs 2mm lightgrey4.59-4.68m: J 90°, un,he, fe 3mm4.63m: B 0°, he, fe 2mm4.68m: B 0°, pl, infill2mm4.71m: B 0°, pl, ro, fe2mm4.73m: J 10°, pl, ro, fe2mm4.85-4.87m: Cs lightgrey4.91m: Ds 2mm4.93-4.94m: Ds 10mm4.97m: Ds 5mm4.99m: J 20°, clay infill2mm5.06-5.22m: Frcatured5.26-5.3m: Fractured5.7-5.71m: Fractured5.73m: J 10°-20° curved5.83m: B 2°-4° curvedpl, sm5.89m: J 45°, pl, sm6.13m: B 0°, pl, sm,2mm fractured6.22m: J 30°, pl, sm6.26m: J 40°, pl, sm6.56-6.8m: Fratured7.34m: J 50°, pl, sm7.5m: B 0°, un, ro8.254m: J 10°, pl, sm

9.26-9.3m: J 90°-45°,curved fe costed

FILLING: dark brown sand FILLING,rootlets (topsoil)

Silty CLAY: stiff to very stiff, orangegrey with ironstone gravel, MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard, pale grey with redbrown ironstone bands, MC<PL

SHALE: very low strength, greyshale with some high strength,ironstone bands

CORE LOSS

SHALE: low to medium strength,moderately weathered with highlyweathered bands, fragmented tohighly fractured, grey brown shalewith some low strength bands

SILTSTONE: medium then highstrength, fresh, fractured to slightlyfractured, dark grey siltstone

6,10,15N = 25

16,45/150refusal

45/150refusal

PL(A) = 0.43

PL(A) = 0.33

PL(A) = 0.91

PL(A) = 0.95

PL(A) = 1.26

0

50

87

95

90

100

100

100

A

A

S

A

S

A

S

C

C

C

C

0.2

1.5

3.0

4.24.33

5.7

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5857

5655

5453

5251

5049

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger to 4.2m, NMLC coring to 10.57m



BOREHOLE LOG

SILTSTONE: medium then highstrength, fresh, fractured to slightlyfractured, dark grey siltstone(continued)Bore discontinued at 10.57m

PL(A) = 1.06

95100C

10.57

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4847

4645

4443

4241

4039

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger to 4.2m, NMLC coring to 10.57m



BOREHOLE LOG

BORE: 104 PROJECT: 85837.07 JULY 2019

4 . 2 – 9 . 0 m


9 . 0 – 1 0 . 5 7 m

Unless otherwisespecified, defects aresmooth,planar-undulatingbedding fracturesdipping 0-5° with feco/stn

4m: CORE LOSS:450mm

4.5-4.67m: B(x5) 0°, pl,ro, fe4.6m: J 20°, pl, ro, fe4.64m: J 0°,pl, ro, fe4.68-4.73m: B(x5) 0°, pl,ro, fe4.73-4.48m: Cs 50mm4.89-4.91m: Cs 20mm5.09-5.12m: J(x3)25°-30°,pl, ro, fe5.13m: J 45°, pl, ro, fe5.18m: J 30°-40°, un, ro,fe5.2-5.32m: J (x5)30°-45°, pl, ro, fe5.32-5.38m: B(x4) pl, ro,fe5.4-6.0m: B(x4) 0°-5°,pl, ro, fe5.74m: J 20°, pl,rp, fe5.78m: J, 40°, st, ro, fe5.81-5.9m: J(x3)40°-60°, pl, he/fe5.96-6.03m: J 45°, pl, ro,fe6.04-6.12m: J(x3)20°-30°, pl, ro, fe6.06-6.8m: Fragmented6.12m: J 20°, pl, sm6.33m: CORE LOSS:100mm6.44-6.63m:Fragmented6.63-6.71m: J 90°, pl, ro,fe7.22m: J 40°, pl, sm7.24m: Cs 10mm7.95m: J 45°, pl, ro8.04-8.17m: J 90°, unsm

ASPHALT

FILL: dark grey igneous gravel(13-20mm) sand FILLING with somesilt, damp road base

SILTY CLAY: orange brown siltyclay MC>PL, damp-moist

SILTY CLAY: very stiff, pale greymottled red brown silty clay withsome ironstone gravel (10-20mm),MC<PL, trace of rock structure

2.3m: hard, grey with some rockstructure

SHALE: very low strength,pale greyshale with some high strength, redbrown bands

SHALE: medium strength,moderately weathered, fragmentedto highly fractured, grey brown shalewith low strength bands

SHALE: medium strength, fresh,highly fractured to slightly fractureddark grey shale

SILTSTONE: medium strength,fresh, fractured, dark grey siltstone

LAMINITE: medium to high strength,fresh, slightly fractured, dark greysiltstone with 30% fine grainedsandstone laminations

4,9,17N = 26

1,3,25N = 28

5/0refusal

Bouncing

PL(A) = 0.15

PL(A) = 0.34

PL(A) = 0.31

PL(A) = 0.8

PL(A) = 0.84

PL(A) = 0.54

0

0

31

80

68

100

95

100

A

A

S

S

S

C

C

C

C

0.0250.1

0.6

3.2

4.0

4.45

6.43

8.95

9.34

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5655

5453

5251

5049

4847

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger 0-4.0m; NMLC coring 4.0-12.41m

1st run 20% water loss, 80% water loss @ 10.0m, No return 11.0m, Finshed 29.7.2019 @ 11.30AM


BOREHOLE LOG

8.52m: J 45°, pl, sm8.74m: B 5°, un 5mm9.05m: J 60°, pl, sm9.12m: Fractured 2mm10.17-10.31m: B(x2) 0°,un, ro

11.49m: J 30°, un, ro

LAMINITE: medium to high strength,fresh, slightly fractured, dark greysiltstone with 30% fine grainedsandstone laminations (continued)


PL(A) = 2.28PL(A) = 1.27

PL(A) = 2.21

80

95

100

100

C

C

12.41

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4645

4443

4241

4039

3837

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:



1st run 20% water loss, 80% water loss @ 10.0m, No return 11.0m, Finshed 29.7.2019 @ 11.30AM


BOREHOLE LOG


4 . 0 – 8 . 0 m


8 . 0 – 1 2 . 4 1 m


7.05m: J 70°, pl, ro7.16-7.19m: Ds 30mmfractured7.37m: J 70°, pl, ro, feco7.58m: J 20°, pl, sm7.84m: J 40°. pl, ro, feco7.93-7.94m: B(x2) 2°, pl,sm7.98m: B 5°, pl, ro, fe co8.12m: J 35°, pl, sm8.34-8.4m: fractured8.5m: J 45-90° st, ro8.66m: J 30°, pl, sm8.78-8.82m: Fractured8.92m: J 10°, pl, sm, feco9.0-9.1m: Frcatured9.14m: J 80°, pl, sm9.17-9.2m: Fractured

ASPHALT

ROADBASE

Silty CLAY: stiff to very stiff orangeand grey with fine ironstone gravel,MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard pale grey with redbrown clay, ironstone bands,MC<PL

SHALE: very low to low strengthgrey with some high strength, redbrown ironstone bands

5.5m: dark grey

SHALE: medium to high strength,slightly weathered, fractured darkgrey brown siltstone

SHALE: medium to high strength,fresh, fractured, dark grey shale

SILTSTONE: medium to highstrength, fresh, fractured to slightly

7,17,25N = 42

6,16,25N = 41

25/150refusal

PL(A) = 0.88

PL(A) = 0.88

PL(A) = 1.12

PL(A) = 0.74

40

60

50

100

100

100

A

A

A

S

A

S

S

C

C

C

0.025

0.2

0.7

3.0

6.436.56

9.63

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5756

5554

5352

5150

4948

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:




BOREHOLE LOG

9.29m: J 40°, pl, sm9.32-9.34m: Fractured9.34m: J 40°, pl, ro9.42-9.44m: Fractured9.49m: J 30°, pl, sm9.49-9.55m: Fractured9.55-9.62m: Ds9.62m: J 40°, pl, sm9.73m: J 40°, un, ro9.79m: J 45°, pl, ro9.85m: J 45°, st, ro9.97m: J 50°, un, ro10.15m: J 50°, ro, he

fragmented dark grey shale

LAMINITE: medium to high strength,fresh, light grey to grey laminite withapproximately 25% sandstonelaminationsBore discontinued at 10.33m

PL(A) = 2.3150100C

10.33

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4746

4544

4342

4140

3938

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:




BOREHOLE LOG


6 . 4 3 – 1 0 . 3 3 m


4m: CORE LOSS:50mm4.24-4.25m: Ds4.28m: J45°, pl, ro, 2mminfill4.42-4.45m: clay seam4.49m: J 50°, pl, he, fe4.54m: J 20°, pl, he, fe4.36-4.39m; clay infill4.84m: clay seam 1mm4.85m: J 20°, pl, ro, fe5.0-5.46m: B 0°, pl, ro,fe (x8)5.46m: J 20°, pl, he, fe5.5m: J 45°, pl, ro, fe5.7-5.74m: clay seam5.86m: J 45°, pl, ro, fe6m: J 20°, pl, ro, fe6.2-6.21m: Ds6.22m: J 45°, un, ro6.25m: B, pl, he, fe 5mm6.3m: J 45°, he, pl, 3mm6.4-6.46m: Ds6.55-6.62m: Ds6.6-6.62m: Ds6.79m: J 45°, pl, he, fe2mm6.83-6.86m: ds6.97m: J 40°, pl, fe, he7.12m: J 45°, pl, ro7.4m: clay seam 1mm

ASPHALT

ROADBASE: fill, sandy gravel darkgrey igneous gravel 2-20mm, fine tomedium sand with some silt, moist

Silty CLAY: very stiff to hard orangegrey, fine ironstone gravel, MC<PL

Silty CLAY: hard pale grey with redbrown ironstone bands, MC<PL

SHALE: very low strength, extremelyweathered, grey and brown withsome red high strength ironstonebands

CORE LOSS

SHALE: low strength, moderatelyweathered, fractured, grey brownshale with some highly weatheredvery low strength bands

SHALE: low strength, slightlyweathered, fractured grey withorange staining with some very lowstrength bands

SHALE: medium to high strength,fresh slightly fractured dark greyshale

8,12,20N = 32

14,25refusal

PL(A) = 0.15

PL(A) = 0.06

PL(A) = 0.25

PL(A) = 1.12

PL(A) = 0.82

PL(A) = 1.3

0

49

100

98

100

100

S

S

C

C

C

0.025

0.2

1.0

3.0

4.04.05

5.8

7.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5857

5655

5453

5251

5049

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: Han-Jin 8D

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Auger to 4.0; NMLC coring 4.0-27.75m

No return @ 19.12m, water lost into fill; Top of tunnel 19.12m, barrel free fell 0.6m (possible void). Bottom of tunnel 24.47m (concrete 12mmreinforcement), no core or material received withintunnel


BOREHOLE LOG

>>

10.71m: J 45°,pl, sm

12.91m: J 45°, pl, sm

13.35m: J 40°, pl, sm

13.54m: J 30°, pl, sm

13.78m: J 45°, pl, ro,

19.12m: Tunnel

SHALE: medium to high strength,fresh slightly fractured dark greyshale (continued)

SILTSTONE: medium to highstrength, fresh, slightly fracturedlight grey to grey siltstone with finegrained sandstone laminations

SANDSTONE: high strength, fresh,unbroken, light grey and grey finegrained sandstone with siltstonelaminations

SILTSTONE: high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, brown light grey togrey siltstone with trace fine grainedsandstone laminations

LAMINITE: high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, light grey withapproximately 20% fine grainedsandstone

SANDSTONE: very high strength,unbroken light grey and grey finegrained sandstone with siltstonelaminations

LAMINITE: high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, grey light grey withapproximately 30% fine grainedsandstone

SANDSTONE: very high strength,fresh, unbroken, light grey and grey,fine sandstone with siltstone bandsand laminations

TUNNEL VOID

FILLING: (see next page)

PL(A) = 1.51

PL(A) = 0.89

PL(A) = 1.43

PL(A) = 1.61

PL(A) = 2.76

PL(A) = 4.78

PL(A) = 2.99

PL(A) = 3.68

100

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

11.21

13.57

13.74

14.85

15.15

15.45

18.28

19.12

19.7

20.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4847

4645

4443

4241

4039

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: Han-Jin 8D

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





BOREHOLE LOG

24.73m: B 15°, pl, ro

24.94m: Ds, 60mm

26.41m: Ds, 10mm

FILLING: dark grey, fine clayey sandfilling with some crushed sandstonegravel (tunnel backfill) apparentlyloose, poorly compacted

CONCRETE: base of tunnel

SANDSTONE: medium then highstrength, fresh, slightly fractured,light grey fine grained sandstone


0,0,0N = 0

6,14,25N = 39

PL(A) = 1.26

PL(A) = 1.69

PL(A) = 1.45

100

100

100

100

S

S

C

C

24.47

24.63

27.75

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

3837

3635

3433

3231

3029

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: Han-Jin 8D

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





BOREHOLE LOG


4 . 0 – 9 . 0 m


9 . 0 – 1 4 . 0 m


1 4 . 0 – 1 9 . 0 m


1 4 . 0 – 2 7 . 7 5 m


4.39m: J 20°, curved9mm fe, he4.49m: B 0°, pl, sm, fe2mm4.55m: Cs 10mm4.58-4.74m: B (x6)0°-5°, pl, ro, fe, co4.8-4.884.86m: B 0°, pl, he fe2mm4.88-5.07m: J(x6)20°-40°. fe he5.13m: J 20°, pl, ro, feco5.31m: J 20°, pl, ro, feco5.36-5.51m: B (x6) 0°,pl, ro, fe st5.63m: J 30°, pl, ro, feco5.65-5.66m: B(x2) pl, ro,fe 2mm5.71m: B 40°, pl. sm6m: CORE LOSS:300mm7.74m: J 20°, pl, sm

8.7m: J 20°-80° rocurved8.94-8.96m: Fractured9.04m: J 50°, pl, sm

9.54m: J 20°, pl, sm

ASPHALT

FILLING: dark grey igneous gravel2-20mm and fine to medium sandwith some silt, moist (road base)

SILTY CLAY: very stiff orange andgrey with fine ironstone gravel,MC<PL

SILTY CLAY; hard pale grey withred brown clay ironstone bands,MC<PL

SHALE: very low strength, grey withsome high strength red brownironstone bands

SILTSTONE: medium strength,moderately to slightly weathered,dark grey and brown with orangebands, fractured shale

SILTSTONE: medium strength, darkgrey slightly weathered, dark greyorange staining siltstone

SILTSTONE: medium to highstrength fresh dark grey slightlyfractured siltstone

10,20,26N = 46

16,45refusal

25/100refusal

PL(A) = 0.17

PL(A) = 0.23

PL(A) = 1.22

PL(A) = 1

PL(A) = 0.76

PL(A) = 0.97

20

90

100

100

90

100

A

A

A

S

S

S

C

C

C

14-0

8-19

0.025

0.2

1.0

2.9

4.2

5.5

6.3

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5857

5655

5453

5251

5049

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Ager to 4.2m; NMLC coring 4.2-10.14m


BOREHOLE LOG

10.04m: J 40°, pl, smSILTSTONE: (continued)Bore discontinued at 10.14m

PL(A) = 0.65100100C10.14

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e


Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4847

4645

4443

4241

4039

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities






REMARKS:

RIG: CE180

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Ager to 4.2m; NMLC coring 4.2-10.14m


BOREHOLE LOG


4 . 2 2 – 9 . 0 m


9 . 0 – 1 0 . 7 7 m

Appendix D

Extract from ECRL Report (2008) and TfNSW standard (2016) Thiess Hochtief Joint Venture Drawings

T HR CI 12051 ST Development Near Rail Tunnels

Version 1.0 Issued date: 14 November 2016

5.1. Protection reserves

The rail protection reserves are categorised as 'first reserve' and 'second reserve'. These

reserves are defined to ensure the protection of tunnel and rail infrastructure during construction

and operation of adjacent developments.

Figure 1 represents the area that forms the first reserve and the second reserve around a rail

tunnel.

© State of NSW through Transport for NSW 2016 Page 13 of 53

Figure 1 - Rail protection reserves

The extent of rail protection reserves can vary depending on the type of tunnel construction,

support elements and surrounding ground.

Figure 2 shows the definition for measuring tunnel width for different tunnel configurations to

establish the extent of protection reserves.

Documents

Proposed Mixed-Use Development...Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 85837.07.R.001.Rev2 45-61 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park January 2020 carried out in order