REPORT TO AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ON … · report to yuwana nominees pty ltd and austindo international pty ltd on geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation for proposed

REPORT

TO

YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND

AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

ON

GEOTECHNICAL AND

HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AT

15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW

4 August 2014

Ref: 27577ZHrpt

JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

PO Box 976, North Ryde BC NSW 1670 Tel: 02 9888 5000 Fax: 02 9888 5003 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801

27577ZHrpt Page ii

Date: 4 August 2014 Report No: 27577ZHrpt Revision No: 0

Report prepared by: Adrian Hulskamp Senior Associate | Geotechnical Engineer

Report reviewed by: Agi Zenon Principal | Geotechnical Engineer For and on behalf of

JK GEOTECHNICS

PO Box 976

NORTH RYDE BC NSW 1670

Document Copyright of JK Geotechnics.

This Report (which includes all attachments and annexures) has been prepared by JK Geotechnics (JK) for its Client, and is intended for the use only by that Client. This Report has been prepared pursuant to a contract between JK and its Client and is therefore subject to:

a) JK’s proposal in respect of the work covered by the Report;

b) the limitations defined in the Client’s brief to JK;

c) the terms of contract between JK and the Client, including terms limiting the liability of JK.

If the Client, or any person, provides a copy of this Report to any third party, such third party must not rely on this Report, except with the express written consent of JK which, if given, will be deemed to be upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as apply by virtue of (a), (b), and (c) above. Any third party who seeks to rely on this Report without the express written consent of JK does so entirely at their own risk and to the fullest extent permitted by law, JK accepts no liability whatsoever, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any such third party.

27577ZHrpt Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE 2

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 3 3.1 Site Description 3 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 4 3.3 Laboratory Test Results 6 3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results 7

3.4.1 BH1 7 3.4.2 BH3 7

4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS 8 4.1 Methodology 8 4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions 8 4.3 Analysis Results 8

5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 5.1 Geotechnical Issues 9 5.2 Excavation Conditions 9

5.2.1 Dilapidation Surveys 10 5.2.2 Excavation Methods 10 5.2.3 Seepage 12

5.3 Excavation Support 12 5.3.1 Support Systems 12 5.3.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters 13

5.4 Footings 15 5.5 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab 16 5.6 Soil Aggression 16 5.7 Hydrogeological Issues 16 5.8 Further Geotechnical Input 17

6 GENERAL COMMENTS 18

STS TABLE A: MOISTURE CONTENT TEST REPORT

STS TABLE B: FOUR DAY SOAKED CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

STS TABLE C: POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX TEST REPORT

TABLE D: SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS

BOREHOLE LOGS 1, 2 AND 3 (INCLUDING COLOUR ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPHS)

FIGURE 1: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2: GRAPHICAL BOREHOLE SUMMARY

FIGURE 3: BH1 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE VERSUS TIME PLOT

FIGURE 4: BH3 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE VERSUS TIME PLOT

FIGURE 5: GEOTECHNICAL SECTION A-A

FIGURE 6: SECTION A-A SEEPAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS

VIBRATION EMISSION DESIGN GOALS

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

APPENDIX A: ENVIROLAB SERVICES REPORT NO: 113601

27577ZHrpt Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation for the

proposed residential development at 15 Crane Street, Homebush, NSW. The investigation was

commissioned by Mr Bing Yuwana of Yuwana Nominees Pty Ltd and Austindo International

Pty Ltd, by signed ‘Acceptance of Proposal’ form, dated 7 July 2014. The investigation was

completed in accordance with Option B of our proposal, Ref: P38916ZH3, dated 4 July 2014.

We have been supplied with the following information:

1. A survey plan prepared by Land Development Solutions (Ref: 6115, dated 17 December

2013);

2. Architectural drawings prepared by Zhinar Architects Pty Ltd (Job No. 8313, Drawing Nos.

DA-00 to DA-19, dated June 2014); and

3. An undated extract from a pre-development application report prepared by Council,

indicating that a geotechnical report is required to satisfy Council that the proposed

basement excavation will not require referral to the NSW Office of Water (NOW).

Based on the supplied architectural drawings, we understand that following demolition of the

existing house and garage on site, a seven storey apartment building underlain by a two to three

level basement car park, is proposed. The finished floor level (FFL) of the lowest proposed

basement level (B3) is between reduced level (RL) 6.00m and RL7.20m. To achieve these

levels, excavation to a maximum depth of about 8.5m below existing grade, will be required. We

have assumed that the final bulk excavation level (BEL) will be about 0.3m below the lowest FFL.

The approximate outline of the proposed basement is shown on the attached Figure 1.

We have not been provided with any structural loads for the proposed development, however, we

assume that the loads would be in the moderate to high range.

The purpose of the investigation was to obtain geotechnical information on subsurface conditions

at three borehole locations and to carry out a seepage analysis. Based on the information

obtained, we present our comments and recommendations on excavation conditions and support,

retaining walls, seepage, footings, hydrogeological issues, the basement on-grade floor slab and

soil aggression.

27577ZHrpt Page 2

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

Prior to the commencement of the fieldwork, the borehole locations were electromagnetically

scanned by a specialist sub-contractor for buried services.

The fieldwork was carried out on 16 and 17 July 2014 and comprised the auger drilling of three

boreholes (BH1, BH2 and BH3) to depths of 5.25m, 5.8m and 5.35m, respectively, using our track

mounted JK250 drilling rig. Each borehole was extended by diamond core drilling using NMLC

coring techniques to final depths of 11.68m (BH1), 11.80m (BH2) and 11.07m (BH3).

Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes. A 50mm diameter slotted uPVC

standpipe was installed into BH1 and BH3 for groundwater level monitoring purposes. The

standpipe installation details are shown on the respective borehole logs.

The borehole locations were set out by taped measurements from apparent site boundaries and

are shown on Figure 1. The surface RLs shown on the attached borehole logs were estimated by

interpolation between spot levels and contour lines shown on the supplied survey plan and are

therefore only approximate. The survey datum is the Australia Height Datum (AHD). Figure 1 is

based on the supplied survey plan.

The nature and composition of the subsurface soil and rock horizons were assessed by logging

the materials recovered during drilling. The strength of the residual soil profile was assessed from

the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values, augmented by hand penetrometer readings on

clayey samples recovered in the SPT split spoon sampler and tactile examination. The strength

of the upper weathered bedrock profile was assessed by observation of auger penetration

resistance when using a tungsten carbide (TC) bit, together with examination of recovered rock

cuttings. We note that rock strengths assessed in this way are approximate and variances in one

order of rock strength should not be unexpected. The strength of the cored bedrock was

assessed by examination of the recovered rock cores, together with correlations with subsequent

laboratory Point Load Strength Index (IS(50)) tests. Further details of the methods and procedures

employed in the investigation are presented in the attached Report Explanation Notes.

Our geotechnical engineer (David Fisher) was present on a full-time basis during the fieldwork to

set out the borehole locations, direct the electromagnetic scanning, nominate the testing and

sampling, direct the standpipe installations and prepare the attached borehole logs. The Report

Explanation Notes define the logging terms and symbols used.

27577ZHrpt Page 3

Selected soil and rock cutting samples were returned to NATA registered laboratories (Soil Test

Services Pty Ltd [STS] and Envirolab Services Pty Ltd) for moisture content, Standard

compaction and four day soaked CBR and soil pH, chloride and sulphate testing. The test results

are summarised in the attached STS Tables A and B and Table D. The Envirolab Services Pty

Ltd “Certificate of Analysis” is attached to this report in Appendix A.

The recovered rock cores were photographed and returned to STS for Point Load Strength Index

testing. The photographs are enclosed facing the relevant cored borehole logs. The Point Load

Strength Index test results are plotted on the borehole logs and are also summarised in the

attached STS Table C. The unconfined compressive strengths (UCS), as estimated from the

Point Load Strength Index test results, are also summarised in STS Table C.

Contamination testing of site soils and groundwater was outside the scope of this investigation.

On 24 July 2014, our geotechnical engineer returned to site and pumped out the groundwater

from each standpipe, for the purpose of undertaking rising head infiltration tests (also known as a

pump-out test). A water level data logger was programmed and installed into each standpipe to

measure the groundwater recharge rate. On 25 July 2014, our geotechnical engineer returned to

site to retrieve and download the water level data loggers. The groundwater RL (mAHD)

recharge versus time plots for BH1 and BH3 are presented as Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

Using established seepage formulae (and their assumptions), an approximate insitu permeability

coefficient for the subsurface profile was calculated. The pump-out test results are discussed in

Section 3.4 below.

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Site Description

The site is located within slightly undulating topography. Ground surface levels within the site

sloped gently down to the north-east at about 2°. Crane Street bound the site along its eastern

side.

At the time of the fieldwork, the eastern end of the site was occupied by a single storey brick and

weatherboard house. A clad garage and timber/metal shed were located in the central portion of

the site, adjacent to the northern boundary. The structures on site were observed be in fair

condition, based on a cursory inspection from within the subject site. The ground surface

surrounding the structures on site were covered with mostly grass and small shrubs. However,

27577ZHrpt Page 4

an on-grade concrete driveway ran along the northern side of the house and was in poor

condition, with numerous cracks observed.

The neighbouring three to four storey brick apartment building to the north of the site (No. 11-13

Crane Street) was set back about 4m from the common boundary. However, the neighbouring

building was underlain by at least one basement level, which abutted the common boundary. The

depth and extent of the neighbouring basement footprint is unknown. The neighbouring southern

basement retaining wall, where visible from Crane Street, supported the northern side of the

subject site and was of brick and concrete block construction. A concrete driveway used to

access the neighbouring basement was located between the subject site and above ground

portion of the neighbouring apartment building. Ground surface levels across the common

boundary were generally between 0.5m (eastern end) and at least 2.5m (western end) lower than

the subject site.

The neighbouring single storey brick house located towards the western end of the site to the

south (No. 17A Crane Street) was set back at least 1m from the common boundary. The

neighbouring single storey brick house located towards the eastern end of the site to the south

(No. 17 Crane Street) was set back about 4m from the common boundary. Ground surface levels

across the common boundary were similar.

The neighbouring single storey fibro and weatherboard house to the west of the site was set back

at least 15m from the common boundary. Ground surface levels across the common boundary

were similar.

With the exception of the neighbouring house to the west of the site which was in poor condition,

the other above described neighbouring structures all appeared to be in generally good condition,

based on a cursory inspection from within the subject site.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The 1:100,000 Series Geological Map of Sydney indicates the site to be underlain by Ashfield

Shale of the Wianamatta Group.

Generally, the boreholes encountered a concrete pavement (BH1 only), fill and/or residual silty

clay overlying shale bedrock at relatively shallow depth. Reference should be made to the

attached borehole logs for details at each specific location. A graphical borehole summary, which

27577ZHrpt Page 5

also shows the level of the proposed basement, is presented as Figure 2. A summary of the

encountered subsurface characteristics is provided below:

Pavements

A 90mm thick concrete pavement was present at the ground surface of BH1.

Fill

Fill comprising silty clay topsoil was present at the ground surface of BH2 and extended down to

a depth of 0.4m.

Residual Silty Clay

Residual silty clay of assessed low, medium and high plasticity and hard strength was

encountered directly below the concrete pavement in BH1, below the fill in BH2 and at the ground

surface in BH3.

Shale Bedrock

Shale bedrock was encountered in each borehole at depths of either 1.6m (BH1 and BH2) or

1.0m (BH3) and extended down to the borehole termination depths.

The shale bedrock was generally extremely and distinctly weathered and of extremely low to very

low strength at first contact, but improved in quality with depth to slightly weathered and fresh

shale of medium and high strength. Low and medium strength iron indurated bands were often

encountered within the upper weaker shale bedrock profile.

The diamond cored portions of the boreholes encountered frequent defects including extremely

weathered bands and seams, crushed seams, fragmented seams and inclined joints.

The ‘core loss’ zone encountered in BH1 at a depth of 7.90m was 100mm thick and is inferred to

be an extremely weathered band or clay band, which has ‘washed away’ during the coring

process.

An indicative engineering classification of the shale bedrock (in accordance with Pells et al. 1998)

has been carried out and is tabulated below:

27577ZHrpt Page 6

Borehole Approx. Surface RL (m)

Indicative Engineering Classification of Shale Bedrock Depths (m)

Class V Class IV Class III Class II Class I

1 13.8 1.6 – 6.81*, 8.00 – 9.43

6.81 – 8.00 9.43 – 11.68 - -

2 14.5 1.6 – 6.86* - 6.86 – 11.80 - -

3 14.9 1.0 – 6.50* - - 6.50 – 11.07 -

* based (wholly or in part) on the augered portion of the borehole.

Groundwater

All boreholes were ‘dry’ during auger drilling and on completion of auger drilling.

On completion of coring, groundwater was measured at depths of 4.5m (BH1), 4.0m (BH2) and

2.0m (BH3). As water is introduced into the borehole during the coring process, these

groundwater levels are almost certainly influenced by the drill flush water. There was a full return

of the drill flush water during coring, which indicates a relatively impermeable rock mass.

When we returned to site on 24 July 2014, groundwater was measured in the standpipes at

depths of 3.8m (BH1) and 2.6m (BH3). No further groundwater observations were made.

3.3 Laboratory Test Results

The results of the moisture content and Point Load Strength Index tests carried out on recovered

rock cutting and rock core samples correlated well with our field assessment of bedrock strength.

The estimated UCSs ranged between 1MPa and 50MPa.

The four day soaked CBR test carried out on a residual silty clay sample from BH2 resulted in a

value of 2.5% when compacted to 98% of Standard Maximum Dry Density (SMDD) and

surcharged with 4.5kg, indicating a poor quality subgrade is present at existing ground surface

level. The insitu moisture content of the sample was 3.1% ‘wet’ of its Standard Optimum Moisture

Content (SOMC).

The soil pH test results were either 4.5 (BH1 and BH3) or 5.7 (BH2), which show the samples

tested to be acidic. The soil sulphate and chloride test results were less than or equal to

230mg/kg, which indicate low sulphate and chloride contents.

27577ZHrpt Page 7

3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results

3.4.1 BH1

On arrival to site on 24 July 2014, the groundwater level in the BH1 standpipe was measured at

3.8m depth (RL 10.0m). Based on the plot provided in Figure 3, constant steady-state inflow

conditions occurred immediately after completion of pumping until the groundwater level had risen

back up to RL 10.0m, where the groundwater level stabilised after a period of about 2½ hours. At

the end of the 24 hour monitoring period, the groundwater level was measured at RL 10.0m.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH1, the groundwater is confined to within

the shale bedrock profile (ie. groundwater within defects, such as bedding partings, joints, etc.).

The result of the borehole pump-out (rising head) test indicates a low permeability for the shale

bedrock at BH1. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the calculated

coefficient of permeability (k) for the rising head test carried out in the BH1 standpipe was

5.9 x 10-7 m/sec.

3.4.2 BH3

On arrival to site on 24 July 2014, the groundwater level in the BH3 standpipe was measured at

2.6m depth (RL 12.3m). Based on the plot provided in Figure 4, constant steady-state inflow

conditions occurred immediately after completion of pumping and the groundwater level rose to

5.5m depth (RL9.4m) during the 24 hour monitoring period. The groundwater level did not appear

to stabilise within the 24 monitoring period.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH3, the groundwater is confined to within

the shale bedrock profile (ie. groundwater within defects, such as bedding partings, joints, etc.).

The result of the borehole pump-out (rising head) test indicates a very low permeability for the

shale bedrock at BH3. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the

calculated coefficient of permeability (k) for the rising head test carried out in the BH3 standpipe is

3.5 x 10-8 m/sec.

We note that the calculated permeability for BH3 was almost one order of magnitude lower than

the calculated permeability for BH1. We infer the reason for this is most likely due to the fewer

defects encountered in the shale bedrock profile at BH3 compared to BH1.

27577ZHrpt Page 8

4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the groundwater seepage analysis was to prepare a geotechnical model of the

site, based on the investigation results, and to assess the potential seepage volume into the

proposed basement excavation during construction and in the long-term.

4.1 Methodology

We nominated one section (Section A-A) through the proposed basement excavation, as shown

on Figure 1. An idealised geotechnical model for the section was established, based on the

subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, site survey and the proposed basement

design. Reference should be made to Figure 5 for the geotechnical model of Section A-A.

The seepage analysis was carried out using a 2D finite element computer program SEEP/W 2012

(from Geo-Slope International Ltd).

4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions

The saturated coefficient of permeability values adopted in the geotechnical model for the

residual silty clay and shale bedrock is presented below. Based on the known geological

structure of residual silty clay and since groundwater can flow within the bedrock through defects,

we have assumed anisotropic permeability conditions. From established literature, we have

adopted a ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability of 10 (ie. one order of magnitude).

For the residual silty clay profile, we have assumed a horizontal coefficient of permeability

(kh) of 1 x 10-8 m/sec and a vertical coefficient of permeability (kv) of 1 x 10-9 m/sec. These

values are based on our experience and published literature.

Based on the borehole pump-out test results, we have adopted for the shale bedrock profile

a kh value of 3 x 10-7 m/sec (ie. the average to the ‘k’ values calculated) and a kv value of

3 x 10-8 m/sec. These values are consistent with published literature.

The model has been set up with boundary conditions equivalent to the highest groundwater

levels measured ie. 2.6m depth in BH3 and 3.8m depth in BH1.

4.3 Analysis Results

For Section A-A, the calculated inflow was 1.41 x 10-6 m3/sec per metre width of section. For the

proposed 15m wide basement (measured north to south), this equates to an inflow of about

0.67ML/year. Reference should be made to the seepage analysis results presented as Figure 6.

27577ZHrpt Page 9

Based on the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation results at 15 Crane Street,

Homebush, and for the proposed three level basement excavation, it is our understanding that the

proposed development will not require referral to the NSW Office of Water. It is also our

understanding that Council decides whether such referral is required.

5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Geotechnical Issues

Based on the investigation results, we consider the following items to be the primary geotechnical

issues associated with the proposed residential development:

The excavation cuts, which will extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, will require

support by shoring walls, that will need to be installed prior to the commencement of bulk

excavation;

Excavation for the proposed basement will need to be carried out carefully due to the

presence of neighbouring structures that are located on, or close to, the site boundaries.

Care must be taken during excavation so as to not damage, undermine or remove lateral

support from the neighbouring structures;

Groundwater seepage into the bulk excavation will need to be controlled;

Vibrations will need to be controlled during rock excavation, if hydraulic impact rock

hammers are used; and

The presence of medium and high strength shale bedrock, which will present ‘hard’ rock

excavation and piling conditions, will require careful consideration as to the type of plant

and equipment used.

The above geotechnical issues are addressed in detail in the following sections of this report.

5.2 Excavation Conditions

The excavation recommendations provided below should be complemented by reference to the

Safe Work Australia ‘Code of Practice – Excavation Work’ and AS3798 ‘Guidelines on Earthworks

for Commercial and Residential Developments’.

27577ZHrpt Page 10

5.2.1 Dilapidation Surveys

Prior to the commencement of demolition and excavation, we recommend that detailed

dilapidation reports be compiled on the neighbouring apartment building to the north (No. 11-13

Crane Street) and the neighbouring houses to the south (Nos. 17 and 17A Crane Street).

The dilapidation surveys should include detailed inspections of the above buildings and any

surrounding structures and pavements within the respective properties, where all defects

including defect location, type, length and width are rigorously described and photographed.

The respective owners should be asked to confirm that the dilapidation reports present a fair

record of existing conditions. The dilapidation reports may then be used as a benchmark against

which to assess possible future claims for damage arising from the works. We could prepare a

proposal for the dilapidation reports, if requested.

5.2.2 Excavation Methods

Prior to the commencement of bulk excavation, demolition of the existing structures on site and

stripping of grass and other vegetation within the development footprint, will be required. Any

deleterious or contaminated fill should be stripped and disposed appropriately off-site. Reference

should be made to Section 6 for the guidance on the off-site disposal of soil.

We note that there are neighbouring structures which either bound, or are located within close

proximity to, the subject site. Demolition of existing structures and subsequent excavation will

need to be carried out with care, so as to not destabilise, undermine or remove lateral support

from these neighbouring structures. All demolition and excavation work will need to be carried

out by suitably experienced and insured contractors.

Following or during the demolition process, but prior to the commencement of bulk excavation, we

recommend that details be obtained, such as by excavation of test pits or review of as-built

structural drawings, for any adjoining building footings which are located within H of the bulk

excavation, where H is the depth of excavation. Furthermore and prior to the commencement of

bulk excavation, confirmation must be made of the configuration and number of basement levels

below the neighbouring apartment building to the north. This will enable appropriate

consideration to be made during the shoring design phase.

Based on the investigation results, excavation for the proposed basement to a maximum depth of

about 8.5m will extend through the soil and shale bedrock profiles.

27577ZHrpt Page 11

Excavation of the soils may be readily completed using buckets fitted to hydraulic excavators. It

will be possible to excavate Class V and IV shale bedrock using a ‘digging’ bucket fitted to a large

excavator. However, ripping tyne and/or rock hammer assistance will be required for excavation

of Class III shale bedrock, as well as medium and high strength bands present within the Class V

and IV shale bedrock.

Excavation of Class III and II shale bedrock will also be possible using a large dozer of at least

Caterpillar D9 size or equivalent, but with a generous allowance for rock hammer assistance. The

rock hammer must be fitted to a large excavator. Excavation production rates are likely to be low

and shoe wear rates high, particularly in the Class II shale bedrock. Higher wear and tear rates of

the excavation equipment should be expected. Grid sawing the shale bedrock in conjunction with

ripping will help to facilitate excavation.

Rock excavation using hydraulic impact rock hammers will need to be strictly controlled as there

will be direct transmission of ground vibrations to the neighbouring structures and any nearby

buried services. We recommend that quantitative vibration monitoring be carried out whenever

hydraulic impact rock hammers are used on this site. With reference to German Standard

DIN4150-3:1999-02, which is reproduced in the attached Vibration Emission Design Goals Sheet,

the vibrations along the site boundaries should be limited to a peak particle velocity of 5mm/s (at

10Hz), subject to review of the dilapidation survey reports. If it is found that transmitted vibrations

are excessive, then it would be necessary to change to a smaller rock hammer or change the

method of excavation ie. grid sawing in conjunction with ripping. The following procedures are

recommended to reduce vibrations, if rock hammers are used:

Rock saw the sides of the excavation which extend into shale bedrock of at least low

strength, provided the base of the rock saw slot is maintained at a lower level than the

adjacent excavation level at all times;

Maintain the rock hammer orientation towards the face of the excavation and enlarge the

excavation by breaking small wedges off face;

Operate the rock hammer in short bursts only, to reduce the amplification of vibrations;

and

Use excavation contractors with appropriate experience and a competent supervisor who

is aware of vibration damage risks, etc. The contractor should have all appropriate

statutory and public liability insurances and should be provided with a full copy of this

report.

27577ZHrpt Page 12

The excavation contractor must make their own assessment on bedrock excavation, based on a

review of this report, including the attached borehole logs and laboratory test results. The ease at

which bedrock can be excavated and how long it will take to excavate the bedrock, depends upon

the equipment used, the skill and experience of the operator, and the characteristics of the

bedrock. The excavation contractor must make their own judgement on all of these factors.

5.2.3 Seepage

Groundwater inflows into the excavation are expected as local seepage flows through joints and

bedding partings within the bedrock profile. However, seepage may also occur within the fill, at

the fill/residual soil interface and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy rain.

Seepage volumes into the excavation are expected to be controllable by conventional sump and

pump methods.

A toe drain should be provided at the base of all rock cuttings to collect groundwater seepage and

lead it to a sump for pumping to the stormwater system.

5.3 Excavation Support

5.3.1 Support Systems

As the proposed basement is to extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, temporary batter

slopes through the soil and Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles will not be possible, and

therefore the proposed vertical cuts will need to be supported by an engineered retention system.

Based on the investigation results, a suitable retention system includes an anchored soldier pile

retaining wall with reinforced shotcrete infill panels. Conventional bored piles will be a suitable

pile type. The shoring system must be installed prior to the commencement of bulk excavation

and would need to be anchored and/or internally propped as excavation proceeds. Careful

control of the construction sequence will be required to reduce potential movements.

The shoring piles should be founded with sufficient embedment below bulk excavation level to

satisfy stability and founding considerations. We recommend that the shoring piles located within

the eastern half of the proposed basement footprint terminate at a depth of not less than 0.5m

below bulk excavation level (including an allowance for footings, services and other localised

excavations below bulk excavation level). A greater depth of embedment may be required for

27577ZHrpt Page 13

stability of the shoring wall. The piles can also be used as load bearing piles for the proposed new

building, if founded in the appropriate strength/quality shale.

However, the shoring piles located within western half of the basement footprint can be

terminated no less than 0.5m into Class III or better quality shale bedrock above bulk excavation

level. Toe restraint for the piles may be achieved by using an additional row of temporary

anchors, which must be installed prior to excavating in front of the pile toe. A vertical face may be

excavated below the toe of the piles, but must not undermine the pile toes. Ideally, the pile toe

levels should be designed so that the pile toe is just below a basement floor slab, which could

provide long term support.

The rock face below the toe of the piles must be progressively inspected by a geotechnical

engineer at no more than 1.5m depth increments to assess the need for temporary support (eg.

rockbolts, dowels, shotcrete etc.) of potentially unstable rock wedges. In addition, an allowance

should be made for temporary rock bolts below the pile toes to provide lateral restraint for the rock

below the pile toes.

Where the shoring piles terminate within Class III or better quality shale bedrock above bulk

excavation level, shotcrete and pattern bolting will be the minimum long term requirement to

protect the shale bedrock from deterioration.

Due to the presence of medium and high strength bedrock, only high torque drilling rigs equipped

with rock augers and coring buckets should be brought to this site. We strongly recommend that

a full copy of this report be provided to the prospective piling contractors.

We assume that permanent support of the shoring system will be provided by bracing from the

proposed structure.

5.3.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters

The major consideration in the selection of earth pressures for the design of the retaining walls is

the need to limit deformations occurring outside the excavations. The following characteristic

earth pressure coefficients and subsoil parameters may be adopted for a static design for

permanent retention systems.

All shoring piles should be uniformly founded on the underlying shale bedrock. For

allowable bearing pressure recommendations, refer to Section 5.4 below.

27577ZHrpt Page 14

For anchored or propped walls, where minor movements can be tolerated eg where there

are no movement sensitive structures or buried services within 2H of the excavation, we

recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 6H (kPa) for the soil and

Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles, where H is the retained height in metres. These

pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system.

For anchored or propped walls, supporting areas sensitive to lateral movement eg where

there are movement sensitive buried service present within 2H of the excavation, a

trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 8H (kPa) should be adopted for the soil profile

and Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles, where H is the retained height in metres.

These pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support

system.

Any surcharge affecting the walls (eg. immediately adjacent building footings, traffic,

construction loads, inclined backfill surface, etc.) should be allowed in the design using an

‘at rest’ earth pressure coefficient (K0) of 0.55 for the soil and Class V and IV shale

bedrock profiles, assuming a horizontal backfill surface.

A 10kPa lateral pressure should be adopted for the Class III or better quality shale

bedrock.

A bulk unit weight of 20kN/m3 should be adopted for the soil and Class V and IV shale

bedrock profiles.

The retaining walls should be designed as drained and measures taken to induce

complete and permanent drainage of the ground behind the wall. Strip drains

incorporating a non-woven geofabric to act as a filter against subsoil erosion are

appropriate for soldier piled retaining walls with reinforced shotcrete infill panels.

For piles embedded into the underlying shale bedrock below bulk excavation level across

the eastern half of the site in Class IV or better quality shale bedrock, an allowable lateral

toe resistance of 250kPa may be adopted. This value assume that excavation is not

carried out within the zone of influence of the wall toe and the rock does not contain

unfavourable defects etc. The upper 0.5m depth of the socket below bulk excavation level

should not be taken into account in the lateral resistance calculations to allow for tolerance

and disturbance effects during excavation.

Temporary anchors should have a free length of not less than 4m and should be bonded

at least 3m into shale bedrock, with the bond length being fully beyond a line drawn up at

45˚ from bulk excavation level. The wall designer must check their design assuming there

is a planar defect inclined at 45° through the shale bedrock which extends up behind the

retaining wall from bulk excavation level, assuming an effective friction angle along the

27577ZHrpt Page 15

defect of 26°. Temporary anchors may be designed on the basis of a maximum allowable

bond stress of 150kPa (Class V shale) and 250kPa (Class IV or better quality shale).

All anchors must be proof tested to 1.3 times the working load under the direction of an

experienced engineer independent of the anchor contractor, with anchors ‘locked off’ at

85% of the design working load. The testing may allow an upgrading of the above bond

stress. We recommend only experienced contractors be considered for the anchor

installation.

As temporary anchors will run below neighbouring properties, the permission from the owners

must be obtained prior to installation. We recommend that requests for permission commence

early in the construction process as our experience has shown that it can take significant time for

such permission to be granted. If permission is not forthcoming, then the alternative is to provide

lateral support by internal bracing or propping.

5.4 Footings

Based on the investigation results, shale bedrock will be exposed at bulk excavation level and

therefore for uniformity of support, we recommend that the proposed building be uniformly

founded within the shale bedrock.

The quality of shale bedrock exposed is expected to be at least Class III across the western half

of the basement, and at least Class IV across the eastern half of the basement. However, where

Class IV shale is present at bulk excavation level, the depth to the underlying Class III or better

quality shale bedrock is expected to be relatively shallow ie. within 1.5m below bulk excavation

level.

Pad and/or strip footings, internal bored piles and any shoring piles founded in Class III or better

quality shale bedrock may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500kPa,

provided each footing/pile is inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to pouring.

The provided bearing pressure above is based upon serviceability criteria of deflections at the

footing base of less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension/pile diameter.

All footings/bored piles should be excavated/drilled, cleaned out, inspected and poured with

minimal delay. All pile holes should be cleaned out using a cleaning bucket for effective removal

of sludge and loose material. Due to expected groundwater seepage, the piles should only be

cleaned out when concrete is ready to be tremie poured.

27577ZHrpt Page 16

5.5 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab

Based on the investigation results, the proposed lowest basement level on-grade floor slab will

directly overlie shale bedrock.

We therefore recommend that underfloor drainage be provided. The underfloor drainage should

comprise a strong, durable, single-sized washed aggregate such as ‘blue metal’ gravel. The

underfloor drainage should connect with the perimeter drains and lead groundwater seepage to a

sump for pumped disposal to the stormwater system.

Joints in the concrete basement level on-grade floor slabs should be designed to accommodate

shear forces but not bending moments by using dowelled or keyed joints.

We note that the proposed entrance driveway ramp into the basement off Crane Street may be

partly underlain by soil and partly underlain by bedrock. We therefore recommend that the

proposed entrance driveway be designed as a suspended slab, so as to reduce the potential for

damage due to differential movements from shrink-swell of the underlying clayey soils and

settlements arising from founding in different materials.

5.6 Soil Aggression

Based on the laboratory soil chemistry results and in accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) of AS2159-

2009 (“Piling – Design and Installation”), the exposure classification for concrete piles is ‘Mild’.

5.7 Hydrogeological Issues

We recommend that during construction an inspection of the bulk excavation be carried out by

both JK Geotechnics and the hydraulic engineer and the inflow rate measured. The results of the

seepage analysis may be used for the design of the basement drainage. If the basement

drainage design is based on the results of the analysis in this report, then we recommend a

suitable factor of safety (not less than 2) be applied to the calculated seepage volume and that

the drainage system should have some redundancy for the potential for siltation (or clogging) of

drainage layers over time.

The groundwater in the surrounding area is expected to flow in a north-easterly direction from the

relatively small catchment uphill (to the south-west) of the site. Based on the investigation results,

we expect minor groundwater seepage is occurring through the shale bedrock profile.

27577ZHrpt Page 17

For the proposed development, we expect that the seepage inflows into the excavation will occur

predominantly through joints and bedding partings within the bedrock profile. However, it is also

possible that local seepage flows may occur through the fill, gravel bands or relic joints/fissures

within the residual silty clay and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy rainfall. Based

on the low permeability characteristics of the shale bedrock, we expect slow inflow rates and low

seepage volumes into the bulk excavation, as discussed above in Section 4. We further expect

that the seepage volumes will reduce over time once the immediate surrounding area has

drained, as a result of the excavation being carried out.

A build-up of the groundwater level behind the basement retaining walls to the extent that it will

adversely affect neighbouring properties, is considered unlikely, as drainage will be provided

behind the basement retaining walls.

The underfloor drainage must include a sump and pump dewatering system. The retaining wall

drains must be connected into the underfloor drainage system. Groundwater monitoring of

seepage volumes must be carried out during basement excavation prior to finalising the design of

the pump out facility, as discussed above in Section 4.4. The sump(s) must have an automatic

level control pump to avoid flooding of proposed basement. Outlets into the stormwater system

will require Council approval.

Further to considering the inflows into the basement, the drawdown of groundwater outside the

proposed basement has also been considered. Some drawdown of groundwater will occur

immediately adjacent to the basement, however, as the lowering of the groundwater will occur

within the shale bedrock profile, this will have no adverse effects on surrounding properties, as

the shale bedrock is relatively ‘incompressible’ with respect to dewatering induced settlements.

5.8 Further Geotechnical Input

We summarise below the recommended additional geotechnical input that needs to be carried

out:

Dilapidation surveys on the neighbouring buildings to the north and south;

Quantitative vibration monitoring when using rock hammers during excavation;

Groundwater monitoring of seepage volumes into the excavation;

Where exposed, inspection of toe restraint bedrock for soldier piles;

Proof testing of anchors;

27577ZHrpt Page 18

Footing/pile inspections.

6 GENERAL COMMENTS

The recommendations presented in this report include specific issues to be addressed during the

construction phase of the project. In the event that any of the construction phase

recommendations presented in this report are not implemented, the general recommendations

may become inapplicable and JK Geotechnics accept no responsibility whatsoever for the

performance of the structure where recommendations are not implemented in full and properly

tested, inspected and documented.

Occasionally, the subsurface conditions between the completed boreholes may be found to be

different (or may be interpreted to be different) from those expected. Variation can also occur

with groundwater conditions, especially after climatic changes. If such differences appear to

exist, we recommend that you immediately contact this office.

This report provides advice on geotechnical aspects for the proposed civil and structural design.

As part of the documentation stage of this project, Contract Documents and Specifications may

be prepared based on our report. However, there may be design features we are not aware of or

have not commented on for a variety of reasons. The designers should satisfy themselves that all

the necessary advice has been obtained. If required, we could be commissioned to review the

geotechnical aspects of contract documents to confirm the intent of our recommendations has

been correctly implemented.

A waste classification will need to be assigned to any soil excavated from the site prior to offsite

disposal. Subject to the appropriate testing, material can be classified as Virgin Excavated

Natural Material (VENM), General Solid, Restricted Solid or Hazardous Waste. If the natural soil

has been stockpiled, classification of this soil as Excavated Natural Material (ENM) can also be

undertaken, if requested. However, the criteria for ENM are more stringent and the cost

associated with attempting to meet these criteria may be significant. Analysis takes seven to

10 working days to complete, therefore, an adequate allowance should be included in the

construction program unless testing is completed prior to construction. If contamination is

encountered, then substantial further testing (and associated delays) should be expected. We

strongly recommend that this issue is addressed prior to the commencement of excavation on

site.

27577ZHrpt Page 19

This report has been prepared for the particular project described and no responsibility is

accepted for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose.

If there is any change in the proposed development described in this report then all

recommendations should be reviewed. Copyright in this report is the property of JK Geotechnics.

We have used a degree of care, skill and diligence normally exercised by consulting engineers in

similar circumstances and locality. No other warranty expressed or implied is made or intended.

Subject to payment of all fees due for the investigation, the client alone shall have a licence to

use this report. The report shall not be reproduced except in full.

Reference No: 27577ZH

Project: Proposed Residential Development

Borehole Sample Depth Sample Description pH Sulphate Chloride

Number (m) Units (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

BH1 0.5 - 0.95 Residual SILTY CLAY 4.5 91 <10

BH2 0.1 - 0.2 Fill: Silty Clay topsoil 5.7 49 41

BH3 0.6 - 0.95 Residual SILTY CLAY 4.5 230 42

TABLE D

SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS

SOIL pH, SULPHATE AND CHLORIDE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DRY ONCOMPL-ETION

OFAUGER

-ING

ONCOMPL-ETION

OFCORING

N = 136,6,7

N = SPT16/150mm

REFUSAL

CH

-

CONCRETE: 90mm.t.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, orangebrown and brown, trace of fine tomedium grained ironstone gravel.

SHALE: light grey.

SHALE: grey, with L-M strength ironindurated seams.

as above,but dark grey.

REFER TO CORED BOREHOLELOG

MC»PL

XW-DW

H

EL-VL

>600>600>600

NO OBSERVEDREINFORCEMENT

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE WITHMODERATE BANDS

LOW TO MODERATERESISTANCE

50mm DIA. PVCSTANDPIPEINSTALLED TO11.07m DEPTH.SLOTTED FROM5.07m TO 11.07mDEPTH. UNSLOTTEDFROM 0.0m TO 5.07mDEPTH. BACKFILLEDWITH 2mm SANDBETWEEN 5m AND11.07m DEPTH.BENTONITE SEAL

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.

11/3

Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW

Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250

R.L. Surface: » 13.8m

Date: 17-7-14 Datum: AHD

Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

BETWEEN 4.5m AND5.0m DEPTH.BACKFILLED TO0.2m DEPTH.CONCRETE ANDCAST IRON GATICCOVER TOSURFACE



12/3








Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

Ref: 27577ZH Borehole 1

JK Geotechnics

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FULLRET-URN

START CORING AT 5.25m

SHALE: dark grey, with orangebrown seams and L-M strengthseams .

SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.

CORE LOSS: 0.10m

SHALE: dark grey with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.

END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.68m

XW-DW

SW

SW-FR

EL-VL

M-H

M-H

- XWS, 0-5°, 2mm.t

- Cr, 0°, 50mm.t

- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL

- Cr, 0°, 15mm.t- Cr, 0°, 30mm.t- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL

- Cr, 0°, 100mm.t

- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 100mm.t



- J, 40°, P, R


- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 15mm.t- XWS, 0°, 5mm.t- Cr, S, 20mm.t- J, 50°, P, S


- Cr, 0°, 20mm.t


CORED BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.

13/3




Job No. 27577ZH Core Size: NMLC R.L. Surface: » 13.8m

Date: 17-7-14 Inclination: VERTICAL Datum: AHD

Drill Type: JK250 Bearing: - Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.

Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l L

ift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Rock Type, grain character-istics, colour, structure,

minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10

DESCRIPTIONType, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating.

Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DRY ONCOMPL-ETION

OFAUGER

-ING

ONCOMPL-ETION

OFCORING

.

N = 104,5,5

N = SPT13/100mm

CH

-

FILL: Silty clay topsoil, low plasticity,brown, trace of roots and sand.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, redbrown and brown.

as above,but light grey and orange brown.

SHALE: light grey and dark grey withL-M strength iron indurated bands.

as above,but dark grey, with XW bands.

SHALE: dark grey and brown.


MC<PL

MC>PL

MC»PL

XW-DW

DW

H

EL-VL

VL-L

M

480520540

RESIDUAL


LOW RESISTANCEWITH VERY LOWBANDS

MODERATERESISTANCE



21/2








Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT


JK Geotechnics

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FULLRE-

TURN


SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.


DW

XW

SW

FR

M

EL

M

M-H

H

M-H

- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 20mm.t- XWS, 5°, 100mm.t- J, 70°, P, S- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 25mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 15mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 30mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 70mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 65mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 90mm.t

-J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL

- XWS, 0-5°, 15mm.t

- J, 60°, P, R

FRAGMENTED BAND, 200mm.t

- Cr, 0-5°, 10mm.t

- J, 80°, P, S- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 120mm.t

- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 10mm.t

- XWS, 0-5°, 90mm.t

- FRAGMENTED SEAM,150mm.t

- XWS, 0-5°, 5mm.t

- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t

- XWS, 0-5°, 30mm.t



22/2







Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l L

ift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10



Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DRY ONCOMPL-ETION

OFAUGER

-ING

ONCOMPL-ETIONOF COR

-ING

N = 187,9,9

CL

CL-CH

-

SILTY CLAY: low to medium plasticity,brown, trace of fine grained ironstonegravel and root fibres.

SILTY CLAY: medium to highplasticity, grey and orange brown,trace of fine to coarse grainedironstone gravel.

SHALE: grey and light grey, with Mstrength iron indurated bands and XWbands.

as above,but without M strength bands.

as above,but dark grey and orange brown.


MC<PL

DW

H

VL

L

VL-L

L

>600>600>600

GRASS COVERRESIDUAL


LOW RESISTANCE

LOW RESISTANCE

50mm DIA. PVCSTANDPIPEINSTALLED TO10.95m DEPTH.SLOTTED FROM4.5m TO 10.95mDEPTH. UNSLOTTEDFROM 0.0m TO 4.5mDEPTH. BACKFILLEDWITH 2mm SANDBETWEEN 4.5m AND10.95m DEPTH.



31/3








Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

BENTONITE SEALBETWEEN 4.0m AND4.5m DEPTH.BACKFILL TO 0.2mDEPTH. CONCRETEAND CAST IRONGATIC COVER TOSURFACE



32/3








Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT


JK Geotechnics

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FULLRE

-TURN


SHALE: dark grey and brown, withL-M strength seams.

SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0.5°.


XW-DW

SW-FR

FR

EL-VL

M-H

H

- Cr, 0°, 70mm.t

- Cr, 0°, 50mm.t




33/3







Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l L

ift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10



Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

C

OP

YRIG

HT

BH3

BH2

BH1

APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT

CR

AN

E

STR

EE

T

Notes1. To be read in conjuction with the text of the report.2. Refer to Figure 5 for details of Section A - A.

A A

115 Wicks Road PO Box 978 T: 61 2 9888 5000 E: [email protected] Macquarie Park NSW 2113 North Ryde BC NSW 1670 F: 61 2 9888 5001 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au

VIBRATION EMISSION DESIGN GOALS

German Standard DIN 4150 – Part 3: 1999 provides guideline levels of vibration velocity for evaluating the effects of vibration in structures. The limits presented in this standard are generally recognised to be conservative.

The DIN 4150 values (maximum levels measured in any direction at the foundation, OR, maximum levels measured in (x) or (y) horizontal directions, in the plane of the uppermost floor), are summarised in Table 1 below.

It should be noted that peak vibration velocities higher than the minimum figures in Table 1 for low frequencies may be quite ‘safe’, depending on the frequency content of the vibration and the actual condition of the structures.

It should also be noted that these levels are ‘safe limits’, up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been observed for the particular class of building. ‘Damage’ is defined by DIN 4150 to include even minor non-structural effects such as superficial cracking in cement render, the enlargement of cracks already present, and the separation of partitions or intermediate walls from load bearing walls. Should damage be observed at vibration levels lower than the ‘safe limits’, then it may be attributed to other causes. DIN 4150 also states that when vibration levels higher than the ‘safe limits’ are present, it does not necessarily follow that damage will occur. Values given are only a broad guide. Table 1: DIN 4150 – Structural Damage – Safe Limits for Building Vibration

Group Type of Structure

Peak Vibration Velocity in mm/s

At Foundation Level at a Frequency of:

Plane of Floor of Uppermost

Storey

Less than 10Hz

10Hz to 50Hz

50Hz to 100Hz

All Frequencies

1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design.

20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40

2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or use.

5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15

3 Structures that because of their particular sensitivity to vibration, do not correspond to those listed in Group 1 and 2 and have intrinsic value (eg. buildings that are under a preservation order).

3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8

NOTE: For frequencies above 100Hz, the higher values in the 50Hz to 100Hz column should be used.

•

JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801

JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 1 of 4

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

INTRODUCTION

These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnicalreport in regard to classification methods, field proceduresand certain matters relating to the Comments andRecommendations section. Not all notes are necessarilyrelevant to all reports.

The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety ofcharacteristics and properties which vary from place to placeand can change with time. Geotechnical engineeringinvolves gathering and assimilating limited facts about thesecharacteristics and properties in order to understand orpredict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site undercertain conditions. This report may contain such factsobtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling,testing or other means of investigation. If so, they aredirectly relevant only to the ground at the place where andtime when the investigation was carried out.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS

The methods of description and classification of soils androcks used in this report are based on Australian Standard1726, the SAA Site Investigation Code. In general,descriptions cover the following properties – soil or rock type,colour, structure, strength or density, and inclusions.Identification and classification of soil and rock involvesjudgement and the Company infers accuracy only to theextent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

Soil types are described according to the predominatingparticle size and behaviour as set out in the attached UnifiedSoil Classification Table qualified by the grading of otherparticles present (e.g. sandy clay) as set out below:

Soil Classification Particle Size

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel

less than 0.002mm

0.002 to 0.075mm

0.075 to 2mm

2 to 60mm

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relativedensity, generally from the results of Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) as below:

Relative DensitySPT ‘N’ Value(blows/300mm)

Very loose

Loose

Medium dense

Dense

Very Dense

less than 4

4 – 10

10 – 30

30 – 50

greater than 50

Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer, laboratorytesting or engineering examination. The strength terms aredefined as follows.

ClassificationUnconfined CompressiveStrength kPa

Very Soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

Friable

less than 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 200

200 – 400

Greater than 400

Strength not attainable

– soil crumbles

Rock types are classified by their geological names,together with descriptive terms regarding weathering,strength, defects, etc. Where relevant, further informationregarding rock classification is given in the text of the report.In the Sydney Basin, ‘Shale’ is used to describe thinlybedded to laminated siltstone.

SAMPLING

Sampling is carried out during drilling or from otherexcavations to allow engineering examination (andlaboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide informationon plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minorconstituents and, depending upon the degree of disturbance,some information on strength and structure. Bulk samplesare similar but of greater volume required for some testprocedures.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walledsample tube, usually 50mm diameter (known as a U50), intothe soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soilcontained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samplesyield information on structure and strength, and arenecessary for laboratory determination of shear strengthand compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generallyeffective only in cohesive soils.

Details of the type and method of sampling used are givenon the attached logs.

INVESTIGATION METHODS

The following is a brief summary of investigation methodscurrently adopted by the Company and some comments ontheir use and application. All except test pits, hand augerdrilling and portable dynamic cone penetrometers requirethe use of a mechanical drilling rig which is commonlymounted on a truck chassis.

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS


Test Pits: These are normally excavated with a backhoe or

a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitusoils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth ofpenetration is limited to about 3m for a backhoe and up to6m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are the problemsassociated with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatementand the consequent effects on close-by structures. Caremust be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pitlocations to either properly recompact the backfill duringconstruction or to design and construct the structure so asnot to be adversely affected by poorly compacted backfill atthe test pit location.

Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of 50mm to 100mm

diameter is advanced by manually operated equipment.Premature refusal of the hand augers can occur on a varietyof materials such as hard clay, gravel or ironstone, and doesnot necessarily indicate rock level.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers: The borehole is

advanced using 75mm to 115mm diameter continuousspiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allowsampling and insitu testing. This is a relatively economicalmeans of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table.Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may becollected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they canbe very disturbed and layers may become mixed.Information from the auger sampling (as distinct fromspecific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is ofrelatively lower reliability due to mixing or softening ofsamples by groundwater, or uncertainties as to the originaldepth of the samples. Augering below the groundwatertable is of even lesser reliability than augering above thewater table.

Rock Augering: Use can be made of a Tungsten Carbide

(TC) bit for auger drilling into rock to indicate rock qualityand continuity by variation in drilling resistance and fromexamination of recovered rock fragments. This method ofinvestigation is quick and relatively inexpensive but providesonly an indication of the likely rock strength and predictedvalues may be in error by a strength order. Where rockstrengths may have a significant impact on constructionfeasibility or costs, then further investigation by means ofcored boreholes may be warranted.

Wash Boring: The borehole is usually advanced by a

rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods andreturned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings.Only major changes in stratification can be determined fromthe cuttings, together with some information from “feel” andrate of penetration.

Mud Stabilised Drilling: Either Wash Boring or

Continuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as acirculating fluid to stabilise the borehole. The term ‘mud’encompasses a range of products ranging from bentonite topolymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to maskthe cuttings and reliable identification is only possible fromintermittent intact sampling (eg from SPT and U50 samples)or from rock coring, etc.

Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core sample is

obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Provided fullcore recovery is achieved (which is not always possible invery low strength rocks and granular soils), this techniqueprovides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method ofinvestigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel,which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually usedwith water flush. The length of core recovered is comparedto the length drilled and any length not recovered is shownas CORE LOSS. The location of losses are determined onsite by the supervising engineer; where the location isuncertain, the loss is placed at the top end of the drill run.

Standard Penetration Tests: Standard Penetration Tests

(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can alsobe used in cohesive soils as a means of indicating density orstrength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbedsample. The test procedure is described in AustralianStandard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for EngineeringPurposes” – Test F3.1.

The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mmdiameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under theimpact of a 63kg hammer with a free fall of 760mm. It isnormal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150mmincrements and the ‘N’ value is taken as the number ofblows for the last 300mm. In dense sands, very hard claysor weak rock, the full 450mm penetration may not bepracticable and the test is discontinued.

The test results are reported in the following form:

In the case where full penetration is obtained withsuccessive blow counts for each 150mm of, say, 4, 6and 7 blows, as

N = 134, 6, 7

In a case where the test is discontinued short of fullpenetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and30 blows for the next 40mm, as

N>3015, 30/40mm

The results of the test can be related empirically to theengineering properties of the soil.

Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mmdiameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In suchcircumstances, the test results are shown on the boreholelogs in brackets.

A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving

system is used with a solid 60 tipped steel cone of thesame diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid conecan be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays orloose sands, or may be used where damage wouldotherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid ConePenetration Test (SCPT) are shown as "N c” on the boreholelogs, together with the number of blows per 150mmpenetration.


Static Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation:

Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as aDutch Cone) described in this report has been carried outusing an Electronic Friction Cone Penetrometer (EFCP).The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test F5.1.

In the tests, a 35mm diameter rod with a conical tip ispushed continuously into the soil, the reaction beingprovided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fittedwith an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made ofthe end bearing resistance on the cone and the frictionalresistance on a separate 134mm long sleeve, immediatelybehind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly areelectrically connected by wires passing through the centre ofthe push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted onthe control truck.

As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm persecond) the information is output as incremental digitalrecords every 10mm. The results given in this report havebeen plotted from the digital data.

The information provided on the charts comprise:

Cone resistance – the actual end bearing force dividedby the cross sectional area of the cone – expressed inMPa.

Sleeve friction – the frictional force on the sleeve dividedby the surface area – expressed in kPa.

Friction ratio – the ratio of sleeve friction to coneresistance, expressed as a percentage.

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistancewill vary with the type of soil encountered, with higherrelative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands andoccasionally very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiffclays and peats. Soil descriptions based on coneresistance and friction ratios are only inferred and mustnot be considered as exact.

Correlations between EFCP and SPT values can bedeveloped for both sands and clays but may be site specific.

Interpretation of EFCP values can be made to empiricallyderive modulus or compressibility values to allow calculationof foundation settlements.

Stratification can be inferred from the cone and frictiontraces and from experience and information from nearbyboreholes etc. Where shown, this information is presentedfor general guidance, but must be regarded as interpretive.The test method provides a continuous profile ofengineering properties but, where precise information on soilclassification is required, direct drilling and sampling may bepreferable.

Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers: Portable

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out bydriving a rod into the ground with a sliding hammer andcounting the blows for successive 100mm increments ofpenetration.

Two relatively similar tests are used:

Cone penetrometer (commonly known as the ScalaPenetrometer) – a 16mm rod with a 20mm diametercone end is driven with a 9kg hammer dropping 510mm(AS1289, Test F3.2). The test was developed initiallyfor pavement subgrade investigations, and correlationsof the test results with California Bearing Ratio havebeen published by various Road Authorities.

Perth sand penetrometer – a 16mm diameter flat endedrod is driven with a 9kg hammer, dropping 600mm(AS1289, Test F3.3). This test was developed fortesting the density of sands (originating in Perth) and ismainly used in granular soils and filling.

LOGS

The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are anengineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions, and their reliability will depend to someextent on the frequency of sampling and the method ofdrilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbedsampling or core drilling will enable the most reliableassessment, but is not always practicable or possible tojustify on economic grounds. In any case, the boreholes ortest pits represent only a very small sample of the totalsubsurface conditions.

The attached explanatory notes define the terms andsymbols used in preparation of the logs.

Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and itsapplication to design and construction, should therefore takeinto account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, themethod of drilling or excavation, the frequency of samplingand testing and the possibility of other than “straight line”variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurfaceconditions between boreholes or test pits may varysignificantly from conditions encountered at the borehole ortest pit locations.

GROUNDWATER

Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes, thereare several potential problems:

Although groundwater may be present, in lowpermeability soils it may enter the hole slowly or perhapsnot at all during the time it is left open.

A localised perched water table may lead to anerroneous indication of the true water table.

Water table levels will vary from time to time withseasons or recent weather changes and may not be thesame at the time of construction.

The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask anygroundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of thehole and drilling mud must be washed out of the hole or‘reverted’ chemically if water observations are to bemade.


More reliable measurements can be made by installingstandpipes which are read after stabilising at intervalsranging from several days to perhaps weeks for lowpermeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particularstratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or wherethere may be interference from perched water tables orsurface water.

FILL

The presence of fill materials can often be determined onlyby the inclusion of foreign objects (eg bricks, steel etc) or bydistinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification ofthe extent of fill materials will also depend on investigationmethods and frequency. Where natural soils similar tothose at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult withlimited testing and sampling to reliably determine the extentof the fill.

The presence of fill materials is usually regarded withcaution as the possible variation in density, strength andmaterial type is much greater than with natural soil deposits.Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverseengineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume andquality of fill is of importance to a project, then frequent testpit excavations are preferable to boreholes.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance withAustralian Standard 1289 ‘Methods of Testing Soil forEngineering Purposes’. Details of the test procedure usedare given on the individual report forms.

ENGINEERING REPORTS

Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel andare based on the information obtained and on currentengineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Wherethe report has been prepared for a specific design proposal(eg. a three storey building) the information andinterpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal ischanged (eg to a twenty storey building). If this happens,the company will be pleased to review the report and thesufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates tointerpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion ofgeotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestionsfor design and construction. However, the Company cannotalways anticipate or assume responsibility for:

Unexpected variations in ground conditions – thepotential for this will be partially dependent on boreholespacing and sampling frequency as well as investigationtechnique.

Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutoryauthorities.

The actions of persons or contractors responding tocommercial pressures.

If these occur, the company will be pleased to assist withinvestigation or advice to resolve any problems occurring.

SITE ANOMALIES

In the event that conditions encountered on site duringconstruction appear to vary from those which were expectedfrom the information contained in the report, the companyrequests that it immediately be notified. Most problems aremuch more readily resolved when conditions are exposedthat at some later stage, well after the event.

REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FORCONTRACTUAL PURPOSES

Attention is drawn to the document ‘Guidelines for theProvision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents’ ,

published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Whereinformation obtained from this investigation is provided fortendering purposes, it is recommended that all information,including the written report and discussion, be madeavailable. In circumstances where the discussion orcomments section is not relevant to the contractual situation,it may be appropriate to prepare a specially editeddocument. The company would be pleased to assist in thisregard and/or to make additional report copies available forcontract purposes at a nominal charge.

Copyright in all documents (such as drawings, borehole ortest pit logs, reports and specifications) provided by theCompany shall remain the property of Jeffery andKatauskas Pty Ltd. Subject to the payment of all fees due,the Client alone shall have a licence to use the documentsprovided for the sole purpose of completing the project towhich they relate. License to use the documents may berevoked without notice if the Client is in breach of anyobjection to make a payment to us.

REVIEW OF DESIGN

Where major civil or structural developments are proposedor where only a limited investigation has been completed orwhere the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quitecomplex, it is prudent to have a joint design review whichinvolves a senior geotechnical engineer.

SITE INSPECTION

The company will always be pleased to provide engineeringinspection services for geotechnical aspects of work towhich this report is related.

Requirements could range from:

i) a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are noworse than those interpreted, to

ii) a visit to assist the contractor or other site personnel inidentifying various soil/rock types such as appropriatefooting or pier founding depths, or

iii) full time engineering presence on site.

JKG Graph

GEOTEC

hic Log Symbols fo

HNICAL & ENVI

or Soils and Rock

GRAPHI

RONMENTAL E

s Rev1 July12

IC LOG SY

NGINEERS

MBOLS FOOR SOILS AAND ROCKSKS

Pag

ge 1 of 1

JK GEOTECHN

Note:

GeotecNICAL & ENVIRONMEN

1 Soils possessing2 Soils with liquid

chnics NTAL ENGINEERS

g characteristics of twolimits of the order of 3

UNIF

o groups are designat35 to 50 may be visual

FIED SOIL

ted by combinations olly classified as being

CLASSIFIC

of group symbols (eg. Gof medium plasticity.

CATION TA

GW-GC, well graded g

ABLE

gravel-sand mixture wwith clay fines).

JKG Log S

LOG

Groundw

Samples

Field Te

Moisture(Cohesiv (Cohesio

Strength(ConsistCohesiv

Density Relative(Cohesio

Hand PeReading

Remarks

GEOTEC

ymbols Rev1 Jun

G COLUMN

water Record

s

ests

e Condition ve Soils)

onless Soils)

h tency)

ve Soils

Index/ e Density onless Soils)

enetrometer gs

s

CHNICAL & ENV

e12

SYMBOL

ES U50 DB DS

ASB ASS SAL

N = 17 4, 7, 10

Nc = 5

7

3R

VNS = 25

PID = 100

MC>PL MC≈PL MC<PL

D M W

VS S F St

VSt H

( )

VL L

MD D

VD ( )

300 250

‘V’ bit

‘TC’ bit

60

VIRONMENTAL

C

4

Standing wa

Extent of bo

Groundwate

Soil sample Undisturbed Bulk disturbeSmall disturbSoil sample Soil sample Soil sample

Standard Peshow blows

Solid Cone Pfigures show ‘R’ refers to

R

Vane shear

Photoionisat

Moisture conMoisture conMoisture conDRY –MOIST –WET –

VERY SOFTSOFTFIRMSTIFFVERY STIFFHARDBracketed sy

Density IndVery LooseLooseMedium DenDenseVery DenseBracketed sy

Numbers indnoted otherwise.

Hardened st

Tungsten caPenetration rotation of au

ENGINEERS

LOG SYM

ater level. Time d

rehole collapse s

er seepage into b

taken over depth 50mm diametered sample takenbed bag sample taken over depthtaken over depthtaken over depth

enetration Test (Sper 150mm pen

Penetration Testw blows per 150mo apparent hamm

reading in kPa o

tion detector rea

ntent estimated tntent estimated tntent estimated t

– Runs freely t– Does not run– Free water vi

T – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin

F – Unconfin -– Unconfin

ymbol indicates

ex (ID) Range (%<1515-35

nse 35-6565-85>85

ymbol indicates

dicate individual

teel ‘V’ shaped b

arbide wing bit. of auger string inugers.

MBOLS

D

delay following c

shortly after drilli

borehole or exca

h indicated, for er tube sample ta

n over depth indictaken over dept

h indicated, for ah indicated, for ah indicated, for s

SPT) performed etration. ‘R’ as n

t (SCPT) performmm penetration fmer refusal within

of Undrained She

ding in ppm (So

to be greater thato be approximatto be less than phrough fingers. freely but no freisible on soil surf

ned compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressiveestimated consis

%)

estimated densit

test results in kP

bit.

n mm under stat

EFINITION

completion of dril

ng.

vation noted dur

environmental anken over depth incated. h indicated.

asbestos screeniacid sulfate soil asalinity analysis.

between depthsnoted below.

med between depfor 60 degree son the correspond

ear Strength.

il sample headsp

n plastic limit. tely equal to plas

plastic limit.

ee water visible oface.

e strength less the strength 25-50e strength 50-10e strength 100-2e strength 200-4e strength greatestency based on

SPT ‘N

ty based on ease

Pa on representa

ic load of rig app

lling may be sho

ring drilling or ex

nalysis. ndicated.

ing. analysis.

s indicated by lin

pths indicated byolid cone driven bing 150mm dept

pace test).

stic limit.

on soil surface.

han 25kPa 0kPa 00kPa 200kPa 400kPa er than 400kPa n tactile examina

N’ Value Range ( 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50

e of drilling or ot

ative undisturbed

plied by drill head

Pag

own.

xcavation.

es. Individual fig

y lines. Individuaby SPT hammer.th increment.

tion or other test

(Blows/300mm)

0 0

her tests.

d material unless

d hydraulics with

ge 1 of 2

gures

al .

ts.

)

s

hout

JKG Log Symbols Rev

ROCK M

Residual

Extremel

Distinctly

Slightly w

Fresh roc

ROCK SRock strenbedding. Abstract V

TE

Extremel

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

Very Low

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

Low:

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

Medium

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

High:

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

Very Hig

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

Extremel

ABBRE

ABBR

v1 June12

MATERIAL W

TERM

l Soil

ly weathered roc

y weathered rock

weathered rock

ck

STRENGTH ngth is defined bThe test proc

Volume 22, No 2,

ERM SY

ly Low:

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

w:

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

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

Strength:

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

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

h:

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

ly High:

----

----

----

----

-----

-----

EVIATIONS U

REVIATION

Be CS J P

Un S R IS

XWS Cr 60t

WEATHERIN

SYMBO

RS

ck XW

k DW

SW

FR

by the Point Loacedure is desc 1985.

YMBOL Is (5

EL

-----------

VL

-----------

L

-----------

M

-----------

H

-----------

VH

-----------

EH

USED IN DE

DES

Bedding Plane Clay Seam Joint Planar Undulating Smooth Rough Ironstained Extremely WeaCrushed Seam Thickness of de

LO

NG CLASSIF

OL

Soil develoevident; th

Rock is weremoulded

Rock strenironstainingweathering

Rock is slig

Rock show

d Strength Indexribed by the

50) MPa

0.03

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Eas May A pieknife

A piewith A piescra

A pieone

A pieRing

EFECT DESC

SCRIPTION

Parting

thered Seam

efect in millimetre

OG SYMBOL

FICATION

oped on extremelyhere is a large cha

eathered to such , in water.

ngth usually chang. Porosity mayg products in pore

ghtly discoloured

ws no sign of deco

x (Is 50) and refInternational Jo

ily remoulded by

y be crumbled in t

ece of core 150me. Sharp edges o

ece of core 150m knife.

ece of core 150matched or scored w

ece of core 150mblow. Cannot be

ece of core 150mgs when struck wi

CRIPTION

es

Defec(ie re

LS continue

D

y weathered rockange in volume bu

an extent that it

nged by weathery be increased bes.

but shows little or

omposition or stain

fers to the strengournal of Rock

hand to a materia

he hand. Sandst

mm long x 50mm dof core may be fria

mm long x 50mm d

mm long x 50mm dwith knife; rock ri

mm long x 50mm de scratched with p

mm long x 50mm dith a hammer.

ct orientations melative to horizont

d

DEFINITION

k; the mass strucut the soil has not

has “soil” proper

ring. The rock y leaching, or m

r no change of str

ning.

gth of the rock sk Mechanics, M

FIELD GUIDE

al with soil propert

one is “sugary” an

dia. may be brokeable and break du

dia. can be broken

dia. core cannot bngs under hamme

dia. may be brokeen knife; rock rin

dia. is very difficul

NOT

measured relativetal for vertical ho

cture and substant been significantl

rties, ie it either d

may be highly dmay be decreased

rength from fresh

substance in theMining, Science

E

ties.

nd friable.

en by hand and eauring handling.

n by hand with dif

be broken by hander.

en with hand-held ngs under hamme

lt to break with ha

TES

e to the normal oles)

Page

nce fabric are no y transported.

disintegrates or c

discoloured, usuad due to deposit

rock.

direction normae and Geomec

asily scored with a

fficulty. Readily s

d, can be slightly

pick after more ther.

and-held hammer.

to the long core

2 of 2

longer

can be

ally by tion of

al to the chanics.

a

cored

han

.

e axis

APPENDIX A

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 113601

Client:

Environmental Investigation Services

PO Box 976

North Ryde BC

NSW 1670

Attention: D Fisher

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush

No. of samples: 3 Soils

Date samples received / completed instructions received 24/07/2014 / 24/07/2014

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 31/07/14 / 31/07/14

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush

Miscellaneous Inorg - soil

Our Reference: UNITS 113601-1 113601-2 113601-3

Your Reference ------------- BH3 BH1 BH2

Depth ------------ 0.6-0.95 0.5-0.95 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

17/07/2014

Soil

18/07/2014

Soil

18/07/2014

Soil

Date prepared - 30/07/2014 30/07/2014 30/07/2014

Date analysed - 30/07/2014 30/07/2014 30/07/2014

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.5 4.5 5.7

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 42 <10 41

Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 230 91 49


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA 22nd ED, 4500-H+. Please note that

the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA 22nd ED, 4110

-B.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Miscellaneous Inorg - soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 30/07/2

014

113601-1 30/07/2014 || 30/07/2014 LCS-1 30/07/2014

Date analysed - 30/07/2

014

113601-1 30/07/2014 || 30/07/2014 LCS-1 30/07/2014

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 113601-1 4.5 || 4.4 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 101%

Chloride, Cl 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 113601-1 42 || 41 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 99%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 113601-1 230 || 210 || RPD: 9 LCS-1 106%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Miscellaneous Inorg - soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date prepared - [NT] [NT] 113601-2 30/07/2014

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 113601-2 30/07/2014

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] 113601-2 87%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg [NT] [NT] 113601-2 #


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NA: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample


Revision No: R 00


Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is

generally extracted during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or

1 in 20 samples respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy

laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical

holding times (THTs), the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge

of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT

or as soon as practicable.


Revision No: R 00