GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
13 Mount St,
Mount Druitt NSW
Prepared for
Blue Fountain Trust
c/- Marchese Partners International
Report No. GS7665-1A
26th July 2019
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
CONTROLLED DOCUMENT
DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER
Copy No. Custodian Location
_________________________________________________________________________
1 Shyam Ghimire Chameleon (Library)
2 Blue Fountain Trust
c/- Marchese Partners International
1/53 Walker St, North Sydney NSW
3 (Electronic) Concha Abascal [email protected]
Peter de Angelis [email protected]
Note: This register identifies the current custodians of controlled copies of the subject
document.
It is expected that these custodians would be responsible for:
The storage of the document.
Ensuring prompt incorporation of amendments.
Making the document available to pertinent personnel within the organisation.
Encouraging observance of the document by such personnel.
Making the document available for audit.
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Revision No. Issue Date Description
_____________________________________________________________________
0 25/07/2019 Draft
1 26/07/2019 Full report
Issued By:
Shyam Ghimire
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1
3. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................. 1
4. SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2
5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 2
6.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 2
6.2 Ground Profile .................................................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 4
7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 4
7.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 4
7.2 Excavation Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4
7.3 Vibration Control ............................................................................................................................... 5
7.4 Stability of Excavation ....................................................................................................................... 5
7.5 Earth Pressures .................................................................................................................................. 7
7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks ........................................................................................... 9
7.7 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................... 10
7.8 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................. 11
7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification .................................................................................. 12
8. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 12
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions 3
Table 2: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity 5
Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary) 6
Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 7
Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 8
Table 6: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Temporary Anchors 9
Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities 10
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT
APPENDIX B SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1)
APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS
APPENDIX D CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E POINT LOAD TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX F LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
REFERENCES
1. Australian Standard – AS 1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigation.
2. Australian Standard – AS 1170.4-2007 Structural Design Actions – Part 4:
Earthquake actions in Australia.
3. Australian Standard – AS3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and
Residential Developments.
4. Australian Standard – AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and footings.
5. Australian Standard – AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation.
6. Pells P.J.N, Mostyn, G. & Walker B.F., “Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the
Sydney Region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998.
7. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) publication “Site Investigations for Urban
Salinity”, 2002
16th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 1 of 13
1. INTRODUCTION
Chameleon Pty Ltd (Chameleon) has been commissioned by Blue Fountain Trust c/-
Marchese Partners International, to carry out a geotechnical site investigation at No. 13
Mount Street, Mt Druitt NSW. The site investigation was carried out on the 27th and 28th
June 2019 and was followed by geotechnical interpretation, assessment and preparation of a
geotechnical report.
The purpose of the investigation was to assess the ground conditions and feasibility, from a
geotechnical perspective, of the site for a proposed development.
This report presents results of the geotechnical site investigation, testing, interpretation, and
assessment of the site existing geotechnical conditions, as a basis to provide
recommendations for design and construction of ground structures for the proposed
development.
To assist in reading the report, reference should be made to the “Important Information about
Your Geotechnical Report” attached as Appendix A.
2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Prior to preparation of this report, the following information was made available to
Chameleon:
Pre-DA plans produced by Marchese Partners, including site plan, floor plans,
sections, Project Number 18052, Drawing Numbers 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.01, 2.02,
2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 4.01, 4.02 & DA, Revision 2, issued March
2019.
Pre-Application Meeting minutes with Blacktown Council dated 14 May 2019, PAM
Number C19/13485.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
In accordance with the brief, fieldwork for the geotechnical site investigation was carried out
by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from Chameleon, following in general the
guidelines provided in Australian Standard AS 1726-2017 (Reference 1) and comprised the
following:
A site walk-over inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer in order to determine the
overall surface conditions and to identify relevant site features.
Review of DBYD plans and service locating carried out using a specialist sub-
contractor to ensure that the investigation area is free from underground utilities.
Machine drilling of two boreholes to approximately 12.0m depth below ground
level. Each borehole was drilled to TC-bit refusal followed by NMLC coring.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were conducted in the boreholes at regular
intervals during drilling to assess the in-situ soil strength as practicable.
Installation of two standpipe piezometers for measurements of groundwater level
with one subsequent visit for measurement of the standing groundwater level.
Photographs of the rock samples were taken after placement of the samples into the
core boxes.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 2 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Representative samples were taken during augering for subsequent laboratory
testing
Following the site investigation, laboratory testing on soil and rock core samples was carried
out, comprising;
Point Load Index Tests - 14 core samples
Salinity and Aggressivity Testing
The approximate location of the boreholes completed during the geotechnical site
investigation is shown on “Figure 1 - Site Plan” attached in Appendix B.
Boreholes BH101, BH102, were augered to TC-bit refusal at depths of approximately 4.3m
and 6.0m below ground level (bgl), respectively, thence continued using NMLC rock coring
techniques to final depths of approximately 12.22m, 12.00m respectively.
Based on the results of the site investigation and laboratory testing, Chameleon carried out
geotechnical interpretation and assessment of the main potential geotechnical issues that may
be associated with the proposed development. A geotechnical report (this report) was
prepared to summarise the results of the geotechnical site investigation and to provide
relevant comments and recommendations relating to the proposed works.
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is a rectangular shaped lot of which an L-shaped part of the eastern half will be re-
developed for underground parking and three above ground levels for a commercial use
development. The part to be re-developed currently comprises an asphalt surfaced on grade
carpark and single storey commercial premises (part of Uncle Buck’s Hotel, and Pizza Hut).
The site is located within the Blacktown City Council area, approximately 240m east of the
main shopping precinct and approximately 500m north-east of the Mt Druitt train station.
The site is bounded by the following properties, public roads and infrastructure:
Part of Uncle Buck’s Hotel and on grade carpark to the west,
Public land comprising grass, trees and a public walkway, to the south of the site;
17 Mount St to the north, and
Mount Street road reserve carriageway and road reserve to the east.
The site and local topography during the investigation was gently sloping towards the west.
5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development will comprise a seven storey commercial building with three
basement levels for parking. Maximum excavation for the lowest basement level is to
RL47.3m AHD requiring an excavation depth of up to approximately 10.0m from the current
surface of RL56.90m AHD for construction of the proposed development.
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Geology
Reference to the Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 Edition 1, dated 1991, by
the Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources, indicates
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 3 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
that the site is located within a geological area underlain by Triassic Age Bringelly Shale
(Rwb) of the Wianamatta Group. The Bringelly Shale is described as “shale, carbonaceous
claystone, laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone, rare coal”.
It should be noted this geological profile does not take into account the residual soils derived
from in-situ weathering of the bedrock, or the presence of fill that may have been generated
from previous earthworks. The investigation confirms the published geology.
6.2 Ground Profile
The subsoil conditions encountered within the boreholes are summarised in Table 1 and
detailed in the appendices as follows;
Appendix C - Engineering Borehole Logs,
Appendix D - Rock Core Photographs, and
Appendix E - Point Load Index Test Results.
Reference should be made to the logs and/or specific test results for design purposes.
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Unit Description BH101
(m)
BH102
(m)
Estimated Reduced Level (mAHD) RL 56.9 RL 56.9
Pavement Concrete. 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.3
Residual
Soil
CLAY to Silty CLAY, high plasticity, orange to red brown
+ grey shale gravel. 0.3 - 0.8 0.3 - 2.0
Bedrock
SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low
strength, with clay seams.
Inferred Class V Shale1.
0.8 - 2.9 2.0 - 6.0
SHALE, weakly laminated, grey to olive brown to orange,
highly to moderately weathered, low estimated strength.
Class V Shale2.
2.9 - 4.25 -
SHALE/LAMINITE3, weakly laminated grey, pale grey,
black, olive brown, slightly weathered to fresh, medium
strength.
Class IV Shale/Laminite.
4.25 - 8.96 6.0 - 7.65,
10.31 - 12.00
SANDSTONE, fine grained, pale grey, slightly weathered
to fresh, medium strength.
Class IV Sandstone2.
- 9.50 - 10.31
SHALE, weakly laminated, dark grey, fresh, medium to
high strength.
Class III Shale2.
8.96 - 12.23 7.65 - 9.50
1Based on estimated strength only – to be confirmed during construction 2Rock classes based on the classification in Pells P.J.N, Mostyn G. & Walker B.F. Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in
the Sydney Region, Australian Geomechanics Journal, December 1998 (Reference 6). 3LAMINITE is interlaminated SANDSTONE, pale grey & SILTSTONE, dark grey, approximately 70% Siltstone..
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 4 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
6.3 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not encountered during augering in the boreholes. Two standpipe
piezometers (wells) were installed in the boreholes on completion of drilling.
Groundwater levels were measured on the 16th July 2019. The groundwater level in borehole
BH101 was at 4.20m bgl (approximate RL 52.7m AHD), and the groundwater level in
BH102 was at 5.40m bgl (approximate RL 51.5m AHD).
It is inferred that natural groundwater levels may be in the form of seepage along the soil
rock interface, joints, fissures and natural defects in the underlying weathered bedrock.
Further, it should be noted that groundwater levels may be subject to seasonal and daily
fluctuations influenced by factors such as rainfall and future development of the surrounding
lands. Soil moisture within the site may also be influenced by other events such as breakage
of water mains, or stormwater pipes.
7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
7.1 General
Groundwater levels encountered within the piezometers indicate groundwater to be present
at a depth of approximately 4.20m to 5.40m bgl (approximate RL 52.7m to RL 51.5m AHD).
Based on maximum basement excavation depths of approximately 9.6m to achieve a
basement level of RL47.3m AHD, it is considered that groundwater levels may be up to 5.4m
below the lowest basement floor level, and would be within the underlying weathered
bedrock.
Consideration needs to be given to specific geotechnical issues including excavation
stability, foundation conditions, and temporary shoring. Geotechnical commentary regarding
these geotechnical constraints and recommendations for the proposed development is
presented in the following sections.
7.2 Excavation Conditions
Observations made during the investigation indicates that excavation is expected to be
through fill, residual soils, and then shale and sandstone bedrock of generally low and
medium strength becoming high strength in some areas.
Excavation within the soils and extremely low strength bedrock is expected to be readily
achieved using a large hydraulic excavator down to the level of medium strength or stronger
bedrock. However, localised use of rock breaking equipment or ripping may be required
where high strength bands are encountered.
For medium (or greater) strength rock, excavation will require the use of heavy ripping
and/or hydraulic rock hammers. Excavation for foundations or trenches will require the use
of hydraulic hammers and possibly a rock saw. Both noise and vibration will be generated
by the proposed excavation work within these bedrock materials.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 5 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
The rock classification system in Table 1 should not be used to directly assess rock
excavation characteristics. Contractors should refer to the engineering logs, core
photographs and point load tests when assessing the suitability of their excavation equipment.
7.3 Vibration Control
It is recommended that a vibration monitoring plan be adopted and developed to monitor the
potential vibration effects on nearby existing buildings and infrastructures during excavation.
To ensure vibration levels remain within acceptable levels and to minimise the potential
effects of vibration, if required, excavation into medium strength bedrock or stronger should
be complemented with saw cutting or other appropriate methods prior to excavation. Rock
saw cutting should be carried out using an excavator mounted rock saw, or similar, so as to
minimise transmission of vibrations to any adjoining properties that may be affected.
Hammering is not recommended and should be avoided. However, if necessary, hammering
should be carried out horizontally along bedding planes of (pre-cut) broken rock blocks or
boulders where possible and at the required operational limit to ensure noise levels are
restricted to limits acceptable to adjacent residents.
Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) for different types of building or
structure is summarised in Table 2. Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the
excavation should not be exceeded.
It is recommended that monitoring is carried out during excavation using a vibration
monitoring instrument (seismograph) or similar monitoring equipment and alarm levels
(being the appropriate PPV) selected in accordance with the type of structures present within
the zone of influence of the proposed excavation.
Table 2: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity
Type of Building or Structure Max. PPV (mm/sec)
Historical or structures in sensitive conditions 2
Residential and low rise buildings 5
Brick or unreinforced structures in good condition 10
Commercial and industrial buildings or structures of
reinforced concrete or steel construction. 25
If vibrations in adjacent structures exceed the above values or appear excessive during
construction, excavation should cease and the project Geotechnical Engineer should be
contacted immediately for appropriate reviews.
7.4 Stability of Excavation
The following temporary batter slopes may be considered for areas where sufficient space
exists between the proposed basement and the boundaries, and where any adjacent buildings
(or infrastructure) are located outside a zone of influence obtained by drawing a line up at
45° from the toe of the proposed excavation. Recommended maximum slopes for temporary
batters are provided in Table 3 below.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 6 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary)
Material Max. Batter Slope (H:V)
Fill and Residual Soils 1.5:1
Class V Shale 1:1
Class IV Shale/Sandstone 0.75:1
Class III Shale Semi-Vertical1 1Subject to inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess stability and provide recommendations as required.
As excavation of the proposed basement will be up to 9.6m below the ground level, and due
to the potential for the close proximity of the basement with the boundaries, the use of
temporary batter slopes may be unsuitable in some areas, and therefore temporary shoring
should be provided. Shoring design should consider both short term (construction) and
permanent conditions as well as the presence of adjacent buildings and roads.
Based on the ground conditions encountered and the requirements of the proposed
development, excavation support may be achieved by adopting a soldier pile wall
arrangement with concrete infill panels and a pile spacing of approximately 1.0m to 2.0m.
Closer spaced piles may be required to prevent collapse of infill materials or reduce wall
movements particularly where retaining surcharged or sloping ground. The use of strip drains
behind the piles would be prudent in limiting the amount of groundwater water ingress.
In areas where a more robust system of retention is required (e.g. adjacent to buildings or to
limit lateral movement), consideration may be given to the use of a contiguous pile wall. The
use of contiguous pile walls allow a small gap between piles which could allow groundwater
inflow during excavation. The use of strip drains behind the piles and shot-creting in weak
areas susceptible to inflow during excavation, can limit the amount of groundwater ingress.
For the maximum retained height being considered, a temporary anchorage system is likely
to be required to provide lateral support during construction. Where the retained height is
such that tolerable wall movements can be achieved using a cantilevered wall arrangement
(up to 3.0m) or where only one row of anchors is required to provide lateral support, a
triangular pressure distribution may be adopted for derivation of active pressures. Where two
or more rows of anchors are required to support the shoring due to significant retained height
or where significant lateral movements cannot be tolerated (e.g. due to adjacent
infrastructure), the shoring/basement wall should be designed as a braced structure.
Anchor designs should be based on allowing effective bonding to be developed behind an
‘active zone’ determined by drawing a line at 45° from the base of the wall to intersect the
ground surface behind the excavated face. It is considered that basement floor slabs will
provide permanent restraint to the retaining walls where these are incorporated into the
permanent works. Anchors are therefore considered to be temporary but depending on the
sensitivity of the adjacent infrastructure, it may be necessary to incorporate the temporary
anchors into the permanent works to control deflections.
Anchor installation beyond the property boundaries will be subject to approval by owners of
adjoining properties, roads and infrastructure. Where an anchorage system is shown to be
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 7 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
impractical, consideration of other temporary support options would be necessary. These
options include the following:
Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged excavation.
Staged excavations and temporary partial berms in front of walls.
Top-down construction where floor slabs and beams are constructed at the top of
shoring wall and at floor levels of the upper basement levels prior to excavation
within the basement level underneath the floor slabs.
Detailed design of anchored or propped retaining walls should utilise commercial software
packages such as WALLAP or PLAXIS that can model the sequence of anchor installation
and excavation to ensure deflections are within tolerable limits. The design of retaining
structures should to take into account horizontal pressures due to surcharge loads from any
adjacent infrastructure. The shoring wall and anchors can be designed using the
recommended parameters provided in Section 7.5 below.
Detailed construction supervision, monitoring and inspections will be required during piling
and subsequent bulk excavation and should be carried out by an experienced Geotechnical
Professional, in addition to inspection of the structural elements by the Project Structural
Engineer. The inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.
It is also recommended that monitoring of ground stability and settlement around the
perimeter of the excavation will be carried out during excavation using suitable monitoring
methods in accordance with the type of structures present within the zone of influence of the
proposed excavation.
7.5 Earth Pressures
Earth retaining structures should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressure,
hydrostatic and earthquake (if applicable) pressures, and the applied surcharge loads in their
zone of influence, including existing structures, traffic and construction related activities.
For the design of flexible retaining structures, where some lateral movement is acceptable,
it is recommended the design should be based on active lateral earth pressure. Should it be
critical to limit the horizontal deformation of a retaining structure, use of an earth pressure
coefficient “at rest” should be considered such as the case when the shoring wall is in the
final permanent state and is restrained by the concrete slab in its final state.
Recommended parameters for the design of earth retaining structures in the soils and rock
horizons underlying the site are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls
Units
Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
Effective
Cohesion c’
(kPa)
Angle of
Friction
′()
Modulus of
Elasticity Esh
(MPa)
Residual Soils 19 5 24 7
Class V Shale 22 25 27 65
Class IV Shale/ Laminite/
Sandstone 22 50 28 150
Class III Shale. 24 100 32 400
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 8 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Table 5 below provides preliminary coefficients of lateral earth pressure for the soils and
rocks encountered during the geotechnical investigation. The coefficients provided are
based on horizontal ground surface and fully drained conditions.
Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure
Units
Coefficient of
Active Lateral
Earth Pressure
Ka
Coefficient of Active
Lateral Earth
Pressure at Rest Ko
Coefficient of
Passive Lateral
Earth Pressure
Kp
Residual Soils 0.42 0.59 2.37
Class V Shale 0.3 0.5 3.0
Class IV Shale/Sandstone
Class III Shale 0.25 0.4 5.0
If present, adverse jointing systems in the rock may result in higher active earth
pressures than those outlined above. Potential areas of block or wedge failure should
therefore be identified during construction and appropriate stabilization measures
adopted.
Coefficient of active and passive lateral earth pressure Ka and Kp, respectively, can
be calculated using Rankine’s or Coulomb’s equations, as appropriate.
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest Ko for soils, can be calculated using
Jacky’s equation.
The coefficients of lateral earth pressure should be verified by the project Structural Engineer
prior to use in the design of retaining walls. Simplified calculations of lateral active (or at
rest) and passive earth pressures can be carried out for cantilever walls using Rankine’s
equation shown below:
𝑃𝑎 = 𝐾 𝛾 𝐻 − 2𝑐√𝐾 For calculation of lateral active or ‘at rest’ earth pressure
𝑃𝑝 = 𝐾𝑝 𝛾 𝐻 + 2𝑐√𝐾𝑝 For calculation of passive earth pressure
For braced retaining walls, a uniform lateral earth pressure should be adopted as follows:
𝑃𝑎 = 0.65 𝐾 𝛾 𝐻 For calculation of active earth pressure
Where:
Pa = Active (or at rest) Earth Pressure (kN/m2)
Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)
= Bulk density (kN/m3)
K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)
Kp = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure
H = Retained height (m)
c = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)
If adopted, temporary anchors will require embedment in bedrock. Preliminary allowable
bond stresses may be adopted for temporary anchors, as detailed in Table 6 below.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 9 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Table 6: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Temporary Anchors
Units Allowable Bond Stress (kPa)
Class V Shale 50
Class IV Shale/ Laminite/Sandstone 100
Class III Shale 150
Anchors should undergo proof testing following installation. The anchors can be designed
for the parameters recommended above providing:
The bond (socket) length at least 3.0m; and
Anchors are proof tested to 1.3 times the design working load specified by the
Structural Engineer, before they are locked off at working load. Anchor testing
should constitute as a “Hold Point”.
7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks
The following general procedure is provided for site preparation of building platforms and
pavements:
Strip topsoil and remove any unsuitable material from site.
Excavate fill, residual soils and rock stockpiling for re-use as engineered fill or
remove to spoil.
Where clayey soil is exposed at formation level, the exposed surface should be treated
and moisture conditioned to within 2% of optimum moisture content (OMC)
followed by proof rolling with a smooth drum roller. Soft or loose areas should be
excavated and replaced with approved fill material.
Where rock is exposed at footing level, it should be free of loose or softened material.
The suitability of imported materials for filling should be subject to the following criteria:
The materials should be clean (i.e. free of contaminants, deleterious or organic
material), free of inclusions of >120mm in size; high plasticity material and soft
material be removed and suitably conditioned to meet the design assumptions where
fill material is proposed to be used.
Material with excessive moisture content should not be used without conditioning.
The materials should satisfy the Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 3).
The final surface levels of all cut and fill areas should be compacted in order to enable the
subgrade to achieve adequate strength for the proposed building platforms.
For the fill construction, the recommended compaction targets should be the following:
Moisture content of ±2% of OMC (Optimal Moisture Content);
Minimum density ratio of 98% of the maximum dry density for the building
platforms of the proposed dwellings;
The loose thickness of layer should not exceed 300mm during the compaction.
Design and construction of earthworks should be carried out in accordance with Australian
Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 3). Inspections by the project Geotechnical Engineer will
be required during earthworks, subgrade preparation and proof rolling. The inspections
should constitute as “Hold Points”.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 10 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
7.7 Foundations
Bulk excavation is mainly likely to expose variable strength bedrock mainly comprising
medium strength to high strength Class IV/III Shale or Laminite
Suitable footings are therefore likely to comprise a reinforced concrete raft slab with pad and
strip footings achieved by slab thickening to support columns and walls respectively, where
suitable bedrock is exposed at bulk excavation level and piles to transfer loads to stronger
rock where suitable bedrock is not encountered at bulk excavation level.
It is recommended that all foundations be founded on consistent bedrock to minimise the
risk of long term differential settlement. This could be achieved by foundations constructed
on suitable bedrock where exposed at bulk excavation level and pile foundations where
higher bearing capacity is required. Installation of piles is expected to be required in cases
where axial loads on columns and walls, exceed the bearing pressure of the bedrock present
at bulk excavation level.
Other cases where piles may be required include the need to increase the resistance against
lateral seismic and wind loads. Design of shallow and pile foundations should be carried out
in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2870-2011 (Reference 4) and AS 2159-2009
(Reference 5), respectively.
Table 7 provides geotechnical parameters recommended for design of shallow and piled
foundations.
Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities
Unit
Allowable Capacity Values (kPa)
End Bearing
Pressure1
Shaft Adhesion
Compression
(Tension)2
Residual Soils 100 N/A3
Class V Shale 700 35 (15)
Class IV Shale 1,000 100 (50)
Class IV Sandstone 2,000 200 (100)
Class III Shale/Laminite 3,500 300 (150) 1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for deep foundations and 0.4m for shallow foundations. 2 Clean rock socket of roughness of at least grooves of depth 1mm to 4mm and width greater than 5mm at spacing of 50mm to 200mm.Shaft Adhesion in Tension is 50% of Compression, applicable to piles only. 3 N/A, Not Applicable, not recommended for the proposed building of this development. 4The actual depth of the underlying Class III Shale should be confirmed during construction if required to support foundations
Shaft adhesion may be applied to socketed piles adopted for foundations provided socket
shaft lengths conform to appropriate classes of shale and accepted levels of shaft sidewall
cleanliness and roughness. The rock socket sidewalls should be free of soil and/or crushed
rock to the extent that natural rock is exposed over at least 80% of the socket sidewall. Shaft
adhesion should be reduced or ignored within socket lengths that are smeared and fail to
satisfy cleanliness requirements. Additional attention to cleanliness of socket sidewalls may
be required where presence of clay seams and weathered bands is evident over socket lengths.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 11 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Where the piles penetrate soils that are susceptible to shrinkage and swelling, we recommend
that the shaft adhesion be ignored in the zone of seasonal moisture variations due to the
potential of shrinkage cracking.
Due to expected groundwater levels, bored piles (if adopted) may require dewatering as well
as liners to support any overburden soils. Some over break and fretting should be allowed
for. Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles may be considered as a suitable alternative to bored
piles in the case of elevated groundwater levels which could occur as a result of seasonal
variations to groundwater levels, flooding, broken water mains, etc.
An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should review footing designs to ensure compliance
with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and assess foundation excavations to
ensure suitable materials of appropriate bearing capacity have been reached. The presence
of water within foundation excavations may negate satisfactory examination of founding
surfaces and certification of founding materials quality. Foundation inspections should only
be undertaken under conditions satisfying WHS requirements.
Verification of the capacity of the shallow and pile foundations by inspections would be
required and inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.
7.8 Groundwater Management
Groundwater inflow is expected during excavation (based on groundwater depth of 4.2-
5.4m) and therefore consideration should be given to seepage flows through soils and
weathered bedrock during excavation and in the long term during the design life of the
building.
It would therefore be prudent to give consideration to precautionary drainage measures in
the design and construction of the proposed development. Such measures could include the
following:
Strip drains or drainage materials should be installed behind the shoring/retaining
walls in conjunction with collection trenches or pipes and pits connected to the
building stormwater system. A temporary storage tank and pump system may be
required.
Any groundwater seepage and surface water infiltration may be controlled by a sump
and pump methods during construction.
The provision of suitable basement drainage should mitigate against the need for
waterproofing of basement slabs and walls. It should be noted that groundwater behaviour
may be influenced by the seasonal variations in groundwater level resulting from heavy
rainfall, flooding, damaged services, etc.
It is also recommended that monitoring of the ground water table around the perimeter of the
excavation will be carried out during excavation using suitable monitoring methods. The
greater the drawdown of the water table, the higher the risk of settlement in the surrounding
area and potential damage to roads, buildings, underground services, etc.
A site specific Ground Water Management Plan needs to be prepared and implemented
during the excavation to minimise such risk.
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 12 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification
The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of topsoil overlying residual clay
soils to a depth of 2.0m (varying within the site), and underlain by variable strength shale
bedrock. In accordance with Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007 (Reference 2) the site may
be classified as a “Rock” (Class Be) for design of foundations and retaining walls embedded
in the underlying bedrock. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Sydney in accordance with AS 1170.4-
2007 is considered to be 0.08.
7.10 Laboratory Test Results
Reference to AS2159-2009, “Piling – Design and Installation”, and the results of soil pH,
Chloride, and Sulphate tests on three soil or extremely weathered shale samples collected
from boreholes BH101 and BH102, indicate that the soil samples collected are
non-aggressive to concrete piles or structures in low permeability soils, based on
the Chloride and Sulphate test results, but mild to moderately aggressive based on
the pH test results.
non-aggressive to steel piles or structures in low permeability soils, based on the
Chloride and pH test results, but mild to moderately aggressive based on the
Electrical Conductivity / Resistivity test results.
However the Australian Standard AS2159-2009 states “pH alone may be a misleading
measure of aggressivity without a full analysis of causes”, and that pH may change over
the lifetime of the pile.
Through introduction of a multiplying factor to the test results, as stipulated in the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) publication “Site Investigations for Urban Salinity”
– 2002 (Reference 7), the resultant electrical conductivity of saturated extracts (ECe) ranged
from approximately 3.6-6.6 dS/m , indicating a “slightly to moderately saline” environment.
8. LIMITATIONS
The geotechnical assessment of the subsurface profile and geotechnical conditions within
the proposed development area and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this
report have been based on available information obtained during the work carried out by
Chameleon and in the provided documents listed in Section 2 of this report. Inferences about
the nature and continuity of ground conditions away from and beyond the locations of field
exploratory tests are made, but cannot be guaranteed.
It is recommended that should ground conditions including subsurface and groundwater
conditions, encountered during construction and excavation vary substantially from those
presented within this report, Chameleon Pty Ltd be contacted immediately for further advice
and any necessary review of recommendations. Chameleon does not accept any liability for
site conditions not observed or accessible during the time of the inspection.
This report and associated documentation and the information herein have been prepared
solely for the use of Blue Fountain Trust c/o Marchese Partners International and any
26th July 2019
Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 13 of 13
_______________________________________________________________________________________
© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
reliance assumed by third parties on this report shall be at such parties’ own risk. Any
ensuing liability resulting from use of the report by third parties cannot be transferred to
Chameleon Pty Ltd, directors or employees.
For and on behalf of
Chameleon Pty Ltd
Reviewed By
Rafael Furniss
Senior Engineering Geologist
Shyam Ghimire
Principal
APPENDIX A
______________________________ INFORMATION ABOUT GEOTECH REPORT
Chameleo
Page 1 of 2 March 2019
C HAM ELEON GEOSCIENCES
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsurface
conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have
been lessened considerably in recent years, due in large
measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the
Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered to
help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost-
overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a
construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS
BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC
FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface
exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of
project-specific factors. These typically include the general
nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration,
the location of the structure on the site and its orientation,
physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which
the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the
exploratory program.
To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical
engineer to determine how any factors which change
subsequent to the date of the report may affect its
recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should NOT
be used:
➢ when the nature of the proposed structure is changed: for
example, if an office building will be erected instead of
a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be
built instead of an un-refrigerated one,
➢ when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered.
➢ when the location or orientation of the proposed structure
is modified.
➢ when there is a change of ownership, or for application to
an adjacent site.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for
problems which may develop if they are not consulted
after factors considered in their report's development have
changed.
Geotechnical reports present the results of investigations
carried out for a specific project and usually for a specific
phase of the project. The report may not be relevant for
other phases of the project, or where project details change.
The advice herein relates only to this project and the scope of
works provided by the Client.
Soil and Rock Descriptions are based on AS1726- 1993,
using visual and tactile assessment except at discrete
locations where field and/or laboratory tests have been carried
out. Refer to the attached terms and symbols sheets for
definitions.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at
those points where samples are taken, when they are taken.
Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory
testing are extrapolated by geotechnical engineers who then
render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, their
likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and
appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal
circumstances actual conditions may differ from those
inferred to exist, because no geotechnical engineer, no matter
how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials
may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates.
Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from
predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize
their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners
retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction
stage, to identify variances, conduct additional tests which may
be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
SUB SURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly changing
natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineering report is
based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface
exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical
consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before
construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural
events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations
may also affect subsurface conditions, and thus, the continuing
adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer
should be kept apprised of any such events and should be
consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
Subsurface conditions can change with time and can vary
between test locations. Construction activities at or adjacent to
the site and natural events such as flood, earthquake or
groundwater fluctuations can also affect the subsurface
conditions.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR
SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers’ reports are prepared to meet the
specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for
a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a
construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil
engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared
expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes
indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any
purpose, or by the client for a different purpose, may result in
problems.
No individual other than the client should apply this report
for its intended purpose without first conferring with the
geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report
for any purpose other than that originally contemplated
without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION
Chameleo
Page 2 of 2 March 2019
C HAM ELEON GEOSCIENCES
Costly problems can occur when other design
professional develop their plans based on
misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report.
To help avoid these problems, the geotechnical
engineer should be retained to work with other
appropriate design professionals to explain relevant
geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of
their plans and specifications r e l a t i v e to geotechnical
i s s u e s .
The interpretation of the discussion and recommendations
contained in this report are based on
extrapolation/interpretation from data obtained at discrete
locations. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or
investigated may differ from those predicted
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM
THE ENGINEERING REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical
engineers based upon their interpretation of field logs
(assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation
of field samples. Only final boring logs c u s t o m a r i l y
are included in geotechnical engineering reports.
These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings
because drafters may commit errors or omissions in
the transfer process. Although photographic
reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to
m i n i m i z e the possibility of contractors
misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When
this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are
the all-too-frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log
misinterpretation, give contractors ready access in the
complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or
a u t h o r i z e d for their use. Those who do not provide
such access may proceed under mistaken impression
that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy
of subsurface information always insulates them from
attendant liability. Providing the best available
i n f o r m a t i o n t o contractors helps prevent costly
construction problems and the adversarial attitudes
which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on
judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in written
transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed
to foist geotechnical engineers’ liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and
end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.
Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in
your geotechnical engineering report, and you are
encouraged to read them closely. Your geotechnical
engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to
your questions.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK
Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
discuss other techniques which can be employed to
mitigate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety
of materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for
a complimentary copy of its publication’s directory.
FURTHER GENERAL NOTES
Groundwater levels indicated on the logs are taken at the
time of measurement and may not reflect the actual
groundwater levels at those specific locations. It should be
noted that groundwater levels can fluctuate due to seasonal
and tidal activities.
This report is subject to copyright and shall not be
reproduced either totally or in part without the express
permission of the Company. Where information from this
report is to be included in contract documents or engineering
specifications for the project, the entire report should be
included in order to minimize the likelihood of
misinterpretation.
APPENDIX B
_______________________________ SITE PLAN
Source: Demolition Plan issued by Marchese Partners (07/03/2019), Job No. 18052, Drawing No. DA 1.04, Revision 02.
Drawn by KX 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt, NSW
Geotechnical Investigation
Mixed Use Development
Blue Fountain Trust
Figure 1
Checked by RF
Title Borehole Locations Date 24/07/2019
Scale @ A3 NTS Job No. GS7665-1A
LEGEND
BH- Borehole and Well Location
BH101
BH-101
Boreholes
PRE-DA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
BH102
Approximate Area of the
Proposed Re-development
APPENDIX C
______________________________ ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS
AD
T PAVEMENT
RESIDUAL SOIL
BEDROCK
TC bit refusal at 4.25m.
SPT9, 13, 15
N=28
SPT10, R
CH
CONCRETE. 300mm.
Silty CLAY to CLAY, high plasticity, orange, red-brown. Moist, stiff.
SHALE, weakly laminated, pale grey, orange, with bands of stiff CLAY.
SHALE, laminated, pale grey, orange, extremely weathered, extremely lowestimated strength.
SHALE, laminated, pale grey, moderately weathered, low estimatedstrength.
SHALE, laminated, olive brown, orange, slightly weathered, mediumestimated strength
Borehole BH101 continued as cored hole
Met
hod
Wat
er
Additional ObservationsSamples
TestsRemarks
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH101PAGE 1 OF 4
COMPLETED 27/6/19DATE STARTED 27/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
BO
RE
HO
LE /
TE
ST
PIT
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
RL(m)
56.5
56.0
55.5
55.0
54.5
54.0
53.5
53.0
52.5
52.0
Depth(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Cla
ssifi
catio
nS
ymbo
l
Gra
phic
Log
Material Description
SW
EW
SW
EW
NM
LC
A0.4
D0.08
83
SHALE, laminated at 0-10°, olive, olive brown,orange.
Continued from non-cored borehole
Wea
ther
ing
diam-etralaxial
30 100
300
1000
3000
EstimatedStrength
EstimatedStrength
Wat
er
EL
VL
L M H VH
EH
Defect Description
DefectSpacing
mm
A-
D-
Met
hod
Is(50)
MPa
RQ
D %
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH101PAGE 2 OF 4
COMPLETED 27/6/19DATE STARTED 27/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
CO
RE
D B
OR
EH
OLE
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
Material Description
RL(m)
56.5
56.0
55.5
55.0
54.5
54.0
53.5
53.0
52.5
52.0
Depth(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gra
phic
Log
SWSW
FR
FRHWFREWSW
EWFR
FR
5.23m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN.
5.69m. JT, 80-90°, IR, RO, VN, iron oxides,discontinous5.8m, BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN
6.22m, BP, 0-10°, PL, RO, CN
6.57m, EW Seam, 0°, PL, 20mm6.64m. EW, Seam, 0°, PL, 10mm
6.97m. EW Seam, 0°, PL, 40mm
7.08m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN
7.16-7.29m. Defects are BP, 0-10°, PL,RO/SM, CN, ave. spacing 16mm
7.55m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN
7.94m. BP, 10-20°, PL, RO, PL, CO, clay.
8.15m. BP, 20°,PL, SM, CN8.22m. BP, 10-20°, PL, SM, VN, clay
8.51m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.54m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.57m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.67m. BP, 20°, PL, SM, CN8.75m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN
8.85m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN
8.96m. BP, 0-20°, IR, SM, CN
9.46-9.60m. Drilling breaks
NM
LC
A0.59
A1.6
A0.88
A0.77
A0.76
D0.12
D0.1
D0.3
D0.16
D0.12
8379
8279
16 J
uly
2019
SHALE, laminated at 0-10°, olive, olive brown,orange. (continued)
SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, olive green.
LAMINITE, interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.
NO CORE. 190mm.
LAMINITE, indistinctly bedded at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.
SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, grey toblack.
NO CORE. 120mm.
SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, grey toblack.
Wea
ther
ing
diam-etralaxial
30 100
300
1000
3000
EstimatedStrength
EstimatedStrength
Wat
er
EL
VL
L M H VH
EH
Defect Description
DefectSpacing
mm
A-
D-
Met
hod
Is(50)
MPa
RQ
D %
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH101PAGE 3 OF 4
COMPLETED 27/6/19DATE STARTED 27/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
CO
RE
D B
OR
EH
OLE
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
Material Description
RL(m)
51.5
51.0
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
47.0
Depth(m)
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
Gra
phic
Log
FR
10.86m. JT, 45-80°, UN, SM, CN
11.13m. BP, 0-20°, PL, RO, CN
11.24m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN
11.65m. BP, 0-5°, PL, SM, VN, clay
11.80m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN
NM
LC
A1.04
A0.88
A0.74
D0.24
D0.24
D0.2
9210
0
NO CORE. 120mm.
SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, grey toblack.
LAMINITE, indistinctly beddedd at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.
BH101 terminated at 12.23m
Wea
ther
ing
diam-etralaxial
30 100
300
1000
3000
EstimatedStrength
EstimatedStrength
Wat
er
EL
VL
L M H VH
EH
Defect Description
DefectSpacing
mm
A-
D-
Met
hod
Is(50)
MPa
RQ
D %
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH101PAGE 4 OF 4
COMPLETED 27/6/19DATE STARTED 27/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
CO
RE
D B
OR
EH
OLE
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
Material Description
RL(m)
46.5
46.0
45.5
45.0
44.5
44.0
43.5
43.0
42.5
42.0
Depth(m)
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
Gra
phic
Log
AD
T PAVEMENT
FILL
RESIDUAL SOIL
BEDROCK
SPT10, 14, 16
N=30
SPT36/120mm, R
CH
CONCRETE. 300mm.
CLAY, high plasticity, with fine shale gravel. Moist.
CLAY, high plasticity. Moist, stiff.
SHALE, laminated, pale grey, with bands of clay, extremely weathered, verylow estimated strength.
SHALE, laminated, olive brown, extremely weathered, very low estimatedstrength.
Met
hod
Wat
er
Additional ObservationsSamples
TestsRemarks
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH102PAGE 1 OF 4
COMPLETED 28/6/19DATE STARTED 28/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
BO
RE
HO
LE /
TE
ST
PIT
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
RL(m)
56.5
56.0
55.5
55.0
54.5
54.0
53.5
53.0
52.5
52.0
Depth(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Cla
ssifi
catio
nS
ymbo
l
Gra
phic
Log
Material Description
AD
T SHALE, laminated, pale grey to dark grey, extremely weathered, very lowestimated strength.
Borehole BH102 continued as cored hole
Met
hod
Wat
er
Additional ObservationsSamples
TestsRemarks
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH102PAGE 2 OF 4
COMPLETED 28/6/19DATE STARTED 28/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
BO
RE
HO
LE /
TE
ST
PIT
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
RL(m)
51.5
51.0
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
47.0
Depth(m)
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
Cla
ssifi
catio
nS
ymbo
l
Gra
phic
Log
Material Description
SW
EWSWEWSWEWFR
EWFREWFR
FR
6.23m, BP, 0-10°, SM, RO6.25m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 20mm6.29m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 30mm6.39m.6.40-6.51m. EW zone comprising bands ofShale 5-10mm and clay seams 10-30mm
6.97-7.01m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 40mm7.04m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 30mm
7.42m. BP, 0-45°, CU, SM, CN
8.03m. BP, 0-10°, PL, RO, CN
8.55m, BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN
9.08m. JT, 80-90°, PL, SM,
9.2m, BP, 0-5°, PL, SM, CN
9.54m, JT, 0-45°, CU, RO, CN
9.92m, 0-30°, RO, CN
NM
LC A0.4
A0.59
A1.6
A0.88
D0.1
D0.1
D0.08
D0.36
8188
81
16 J
uly
2019
SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-5°, pale grey todark grey, trace (<10%) Sandstone laminations10-20mm at 6.58-6.85m.
SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey.
NO CORE. 160mm.
SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey.
LAMINITE, indistinctly beddedd at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.
SANDSTONE, indistinctly bedded at 0°, finegrained, pale grey.
Continued from non-cored borehole
Wea
ther
ing
diam-etralaxial
30 100
300
1000
3000
EstimatedStrength
EstimatedStrength
Wat
er
EL
VL
L M H VH
EH
Defect Description
DefectSpacing
mm
A-
D-
Met
hod
Is(50)
MPa
RQ
D %
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH102PAGE 3 OF 4
COMPLETED 28/6/19DATE STARTED 28/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
CO
RE
D B
OR
EH
OLE
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
Material Description
RL(m)
51.5
51.0
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
47.0
Depth(m)
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
Gra
phic
Log
FR
EWFREW
FR
FR
10.39m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 10mm10.42-10.50m. EW SM, 0°, PL, 80mm
11.26m, BP, 0-15°, SM, CN
11.41m, BP, 0-20°, SM,CN
11.5m, BP, 0-30°, RO, UN, IR
NM
LC
A0.77
A0.76
A1.04
D0.64
D0.22
D0.26
8169
NO CORE. 90mm
SANDSTONE, indistinctly bedded at 0°, finegrained, pale grey.
SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey.
NO CORE. 220mm.
SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey, trace(<10%) Sandstone laminations 10-20mm
NO CORE. 160mm.
SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey, trace(<10%) Sandstone laminations 10-20mm
BH102 terminated at 12m
Wea
ther
ing
diam-etralaxial
30 100
300
1000
3000
EstimatedStrength
EstimatedStrength
Wat
er
EL
VL
L M H VH
EH
Defect Description
DefectSpacing
mm
A-
D-
Met
hod
Is(50)
MPa
RQ
D %
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH102PAGE 4 OF 4
COMPLETED 28/6/19DATE STARTED 28/6/19
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling
LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF
NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.
HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig
HOLE SIZE
R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust
PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW
CO
RE
D B
OR
EH
OLE
GS
7665
MO
UN
T D
RU
ITT
.GP
J G
INT
ST
D A
US
TR
ALI
A.G
DT
25/
7/1
9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038
WellDetails
Material Description
RL(m)
46.5
46.0
45.5
45.0
44.5
44.0
43.5
43.0
42.5
42.0
Depth(m)
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
Gra
phic
Log
APPENDIX D
_______________________________ CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
Drawn RF
DHI Hotels Pty Ltd
Geotechnical Site Investigation
No. 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt NSW
Figure 2
Checked RF
Title Rock Core Photographs Date 16/07/2019
Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS7665-1A
Rock Core Photographs. BH101. 4.20m to 12.23m.
Drawn RF
DHI Hotels Pty Ltd
Geotechnical Site Investigation
No. 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt NSW
Figure 3
Checked RF
Title Rock Core Photographs Date 16/07/2019
Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS7665-1A
Rock Core Photographs. BH102. 6.00m to 12.00m. 1
0.0
9m
10
.50
m
APPENDIX E
______________________________ POINT LOAD TEST RESULTS
Chameleon POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX REPORT
Client Blue Fountain Trust Date Tested: 16/07/2019
Address 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt, NSW Job No: GS7665-1A
Borehole
ID
Depth
(m)
Sample
Description
Test
Type
Point Load
Index
Is(50)
UCS
(MPa) Notes
BH101 4.8 Shale Diametral 0.08 1.5 Sample Moist
Axial 0.40 8.0 Sample Moist
BH101 5.8 Shale Diametral 0.12 2.3 Sample Moist
Axial 0.59 11.8 Sample Moist
BH101 6.23 Shale Diametral 0.10 1.9 Sample Moist
Axial 1.60 32.0 Sample Moist
BH101 7.13 Shale Diametral 0.30 5.9 Sample Moist
Axial 0.88 17.6 Sample Moist
BH101 8.15 Shale Diametral 0.16 3.1 Sample Moist
Axial 0.77 15.4 Sample Moist
BH101 9.28 Shale Diametral 0.12 2.3 Sample Moist
Axial 0.76 15.2 Sample Moist
BH101 10.32 Shale Diametral 0.24 4.7 Sample Moist
Axial 1.04 20.8 Sample Moist
BH101 11.28 Shale Diametral 0.24 4.7 Sample Moist
Axial 0.88 17.6 Sample Moist
BH101 12.15 Shale Diametral 0.20 3.9 Sample Moist
Axial 0.74 14.8 Sample Moist
Comments:
UCS –Unconfined Compressive Strength.
Multiplication Factor of 18 was used to calculate UCS.
Sheet 1 of
2
Tested By: ST
Checked By: RF
Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Australia (NSW, QLD, VIC, SA), South Korea, Greece, Spain, Lebanon
ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS
Chameleon POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX REPORT
Client Blue Fountain Trust Date Tested: 16/07/2019
Address 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt, NSW Job No: GS7665-1A
Borehole
ID
Depth
(m)
Sample
Description Test Type
Point Load
Index
Is(50)
UCS
(MPa) Notes
BH102 6.13 Shale Diametral 0.10 1.9 Sample Moist
Axial 0.40 8.0 Sample Moist
BH102 7.15 Shale Diametral 0.10 1.9 Sample Moist
Axial 0.59 11.8 Sample Moist
BH102 8.21 Laminite Diametral 0.08 1.5 Sample Moist
Axial 1.60 32.0 Sample Moist
BH102 9.20 Laminite Diametral 0.36 7.1 Sample Moist
Axial 0.88 17.6 Sample Moist
BH102 10.18 Sandstone Diametral 0.64 12.7 Sample Moist
Axial 0.77 15.4 Sample Moist
BH102 11.16 Shale Diametral 0.22 4.3 Sample Moist
Axial 0.76 15.2 Sample Moist
BH102 11.93 Shale Diametral 0.26 5.1 Sample Moist
Axial 1.04 20.8 Sample Moist
Comments:
UCS –Unconfined Compressive Strength.
Multiplication Factor of 18 was used to calculate UCS.
Sheet
2 of 2
Tested By: ST
Checked By: RF
Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd
Australia (NSW, QLD, VIC, SA), South Korea, Greece, Spain, Lebanon ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS
APPENDIX F
____________________________________________________________________________
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Accreditation No. 2562
Date Reported
Contact
SGS Alexandria Environmental
Unit 16, 33 Maddox St
Alexandria NSW 2015
Huong Crawford
+61 2 8594 0400
+61 2 8594 0499
3
SGS Reference
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Manager
Laboratory
GS7665
GS7665 Mt Druitt
61 1300 136 038
61 1300 137 038
(PO BOX 398, DRUMMOYNE, NSW 1470)
446 Parramatta Road
NSW 2049
AARGUS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Shyam Ghemire
Samples
Order Number
Project
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
25 Jul 2019
ANALYTICAL REPORT
SE195437 R0
18 Jul 2019Date Received
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).
COMMENTS
Shane McDermott
Inorganic/Metals Chemist
SIGNATORIES
Member of the SGS Group
www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400
f +61 2 8594 0499
Australia
Australia
Alexandria NSW 2015
Alexandria NSW 2015
Unit 16 33 Maddox St
PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC
Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Page 1 of 525-July-2019
SE195437 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
SE195437.001
Soil
27 Jun 2019
BH101 0.50-1.00
SE195437.002
Soil
27 Jun 2019
BH101 1.40-1.85
SE195437.003
Soil
27 Jun 2019
BH102 1.50-1.95
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Date
Sample Name
Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography Method: AN245 Tested: 24/7/2019
Chloride mg/kg 0.25 370 470 730
Sulfate mg/kg 5 170 170 300
pH in soil (1:5) Method: AN101 Tested: 25/7/2019
pH pH Units 0.1 4.7 4.4 4.7
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil Method: AN106 Tested: 25/7/2019
Conductivity of Extract (1:5 as received) µS/cm 1 600 910 990
Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) µS/cm 1 680 1000 1100
Moisture Content Method: AN002 Tested: 23/7/2019
% Moisture %w/w 1 11.8 12.1 11.3
Page 2 of 525-July-2019
SE195437 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Conductivity of Extract (1:5 as received) LB179329 µS/cm 1 <1 3% 98%
Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) LB179329 µS/cm 1 3% 98%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Moisture Content Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN002
DUP %RPD
% Moisture LB179076 %w/w 1 8%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
pH in soil (1:5) Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101
DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
pH LB179329 pH Units 0.1 2% 99%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Chloride LB179287 mg/kg 0.25 <0.25 1% 94%
Sulfate LB179287 mg/kg 5 <5.0 2% 94%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 3 of 525-July-2019
SE195437 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating basin.
After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of
moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.
AN002
pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode and is
calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, sediments and sludges, an extract with water (or
0.01M CaCl2) is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA
4500-H+.
AN101
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is
calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos/cm or
µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on
the extract, or calculated back to the as-received sample. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a
conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2510 B.
AN106
Anions by Ion Chromatography: A water sample is injected into an eluent stream that passes through the ion
chromatographic system where the anions of interest ie Br, Cl, NO2, NO3 and SO4 are separated on their relative
affinities for the active sites on the column packing material . Changes to the conductivity and the UV-visible
absorbance of the eluent enable identification and quantitation of the anions based on their retention time and
peak height or area. APHA 4110 B
AN245
Page 4 of 525-July-2019
SE195437 R0
Unless it is reported that sampling has been performed by SGS, the samples have been analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC and MU criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be
found here: www.sgs.com.au.pv.sgsvr/en-gb/environment.
This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.
Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.
Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and
within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or
falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
IS
LNR
*
**
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
NATA accreditation does not cover the
performance of this service.
Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.
FOOTNOTES
LOR
↑↓
QFH
QFL
-
NVL
Limit of Reporting
Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting
QC result is above the upper tolerance
QC result is below the lower tolerance
The sample was not analysed for this analyte
Not Validated
Page 5 of 525-July-2019