preliminary salinity and geotechnical s …...design and construction of the proposed development....

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER

WASTEWATER

GEOTECHNICAL

CIVIL

PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Bing Wei Pty Ltd (Lily Liu)

C/- SWA Group

P1706047JR02V01

September 2017

Preliminary Salinity and Geotechnical

Assessment:

95 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW

martens

Preliminary Salinity and Geotechnical Assessment:

95 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW.

P1706047JR02V01 – September 2017

Copyright Statement

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd (Publisher) is the owner of the copyright subsisting in this publication. Other than as

permitted by the Copyright Act and as outlined in the Terms of Engagement, no part of this report may be reprinted

or reproduced or used in any form, copied or transmitted, by any electronic, mechanical, or by other means, now

known or hereafter invented (including microcopying, photocopying, recording, recording tape or through

electronic information storage and retrieval systems or otherwise), without the prior written permission of Martens &

Associates Pty Ltd. Legal action will be taken against any breach of its copyright. This report is available only as

book form unless specifically distributed by Martens & Associates in electronic form. No part of it is authorised to be

copied, sold, distributed or offered in any other form.

The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Unauthorised use of this document

in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Martens & Associates Pty Ltd assumes no responsibility where the document is

used for purposes other than those for which it was commissioned.

Limitations Statement

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Martens & Associates Pty Ltd is to complete

a Preliminary Salinity and Geotechnical Assessment in accordance with the scope of services set out by Bing Wei Pty

Ltd (Lily Liu) C/- SWA Group (hereafter known as the Client). That scope of works and services were defined by the

requests of the Client, by the time and budgetary constraints imposed by the Client, and by the availability of access

to the site.

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd derived the data in this report primarily from a number of sources including site

inspections, correspondence regarding the proposal, examination of records in the public domain, interviews with

individuals with information about the site or the project, and field explorations conducted on the dates indicated.

The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination /

exploration of the site and subsequent data analyses, together with a re-evaluation of the findings, observations and

conclusions expressed in this report.

In preparing this report, Martens & Associates Pty Ltd may have relied upon and presumed accurate certain

information (or absence thereof) relative to the site. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Martens & Associates

Pty Ltd has not attempted to verify the accuracy of completeness of any such information (including for example

survey data supplied by others).

The findings, observations and conclusions expressed by Martens & Associates Pty Ltd in this report are not, and

should not be considered an opinion concerning the completeness and accuracy of information supplied by others.

No warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made with respect to the data reported or to the findings,

observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Further, such data, findings and conclusions are based solely

upon site conditions, information and drawings supplied by the Client etc. in existence at the time of the

investigation.

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Client, and is subject to and issued in

connection with the provisions of the agreement between Martens & Associates Pty Ltd and the Client. Martens &

Associates Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report by any third party.

martens




September 2017

Copyright Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

All Rights Reserved

Head Office

Suite 201, 20 George Street

Hornsby, NSW 2077, Australia

ACN 070 240 890 ABN 85 070 240 890

Phone: +61-2-9476-9999

Fax: +61-2-9476-8767

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.martens.com.au

Document and Distribution Status

Author(s) Reviewer(s) Project Manager Signature

Orson Thien Ralph Erni Jeff Fulton

Re

vis

ion

No

.

Description Status Release

Date

Document Location

File

Co

py

SW

A G

rou

p

1

Preliminary Salinity and

Geotechnical

Assessment

Draft 04.09.2017 1E, 1H, 1P 1P

1

Preliminary Salinity and

Geotechnical

Assessment

Final 11.09.2017 1E, 1H, 1P 1P

Distribution Types: F = Fax, H = Hard copy, P = PDF document, E = Other electronic format. Digits indicate number of document

copies.

All enquiries regarding this project are to be directed to the Project Manager.

martens




Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Overview 5

1.2 Proposed Development 5

1.3 Assessment Objectives 5

1.4 Field Investigation 6

2 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 General Site Details 7

2.2 Groundwater 7

3 SALINITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 9

3.1 Documented Salinity Risk Potential 9

3.2 Broad Scale Salinity Processes 9

3.3 Signs of Potential Saline Soils at the site 9

3.4 Assessed Salinity Risk Potential 9

3.5 Laboratory Testing 11

4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORKS ........................................................ 14

4.1 Geotechnical Recommendations 14

5 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS ............................................................... 15

5.1 Proposed Additional Assessment 15

5.2 Proposed Monitoring and Inspection Program 15

6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 17

7 ATTACHMENT A – FIGURES ................................................................................... 18

8 ATTACHMENT B – TEST BOREHOLE LOGS ............................................................. 21

9 ATTACHMENT C – DCP ‘N’ COUNTS ..................................................................... 29

10 ATTACHMENT D – LABORATORY TEST CERTIFICATE ............................................. 31

11 ATTACHMENT E – GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS................. 38

12 ATTACHMENT F – NOTES ABOUT THIS REPORT ..................................................... 41

martens




1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

This report documents the findings of a preliminary salinity and

geotechnical assessment, completed to support a subdivision

development application (DA) to Blacktown City Council (BCC) for the

proposed four storey residential buildings at 95 Cudgegong Road,

Rouse Hill, NSW (‘the site’).

1.2 Proposed Development

Architectural drawing prepared by SWA Group (Job No. 1703, Drawing

No. DA-121A), dated March 2017, indicates that the development will

include:

o Demolition of existing structures on site.

o Construction of eight new 4 storey residential buildings, requiring

limited bulk excavation of assumed <1 m below ground level

(mBGL).

o Installation of buried services and other at-grade infrastructure.

o Construction of new local access roads and carparks.

o Landscaping.

1.3 Assessment Objectives

1.3.1 Salinity Assessment

The objective of the salinity assessment is to assess the risk of soil salinity

so that consideration can be given to local prevailing salinity conditions

and the impacts of, and on, the proposed development.

The objectives of the geotechnical assessment include:

o Assessing the potential risk of geotechnical conditions impacting

the proposed development and the surrounding land and

infrastructure as a result of the development.

o Provision of preliminary recommendations and advice for initial

design and construction of the proposed development.

martens




1.3.2 Geotechnical Assessment

The objective of the geotechnical assessment include:

o Assessing the potential risk of geotechnical conditions impacting

the proposed development and the surrounding land and

infrastructure as result of the development.

o Provision of preliminary recommendations and advice for intial

design and construction of the proposed development.

1.4 Field Investigation

Site investigation undertaken on 18 August 2017 included:

o A general site walkover survey.

o Drilling of seven boreholes (BH101 to BH107) up to 4.0 metres

below ground level (mBGL).

o Seven Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests (DCP101 to

DCP107) up to 2.0 mBGL.

o Collection of soil samples for laboratory chemical testing.

Approximate investigation locations are shown in Figure 1,

Attachment A. Borehole logs are provided as Attachment B and DCP

test data as Attachment C.

martens




2 Findings

2.1 General Site Details

Table 1 presents a summary of general site details. Existing site features

are shown in Figure 1, Attachment A.

Table 1: Summary of general site details based on desktop review and site

investigations.

Item Description/Detail

Lot/DP Lot 79 in DP 208203

Site area Approximately 2.023 ha (based on a survey plan by Mepstead &

Associates, dated December 2016)

Topography Slightly undulating terrain

Typical slopes,

aspect

Saddle at centre of site with adjacent westerly and easterly aspects

with grades of generally < 8 %

Elevation

Ranging from approximately 58 mAHD (eastern site boundary) to

approximately 68 mAHD (centre of site)

Expected geology

The Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030, 1st edition (1991),

describes the underlying geology of the site as Bringelly shale

comprising shale, carbonaceous claystone, claystone, laminite, fine to

medium grained lithic sandstone and rare coal and tuff.

Existing site

development

A residential dwelling and cottage, numerous sheds and associated

workshop/storage areas in the eastern portion of the lot. A small dam is

located in the south east.

Existing vegetation Native bushland with mature trees located predominantly at the

western portion of the site.

Neighbouring

environment

The site is bordered by Cudgegong Road to the east and rural

allotments to the north, south and west.

Drainage Site drainage is via overland flow towards east and west from the

saddle located at the centre of site.

Subsurface soil /

rock units

Unit A: Topsoil comprising gravelly very stiff clayey silt up to

approximately 0.40 mBGL.

Unit B: Residual very stiff grading to hard clay up to 2.1 mBGL.

Unit C: Shale of inferred very low to low strength from between

approximately 1.1 mBGL and 2.1 mBGL. TC-bit refusal on assumed low

to medium strength shale was encountered between 2.5 m and 4.0

mBGL.

2.2 Groundwater

Review of NSW Department of Primary Industries Water (DPIW)

groundwater bore database search indicated no groundwater bores

are located within 500 m of the site boundaries.

martens




Groundwater inflow was not observed in the boreholes up to

investigation termination depth of 4.0 mBGL.

Given the site elevation and field investigation results, it is expected

that limited excavations will not intercept the permanent groundwater

table.

Should further information on permanent site groundwater levels be

required, additional investigation would need to be carried out (i.e.

installation of groundwater monitoring bores).

martens




3 Salinity Assessment

3.1 Documented Salinity Risk Potential

The 1:100,000 Salinity Potential in Western Sydney Map (DIPNR, 2002)

indicates the site to be located in an area of moderate salinity

potential (Figure 2, Attachment A).

3.2 Broad Scale Salinity Processes

In producing the Salinity Potential Map, the Western Sydney Regional

Organisation of Councils (WSROC) developed a number of alternative

models of processes by which salinity may occur in Western Sydney

(WSROC, 2003, pgs. 16 to 20).

A list of key broad scale salinity processes likely to impact the site,

including summarised descriptions of each process, is presented in

Table 2.

3.3 Signs of Potential Saline Soils at the site

No obvious signs of saline conditions were observed across the site:

o Vegetation growth appeared healthy and uninhibited.

o No water marks or salt crystals were observed on the ground

surface.

o Site surface drainage appeared generally good.

o No evidence of concentrated surface erosion was observed.

3.4 Assessed Salinity Risk Potential

In Table 2, the broad scale salinity processes have been assessed in

terms of likelihood of occurring at the site, considering the proposed

development, site observations and investigation findings.

martens




Table 2: Potential for broad scale salinity processes at the site.

Key salinity

process Description Potential at subject site

Localised

concentration

of salinity

Localised concentration of salts due to

relatively high evaporation rates.

Usually associated with waterlogged soil and

poor drainage.

Exacerbated by increased water use and / or

blocking of surface and subsurface water

flow associated with urban development.

Moderate to High – No evidence

of localised salt concentration,

waterlogged soil or poor

drainage observed. However,

former and existing dam may

have influenced site salinity.

Shale soil

landscapes

In poorly drained duplex (texture contrast)

soils, shallow subsurface water flows laterally

across a clayey upper B-Horizon with salt

usually accumulating in the clayey subsoil.

Salt concentrations may increase where

subsurface water accumulates and

evaporates, e.g. on lower slopes or natural

and constructed flats in mid-slope.

Exacerbated by subsoils exposure through

deep cutting, by installing buildings into the B-

horizon and by impeding subsurface water

flows.

Highly dispersive, erodible and poorly draining

sodic soils due to salinity.

Moderate to high – The site is

underlain by low permeable

clays, overlying shale.

No evidence of impeded surface

vegetation growth and surface

soil erosion observed.

Excavations will extend into the

upper B-horizon.

Water accumulation and

evaporation of perched

groundwater in the existing dam.

Deep

groundwater

salinity

Brackish or saline groundwater rises to a level

where, through capillary action in the soil, the

water with dissolved salts reaches the ground

surface and evaporates, resulting in localised

salt concentration.

Groundwater rises are typically caused by

increased water infiltration, e.g. above

average rainfall, vegetation loss, irrigation,

increased water use in urban areas,

construction of surface pits.

Exacerbated by buildings or infrastructure

intercepting the zone of groundwater level

fluctuation.

Low – Groundwater was not

encountered in boreholes to 4.0

mBGL. The proposed

development is not expected to

intercept or raise groundwater

levels.

Proposed structures are to be

constructed with appropriate

drainage measures installed.

Deeply

weathered soil

landscape

High salt loads with high sulphate levels

related to un-mapped deeply weathered soil

landscapes beneath fluvial gravel, sand and

clay.

Usually in mid-slope or on hilltops affected by

perched saline groundwater.

Low – No evidence of deeply

weathered soils observed.

Encountered soils at the site are

residual.

martens




3.5 Laboratory Testing

3.5.1 Overview

Eighteen soil samples were collected from the boreholes and submitted to Envirolab Services, a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory, for salinity and aggressivity testing (Electrical Conductivity (EC), pH and soluble SO4). The testing was carried out for salinity classification and to assess an exposure classification for design of buried concrete structures. Sampling was targeted to achieve a representative coverage of site conditions in line with assessed subsurface profiles, proposed earthworks and the limited investigation scope.

3.5.2 Results – Salinity Classification

Laboratory test results for salinity classification are summarised in Table

3. A laboratory test certificate is provided in Attachment D.

Table 3: Salinity test results.

Sample ID 1 Material EC(1:5)

(dS/m)

ECe

(dS/m) 2 Salinity Classification 3

6047/BH101/0.2 Clayey Silt 0.030 0.27 Non – Saline

6047/BH101/0.5 Clay 0.051 0.36 Non – Saline










6047/BH104/1.0 Clay 0.300 2.10 Slightly – Saline





martens




Sample ID 1 Material EC(1:5)

(dS/m)

ECe

(dS/m) 2 Salinity Classification 3



Notes:

1 Project#/Borehole#/Depth (mBGL)

2 Based on EC to ECe multiplication factors from Table 6.1 in DLWC (2002).

3 Based on Table 6.2 of DLWC (2002) where ECe <2 dS/m = non-saline, ECe of 2-4 dS/m = slightly

saline, ECe of 4-8 dS/m = moderately saline, ECe of 8-16 dS/m = very saline and ECe of >16 dS/m

= highly saline.

Results indicate sub-surface materials at the site can generally be

categorised as non-saline. One sample at 1.0 mBGL in BH104 tested as

slightly saline. For the purpose of this report, we have assumed the site

to be non-saline, subject to results of further assessment, in particular

BH104.

3.5.3 Results – Exposure Classification

Test results for exposure classification are summarised in Table 4. The

laboratory test certificate is provided in Attachment D.

Table 4: Exposure classification test results.

Sample ID1 ECe (dS/m) 2 pH Sulphate (SO4) (mg/kg) Exposure Classification 3

6047/BH101/0.2 0.27 4.8 10 A2

6047/BH101/0.5 0.36 4.8 56 A2

6047/BH101/1.0 0.43 4.9 41 A2

6047/BH102/0.1 0.31 5.3 <10 A2

6047/BH102/0.5 0.29 5.1 21 A2

6047/BH102/1.0 1.26 4.8 66 A2

6047/BH103/0.1 0.38 5.1 <10 A2

6047/BH103/0.5 0.84 4.8 53 A2

6047/BH103/1.0 1.61 4.9 66 A2

6047/BH104/0.1 0.41 4.9 10 A2

6047/BH104/0.5 0.67 4.8 53 A2

6047/BH104/1.0 2.10 4.8 95 A2

6047/BH106/0.1 0.22 5.4 <10 A2

6047/BH106/0.5 0.48 4.8 73 A2

6047/BH106/1.0 0.77 4.7 93 A2

martens




Sample ID1 ECe (dS/m) 2 pH Sulphate (SO4) (mg/kg) Exposure Classification 3

6047/BH107/0.1 0.19 6.0 21 A1

6047/BH107/0.5 0.26 5.3 37 A2

6047/BH107/1.0 0.25 5.2 35 A2

Notes:

1 Project#/Borehole#/Depth (mBGL)

2 From column 4 of Table 3.

3 Exposure classification for buried reinforced concrete based on Tables 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 of AS

3600 (2009).

An exposure classification of ‘A2’ should be adopted for preliminary

design of buried concrete structures in accordance with AS3600 (2009).

martens




4 Recommendations and Future Works

4.1 Geotechnical Recommendations

General geotechnical recommendations for the proposed

development are provided in Attachment E. Additional

recommendations are as follows:

1. Footing Systems: New building loads should be transmitted to

residual clay or underlying rock.

For shallow footings, preliminary allowable end bearing

capacities of 200 kPa and 350 kPa may be adopted for very stiff

to hard clay and rock, respectively, subject to minimum 300 mm

embedment into design material.

Alternatively, should higher bearing capacities be required,

deepened footings founding in rock with allowable end bearing

capacities of 700 kPa and 1000 kPa and allowable shaft frictions

of 60 kPa and 150 kPa may be adopted for very low to low

strength rock and low to medium strength rock respectively.

Recommended bearing capacities are subject to at least 500

mm embedment into design material. Further testing is required,

should higher bearing pressures be required.

2. Earth Pressure Coefficients: Preliminary design, if required, may

adopt preliminary active, at rest and passive earth pressure

coefficients for residual soil of 0.36, 0.53 and 2.77, respectively.

3. Site Classification: A preliminary site classification of ‘H1’ should

be adopted in accordance with AS 2870 (2011). This

classification is subject to the recommendations presented in this

report and the design of footings in accordance with the

relevant Australian Standards and guidelines.

martens




5 Proposed Additional Assessments

5.1 Proposed Additional Assessment

We recommend the following additional assessments are carried out

during development of final design and prior to construction to better

manage geotechnical risks, where applicable:

o Laboratory testing of soil and rock, as necessary, for more

accurate assessment of subsurface conditions at future building

and infrastructure locations and of associated design

parameters, including shrink/swell and Atterberg Limit laboratory

testing, and to confirm or alter preliminary site classification and

design assumptions.

o Assessment of site specific foundation material capacity to

support adopted footing types.

o Review of final design and construction staging plans by a

Geotechnical Engineer to confirm adequate consideration of

the geotechnical risks and adoption of recommendations

provided in this report.

o Further salinity testing to confirm preliminary salinity and exposure

classifications and to delineate salinity conditions across soil

profiles, in particular in the vicinity of BH104, and development

areas, considering final development details.

5.2 Proposed Monitoring and Inspection Program

To maintain site stability during site works and limit adverse

geotechnical impacts on the site and surrounding areas as a result of

the proposed development, we recommend the following is inspected

and monitored (Table 5) during site works. This program may be

updated following further detailed investigations.

martens




Table 5: Recommended inspections/monitoring requirements during site works.

Scope of Works Frequency/Duration Who to Complete

Monitor sedimentation downslope of

excavated areas.

During and after rainfall

events Builder

Monitor sediment and erosion control

structures to assess adequacy and for

removal of built up spoil.

After rainfall events Builder

Inspect exposed material to verify

suitability as foundation/ lateral support/

subgrade.

Prior to reinforcement set-up

and concrete placement for

footing construction and fill

or pavement material

placement.

MA 1

Notes:

1 MA = Martens and Associates Geotechnical Engineer.

2 MA inspection frequency to be determined based on initial inspection findings in line with

construction program.

martens




6 References

Australia Standard 1289.6.3.2 (AS, 1997) Determination of the

penetration resistance of a soil - 9kg dynamic cone penetrometer test.

Australia Standard 1726 (AS, 2017) Geotechnical site investigations.

Australia Standard 2870 (AS, 2011) Australia Standard, Residential slabs

and footings.

Australia Standard 3600 (AS, 2009) Concrete structures.

Australia Standard 3798 (AS, 2007) Guidelines on earthworks for

commercial and residential developments.

CSIRO BTF 18 (2003) Foundation Maintenance and Footing

Performance: A homeowner’s Guide.

Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR,

2002) Salinity Potential in Western Sydney Map.

Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC, 2002) Site

investigations for urban salinity.

Landcom (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction.

Mepstead & Associates (2016) Plan of detail & levels over Lot 79 in

D.P.208203, Drawing No. 5533-DET_A, dated 7 December 2016.

Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030, 1st edition (1991),

Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.

SWA Group (2017) Ground level & Level 1-3 Floorplan, Job No.1703,

Drawing No. DA-12/A, dated 28 March 2017.

Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC, 2003)

Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice.

martens




7 Attachment A – Figures

mar

tens

Drawn:

Approved:

Date:

Scale:

OT

RE

21.08.2017

Not to Scale Job No: P1706047JR02V01

Environment | Water | Wastewater | Geotechnical | Civil | Management Martens & Associates Pty Ltd ABN 85 070 240 890

Figure 1

Drawing No: Site layout and Geotechnical Site Testing Plan

No. 95 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW

(Source: Mepstead and Associates, drawing No. 5533-DET1_A, dated December

2016)

BH101 DCP101

Indicative borehole, DCP test location

Key:

Approximate site boundary

BH107 DCP107

BH102 DCP102

BH103 DCP103

BH104 DCP104

BH105 DCP105

BH106 DCP106

martens




Indicative site location

marten

s

Drawn:

Approved:

Date:

Scale:

OT

RE

21.08.2017

Not to Scale File No: P1706047JR02V01

Environment | Water | Wastewater | Geotechnical | Civil | Management Martens & Associates Pty Ltd ABN 85 070 240 890

FIGURE 2

Drawing No:

1:100,000 MAP OF SALINITY POTENTIAL IN WESTERN SYDNEY

No. 95 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW

(Source: DIPNR, 2002)

martens




8 Attachment B – Test Borehole Logs

VSt

H

0.40

1.40

4.00

62.00

61.60

61.00

60.60

0.40

1.00

1.40

M

L

M

AD

/VA

D/T

D

P6049/101/0.2/S/1 D0.20 m

P6049/101/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6049/101/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m

P6049/101/2.0/R/1 D2.00 m

P6049/101/2.7/R/1 D2.70 m

Clayey SILT, low to medium liquid limit, brown.

CLAY, medium to high plasticity, red.

Red/grey/orange.

SHALE, brown/grey/dark grey, inferred very low strength,distinctly weathered.

From 3.5 m: Inferred low strength.

Hole Terminated at 4.00 m

ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

WEATHERED ROCK1.40: V-bit refusal.

4.00: TC-bit refusal on inferred low tomedium strength shale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

Field Material Description

RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees

4WD ute-mounted drill rig

NORTHING ASPECT West SLOPE

Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 4.00 m depth 8%

AHDEQUIPMENT

EXCAVATION DIMENSIONS

RL SURFACE

Engineering Log -BOREHOLE

18/08/2017 REF BH101

62 m

EXCAVATION LOG TO BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING REPORT NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS

PROJECT NO. P1706047

PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE

Bing Wei Pty Ltd C/- SWA Group

95 Cudgegong Rd, Rouse Hill, NSW

Salinity & Geotechnical Assessment

MARTENS & ASSOCIATES PTY LTDSuite 201, 20 George St. Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

Phone: (02) 9476 9999 Fax: (02) 9476 [email protected] WEB: http://www.martens.com.au

MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13

STRUCTURE ANDADDITIONAL

OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt

H

0.20

1.10

65.00

64.80

64.30

0.20

0.70

M

AD

/V

D

P6049/102/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6049/102/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6049/102/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m



Red/grey.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

1.10: V-bit refusal.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees



Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 1.10 m depth 8%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH102

65 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt -H

0.20

1.10

66.50

66.30

65.70

0.20

0.80

M

AD

/V

D

P6049/103/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6049/103/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6049/103/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m



Red/grey/orange.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

1.10: V-bit refusal on inferred very low tolow strength shale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees



Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 1.10 m depth 8%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH103

66.5 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt -H

0.30

1.30

2.70

67.00

66.70

66.20

66.00

65.70

0.30

0.80

1.00

1.30

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

D

P6047/104/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6047/104/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6047/104/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m

P6047/104/2.1/R/1 D2.10 m



More grey.

Grey/orange.

SHALE, dark grey, inferred low strength, distinctly weathered.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees



Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 2.70 m depth 5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH104

67 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt

H

0.20

1.10

2.50

67.50

67.30

66.70

66.40

0.20

0.80

1.10

M

H

M

AD

/VA

D/T

D

P6047/105/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6047/105/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6047/105/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m


CLAY, medium to high plasticity, red/grey/orange.

More grey.

SHALE, brown/grey/dark grey, inferred very low to low strength,distinctly weathered.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


2.50: TC-bit refusal on inferred low tomedium strength shale,

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees


NORTHING ASPECT East SLOPE

Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 2.50 m depth 5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH105

67.5 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt

H

0.20

1.40

3.70

65.00

64.80

64.20

63.60

0.20

0.80

1.40

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

D

P6047/106/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6047/106/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6047/106/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m

P6047/106/2.5/R/1 D2.50 m



Red/grey.

SHALE, grey, inferred very low to low strength, distinctlyweathered.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees



Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 3.70 m depth 5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH106

65 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

VSt

H

0.20

2.10

66.00

65.80

65.30

64.80

0.20

0.70

1.20

M

AD

/V

D

P6047/107/0.1/S/1 D0.10 m

P6047/107/0.5/S/1 D0.50 m

P6047/107/1.0/S/1 D1.00 m

P6047/107/1.5/S/1 D1.50 m



Red/grey/orange.

Red/grey.


ML

CI-CH

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

2.10: V-bit refusal on inferred very low tolow strength shale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

18/08/2017

CHECKED

VEGETATION

RE

Grass/Trees



Bringelly Shale

OT

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 2.10 m depth 5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


18/08/2017 REF BH107

66 m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P17

0604

9BH

01V

01 1

7082

2.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

01/

09/2

017

17:2

2 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

martens




9 Attachment C – DCP ‘N’ Counts

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Log Summary

Depth Interval

(m)DCP101 DCP102 DCP103 DCP104 DCP105 DCP106 DCP107

0.15 9 15 23 18 12 12 27

0.30 12 13 22 15 12 12 19

0.45 16 14 16 18 10 14 12

0.60 15 19 17 18 7 15 13

0.75 12 29 20 18 22 18 11

0.90 9 29 16 25 15 14 9

1.05 9 21 23 18 27 15 11

1.20 17 26 16 / 50 mm 24 37 22 12

1.35 44 32 15 25 / 100 mm 13

1.50 30 8 / 50 mm 13

1.65 25 14

1.80 7 / 5 mm 32

1.95 26

2.10

2.25

2.40

2.55

2.70

2.85

3.00

P1706047JS01V01

Client Bing Wei Pty Ltd (Lily Liu) C/- SWA Group Log Date 18.08.17

DCP Group Reference95 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSWSite

TEST DATA

OT

Checked by RE

Logged by

Comments DCP cone tip penetrated 50 mm into soil prior to testing.

Terminated at

2.0 m due to

high 'N' counts

Double Bounce at

1.40 m

Double Bounce

at 1.75 m

Double Bounce

at 1.15 m

Double Bounce at

1.45 m

Double Bounce

at 1.35 m

Terminated at 1.25

m due to high 'N'

counts

Suite 201, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077, Ph: (02) 9476 9999 Fax: (02) 9476 8767, [email protected], www.martens.com.au

martens consulting engineers since 1989

martens




10 Attachment D – Laboratory Test Certificate

Envirolab Services Pty Ltd

ABN 37 112 535 645

12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067

ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201

[email protected]

www.envirolab.com.au

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 173920

Suite 201, 20 George St, Hornsby, NSW, 2077Address

Orson ThienAttention

Martens & Associates Pty LtdClient

Client Details

22/08/2017Date completed instructions received

22/08/2017Date samples received

18 soilsNumber of Samples

P1706047COC02V01Your Reference

Sample Details

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

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

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

Analysis Details

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

NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

28/08/2017Date of Issue

29/08/2017Date results requested by

Report Details

David Springer, General Manager

Authorised By

Priya Samarawickrama, Senior Chemist

Results Approved By

Revision No: R00

173920Envirolab Reference: Page | 1 of 6

Client Reference: P1706047COC02V01

4139<10mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

353721µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

5.25.36.0pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date analysed

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date prepared

SoilSoilSoilType of sample

18/08/201718/08/201718/08/2017Date Sampled

6047/BH107/1.06047/BH107/0.56047/BH107/0.1UNITSYour Reference

173920-18173920-17173920-16Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil



4.74.85.44.84.8pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date analysed

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date prepared

SoilSoilSoilSoilSoilType of sample

18/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/2017Date Sampled

6047/BH106/1.06047/BH106/0.56047/BH106/0.16047/BH104/1.06047/BH104/0.5UNITSYour Reference

173920-15173920-14173920-13173920-12173920-11Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil




24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date analysed

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date prepared


18/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/2017Date Sampled


173920-10173920-9173920-8173920-7173920-6Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil




24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date analysed

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017-Date prepared


18/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/201718/08/2017Date Sampled


173920-5173920-4173920-3173920-2173920-1Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil

Envirolab Reference: 173920

R00Revision No:

Page | 2 of 6


Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.

Inorg-081

Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25°C in accordance with APHA latest edition 2510 and Rayment & Lyons.

Inorg-002

pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-001

Methodology SummaryMethod ID


R00Revision No:

Page | 3 of 6


[NT][NT]4515311[NT]Inorg-08110mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]2989611[NT]Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]04.84.811[NT]Inorg-001pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]24/08/201724/08/201711[NT]-Date analysed

[NT][NT]24/08/201724/08/201711[NT]-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Misc Inorg - Soil

8295010101<10Inorg-08110mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

[NT]1021033301<1Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT]10004.84.81[NT]Inorg-001pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017124/08/2017-Date analysed

24/08/201724/08/201724/08/201724/08/2017124/08/2017-Date prepared

173920-2LCS-1RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Misc Inorg - Soil


R00Revision No:

Page | 4 of 6


Not ReportedNR

National Environmental Protection MeasureNEPM

Not specifiedNS

Laboratory Control SampleLCS

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

Greater than>

Less than<

Practical Quantitation LimitPQL

Insufficient sample for this testINS

Test not requiredNA

Not testedNT

Result Definitions

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.

Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Surrogate Spike

This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)

A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.

Matrix Spike

This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Duplicate

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 forsamples.

Blank

Quality Control Definitions


R00Revision No:

Page | 5 of 6


Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates)and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics and speciated phenols is acceptable.

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

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

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria


R00Revision No:

Page | 6 of 6

martens




11 Attachment E – General Geotechnical Recommendations

These general geotechnical recommendations have been prepared by Martens to helpyou deliver a safe work site, to comply with your obligations, and to deliver your project.Not all are necessarily relevant to this report but are included as general reference. Anyspecific recommendations made in the report will override these recommendations.

Batter Slopes

Excavations in soil and extremely low to very lowstrength rock exceeding 0.75 m depth should bebattered back at grades of no greater than 1Vertical (V) : 2 Horizontal (H) for temporary slopes(unsupported for less than 1 month) and 1 V : 3 H forlonger term unsupported slopes.

Vertical excavation may be carried out in mediumor higher strength rock, where encountered, subjectto inspection and confirmation by a geotechnicalengineer. Long term and short term unsupportedbatters should be protected against erosion androck weathering due to, for example, stormwaterrun-off.

Batter angles may need to be revised dependingon the presence of bedding partings or adverselyoriented joints in the exposed rock, and are subjectto on-site inspection and confirmation by ageotechnical engineer. Unsupported excavationsdeeper than 1.0 m should be assessed by ageotechnical engineer for slope instability risk.

Any excavated rock faces should be inspectedduring construction by a geotechnical engineer todetermine whether any additional support, such asrock bolts or shotcrete, is required.

Earthworks

Earthworks should be carried out following removalof any unsuitable materials and in accordance withAS3798 (2007). A qualified geotechnical engineershould inspect the condition of prepared surfacesto assess suitability as foundation for future fillplacement or load application.

Earthworks inspections and compliance testingshould be carried out in accordance with Sections5 and 8 of AS3798 (2007), with testing to be carriedout by a National Association of Testing Authorities(NATA) accredited testing laboratory.

Excavations

All excavation work should be completed withreference to the Work Health and Safety(Excavation Work) Code of Practice (2015), by SafeWork Australia. Excavations into rock may beundertaken as follows:

1. Extremely low to low strength rock -conventional hydraulic earthmovingequipment.

2. Medium strength or stronger rock - hydraulicearthmoving equipment with rock hammer orripping tyne attachment.

Exposed rock faces and loose boulders should bemonitored to assess risk of block / bouldermovement, particularly as a result of excavationvibrations.

Fill

Subject to any specific recommendations providedin this report, any fill imported to site is to compriseapproved material with maximum particle size oftwo thirds the final layer thickness. Fill should beplaced in horizontal layers of not more than 300 mmloose thickness, however, the layer thickness shouldbe appropriate for the adopted compaction plant.

Foundations

All exposed foundations should be inspected by ageotechnical engineer prior to footing constructionto confirm encountered conditions satisfy designassumptions and that the base of all excavations isfree from loose or softened material and water.Water that has ponded in the base of excavationsand any resultant softened material is to beremoved prior to footing construction.

Footings should be constructed with minimal delayfollowing excavation. If a delay in construction isanticipated, we recommend placing a concreteblinding layer of at least 50 mm thickness in shallowfootings or mass concrete in piers / piles to protectexposed foundations.

A geotechnical engineer should confirm any designbearing capacity values, by further assessmentduring construction, as necessary.

Shoring - Anchors

Where there is a requirement for either soil or rockanchors, or soil nailing, and these structurespenetrate past a property boundary, appropriatepermission from the adjoining land owner must beobtained prior to the installation of these structures.

Shoring - Permanent

Permanent shoring techniques may be used as analternative to temporary shoring. The design ofsuch structures should be in accordance with thefindings of this report and any further testingrecommended by this report. Permanent shoringmay include [but not be limited to] reinforced blockwork walls, contiguous and semi contiguous pilewalls, secant pile walls and soldier pile walls with orwithout reinforced shotcrete infill panels. Thechoice of shoring system will depend on the type ofstructure, project budget and site specificgeotechnical conditions.

Permanent shoring systems are to be engineerdesigned and backfilled with suitable granular

Important Recommendations About Your Site (1 of 2)

material and free-draining drainage material.Backfill should be placed in maximum 100 mm thicklayers compacted using a hand operatedcompactor. Care should be taken to ensureexcessive compaction stresses are not transferredto retaining walls.

Shoring design should consider any surchargeloading from sloping / raised ground behind shoringstructures, live loads, new structures, constructionequipment, backfill compaction and static waterpressures. All shoring systems shall be provided withadequate foundation designs.

Suitable drainage measures, such as geotextileenclosed 100 mm agricultural pipes embedded infree-draining gravel, should be included to redirectwater that may collect behind the shoring structureto a suitable discharge point.

Shoring - Temporary

In the absence of providing acceptableexcavation batters, excavations should besupported by suitably designed and installedtemporary shoring / retaining structures to limitlateral deflection of excavation faces andassociated ground surface settlements.

Soil Erosion Control

Removal of any soil overburden should beperformed in a manner that reduces the risk ofsedimentation occurring in any formal stormwaterdrainage system, on neighbouring land and inreceiving waters. Where possible, this may beachieved by one or more of the following means:

1. Maintain vegetation where possible2. Disturb minimal areas during excavation3. Revegetate disturbed areas if possible

All spoil on site should be properly controlled byerosion control measures to prevent transportationof sediments off-site. Appropriate soil erosion controlmethods in accordance with Landcom (2004) shallbe required.

Trafficability and Access

Consideration should be given to the impact of theproposed works and site subsurface conditions ontrafficability within the site e.g. wet clay soils willlead to poor trafficability by tyred plant or vehicles.

Where site access is likely to be affected by any siteworks, construction staging should be organisedsuch that any impacts on adequate access areminimised as best as possible.

Vibration Management

Where excavation is to be extended into mediumor higher strength rock, care will be required whenusing a rock hammer to limit potential structuraldistress from excavation-induced vibrations wherenearby structures may be affected by the works.

To limit vibrations, we recommend limiting rockhammer size and set frequency, and setting thehammer parallel to bedding planes and alongdefect planes, where possible, or as advised by ageotechnical engineer. We recommend limitingvibration peak particle velocities (PPV) caused byconstruction equipment or resulting fromexcavation at the site to 5 mm/s (AS 2187.2, 2006,Appendix J).

Waste Spoil and Water

Soil to be disposed off-site should be classified inaccordance with the relevant State Authorityguidelines and requirements.

Any collected waste stormwater or groundwatershould also be tested prior to discharge to ensurecontaminant levels (where applicable) areappropriate for the nominated discharge location.

MA can complete the necessary classification andtesting if required. Time allowance should be madefor such testing in the construction program.

Water Management - Groundwater

If the proposed works are likely to intersectephemeral or permanent groundwater levels, themanagement of any potential acid soil drainageshould be considered. If groundwater tables arelikely to be lowered, this should be further discussedwith the relevant State Government Agency.

Water Management Surface Water

All surface runoff should be diverted away fromexcavation areas during construction works andprevented from accumulating in areas surroundingany retaining structures, footings or the base ofexcavations.

Any collected surface water should be dischargedinto a suitable Council approved drainage systemand not adversely impact downslope surface andsubsurface conditions.

All site discharges should be passed through a filtermaterial prior to release. Sump and pump methodswill generally be suitable for collection and removalof accumulated surface water within anyexcavations.

Contingency Plan

In the event that proposed development workscause an adverse impact on geotechnical hazards,overall site stability or adjacent properties, thefollowing actions are to be undertaken:

1. Works shall cease immediately.2. The nature of the impact shall be documented

and the reason(s) for the adverse impactinvestigated.

3. A qualified geotechnical engineer should beconsulted to provide further advice in relationto the issue.

Important Recommendations About Your Site (2 of 2)

martens




12 Attachment F – Notes About This Report

These notes have been prepared by Martens to help you interpret and understand thelimitations of your report. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports but are included asgeneral reference.

Engineering Reports - Limitations

The recommendations presented in this report arebased on limited investigations and include specificissues to be addressed during various phases of theproject. If the recommendations presented in thisreport are not implemented in full, the generalrecommendations may become inapplicable andMartens & Associates accept no responsibilitywhatsoever for the performance of the worksundertaken.

Occasionally, sub-surface conditions between andbelow the completed boreholes or other tests maybe found to be different (or may be interpreted tobe different) from those expected. Variation canalso occur with groundwater conditions, especiallyafter climatic changes. If such differences appearto exist, we recommend that you immediatelycontact Martens & Associates.

Relative ground surface levels at borehole locationsmay not be accurate and should be verified by on-site survey.

Engineering Reports Project Specific Criteria

Engineering reports are prepared by qualifiedpersonnel. They are based on informationobtained, on current engineering standards ofinterpretation and analysis, and on the basis of yourunique project specific requirements as understoodby Martens. Project criteria typically include thegeneral nature of the project; its size andconfiguration; the location of any structures on thesite; other site improvements; the presence ofunderground utilities; and the additional riskimposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed bythe Client.

Where the report has been prepared for a specificdesign proposal (e.g. a three storey building), theinformation and interpretation may not be relevantif the design proposal is changed (e.g. to a twentystorey building). Your report should not be reliedupon, if there are changes to the project, withoutfirst asking Martens to assess how factors, whichchanged subsequent to the date of the report,

not accept responsibility for problems that mayoccur due to design changes, if not consulted.

Engineering Reports Recommendations

Your report is based on the assumption that siteconditions, as may be revealed through selectivepoint sampling, are indicative of actual conditionsthroughout an area. This assumption often cannotbe substantiated until project implementation hascommenced. Therefore your site investigationreport recommendations should only be regardedas preliminary.

Only Martens, who prepared the report, are fullyfamiliar with the background information needed to

recommendations are valid and whether or notchanges should be considered as the projectdevelops. If another party undertakes theimplementation of the recommendations of thisreport, there is a risk that the report will bemisinterpreted and Martens cannot be heldresponsible for such misinterpretation.

Engineering Reports Use for Tendering Purposes

Where information obtained from investigations isprovided for tendering purposes, Martensrecommend that all information, including thewritten report and discussion, be made available. Incircumstances where the discussion or commentssection is not relevant to the contractual situation, itmay be appropriate to prepare a specially editeddocument.

Martens would be pleased to assist in this regardand/or to make additional report copies availablefor contract purposes at a nominal charge.

Engineering Reports Data

The report as a whole presents the findings of a siteassessment and should not be copied in part oraltered in any way.

Logs, figures, drawings etc are customarily includedin a Martens report and are developed by scientists,engineers or geologists based on their interpretationof field logs (assembled by field personnel), desktopstudies and laboratory evaluation of field samples.These data should not under any circumstances beredrawn for inclusion in other documents orseparated from the report in any way.

Engineering Reports Other Projects

To avoid misuse of the information contained inyour report it is recommended that you confer withMartens before passing your report on to anotherparty who may not be familiar with the backgroundand purpose of the report. Your report should notbe applied to any project other than that originallyspecified at the time the report was issued.

Subsurface Conditions - General

Every care is taken with the report in relation tointerpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion ofgeotechnical aspects, relevant standards andrecommendations or suggestions for design andconstruction. However, the Company cannotalways anticipate or assume responsibility for:

o Unexpected variations in ground conditions -the potential will depend partly on test point

Important Information About Your Report (1 of 2)

(eg. excavation or borehole) spacing andsampling frequency, which are often limited byproject imposed budgetary constraints.

o Changes in guidelines, standards and policy orinterpretation of guidelines, standards andpolicy by statutory authorities.

o The actions of contractors responding tocommercial pressures.

o Actual conditions differing somewhat fromthose inferred to exist, because no professional,no matter how qualified, can reveal preciselywhat is hidden by earth, rock and time.

The actual interface between logged materialsmay be far more gradual or abrupt thanassumed based on the facts obtained. Nothingcan be done to change the actual siteconditions which exist, but steps can be takento reduce the impact of unexpectedconditions.

If these conditions occur, Martens will be pleased toassist with investigation or providing advice toresolve the matter.

Subsurface Conditions - Changes

Natural processes and the activity of man createsubsurface conditions. For example, water levelscan vary with time, fill may be placed on a site andpollutants may migrate with time. Reports arebased on conditions which existed at the time ofthe subsurface exploration / assessment.

Decisions should not be based on a report whoseadequacy may have been affected by time. If anextended period of time has elapsed since thereport was prepared, consult Martens to be advisedhow time may have impacted on the project.

Subsurface Conditions - Site Anomalies

In the event that conditions encountered on siteduring construction appear to vary from those thatwere expected from the information contained inthe report, Martens requests that it immediately benotified. Most problems are much more readilyresolved at the time when conditions are exposed,rather than at some later stage well after the event.

Report Use by Other Design Professionals

To avoid potentially costly misinterpretations whenother design professionals develop their plansbased on a Martens report, retain Martens to workwith other project professionals affected by thereport. This may involve Martens explaining thereport design implications and then reviewing plansand specifications produced to see how they haveincorporated the report findings.

Subsurface Conditions Geo-environmental Issues

Your report generally does not relate to anyfindings, conclusions, or recommendations aboutthe potential for hazardous or contaminatedmaterials existing at the site unless specificallyrequired to do so as part of proposal forworks.

Specific sampling guidelines and specialistequipment, techniques and personnel are typicallyused to perform geo-environmental or sitecontamination assessments. Contamination cancreate major health, safety and environmental risks.If you have no information about the potential foryour site to be contaminated or create anenvironmental hazard, you are advised to contactMartens for information relating to such matters.

Responsibility

Geo-environmental reporting relies on interpretationof factual information based on professionaljudgment and opinion and has an inherent level ofuncertainty attached to it and is typically far lessexact than the design disciplines. This has oftenresulted in claims being lodged against consultants,which are unfounded.

To help prevent this problem, a number of clauseshave been developed for use in contracts, reportsand other documents. Responsibility clauses do nottransfer appropriate liabilities from Martens to other

responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intendedto help all parties involved to recognise theirindividual responsibilities. Read all documents fromMartens closely and do not hesitate to ask anyquestions you may have.

Site Inspections

Martens will always be pleased to provideengineering inspection services for aspects of workto which this report relates. This could range from asite visit to confirm that conditions exposed are asexpected, to full time engineering presence on site.Martens is familiar with a variety of techniques andapproaches that can be used to help reduce risksfor all parties to a project, from design toconstruction.

Important Information About Your Report (1 of 2)

Definitions

In engineering terms, soil includes every type ofuncemented or partially cemented inorganic or organicmaterial found in the ground. In practice, if the materialdoes not exhibit any visible rock properties and can beremoulded or disintegrated by hand in its field condition orin water it is described as a soil. Other materials aredescribed using rock description terms.

The methods of description and classification of soils androcks used in this report are typically based on AustralianStandard 1726 and the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS) refer Soil Data Explanation of Terms (2 of 3). Ingeneral, descriptions cover the following properties -strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type andinclusions.

Particle Size

Soil types are described according to the predominatingparticle size, qualified by the grading of other particlespresent (e.g. sandy CLAY). Unless otherwise stated,particle size is described in accordance with the followingtable.

Division Subdivision Size (mm)

BOULDERS >200

COBBLES 63 to 200

GRAVEL

Coarse 20 to 63

Medium 6 to 20

Fine 2.36 to 6

SAND

Coarse 0.6 to 2.36

Medium 0.2 to 0.6

Fine 0.075 to 0.2

SILT 0.002 to 0.075

CLAY < 0.002

Plasticity Properties

Plasticity properties of cohesive soils can be assessed inthe field by tactile properties or by laboratory procedures.

Moisture Condition

Dry Looks and feels dry. Cohesive and cemented soils arehard, friable or powdery. Uncemented granular soils runfreely through hands.

Moist Soil feels cool and damp and is darkened in colour.Cohesive soils can be moulded. Granular soils tend tocohere.

Wet As for moist but with free water forming on hands whenhandled.

Consistency of Cohesive Soils

Cohesive soils refer to predominantly clay materials.

TermCu

(kPa)Approx.

Field Guide

VerySoft

<12 2

A finger can be pushed well intothe soil with little effort. Sampleextrudes between fingers when

squeezed in fist.

Soft 12 - 25 2 4A finger can be pushed into thesoil to about 25mm depth. Easily

moulded in fingers.

Firm 25 - 50 4 8

The soil can be indented about5mm with the thumb, but not

penetrated. Can be moulded bystrong pressure in the figures.

Stiff 50 - 100 8 15

The surface of the soil can beindented with the thumb, but notpenetrated. Cannot be moulded

by fingers.

VeryStiff

100 - 200 15 30

The surface of the soil can bemarked, but not indented withthumb pressure. Difficult to cut

with a knife. Thumbnail canreadily indent.

Hard > 200 > 30

The surface of the soil can bemarked only with the thumbnail.

Brittle. Tends to break intofragments.

Friable - -Crumbles or powders when

scraped by thumbnail.

Density of Granular Soils

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relativedensity, generally from standard penetration test (SPT) orDutch cone penetrometer test (CPT) results as below:

RelativeDensity

%*

(blows/300mm)

CPT ConeValue

(qc MPa)

Very loose < 15 < 5 < 2

Loose 15 - 35 5 - 10 2 - 5

Medium dense 35 - 65 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense 65 - 85 30 - 50 15 - 25

Very dense > 85 > 50 > 25

* Values may be subject to corrections for overburden pressures and

equipment type.

Minor Components

Minor components in soils may be present and readilydetectable, but have little bearing on generalgeotechnical classification. Terms include:

0BTerm AssessmentProportion of

Minor component In:

Trace of

Presence justdetectable by feel or

eye. Soil properties littleor no different to

general properties ofprimary component.

Coarse grained soils:< 5 %

Fine grained soils:< 15 %

With some

Presence easilydetectable by feel or

eye. Soil properties littledifferent to general

properties of primarycomponent.

Coarse grained soils:5 12 %

Fine grained soils:15 30 %

Explanation of Terms (1 of 3)

Symbols for Soils and Other

SOILS OTHER

COBBLES/BOULDERS SILT (ML OR MH) FILL

GRAVEL (GP OR GW) ORGANIC SILT (OH) TALUS

SILTY GRAVEL (GM) CLAY (CL, CI OR CH) ASPHALT

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) SILTY CLAY CONCRETE

SAND (SP OR SW) SANDY CLAY

SILTY SAND (SM) PEAT

CLAYEY SAND (SC) TOPSOIL

Unified Soil Classification Scheme (USCS)

FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES(Excluding particles larger than 63 mm and basing fractions on estimated mass)

USCS Primary Name

CO

AR

SEG

RA

INED

SO

ILS

Mo

reth

an

50

%o

fm

ate

riall

ess

tha

n63

mm

isla

rge

rth

an

0.0

75

mm

(A0.0

75

mm

pa

rtic

leis

ab

ou

tth

esm

alle

stp

art

icle

vis

ible

toth

en

ake

de

ye

)

GR

AV

ELS

Mo

reth

an

ha

lfo

fc

oa

rse

fra

ctio

nis

larg

er

tha

n2

.0m

m.

CLE

AN

GR

AV

ELS

(Little

or

no

fin

es)

Wide range in grain size and substantial amounts of all intermediate particlesizes.

GW Gravel

Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with more intermediate sizesmissing

GP Gravel

GR

AV

ELS

WIT

HFI

NES

(Ap

pre

cia

ble

am

ou

nt

of

fin

es)

Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures see ML below) GM Silty Gravel

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL below) GC Clayey Gravel

SAN

DS

Mo

reth

an

ha

lfo

fc

oa

rse

fra

ctio

nis

sma

ller

tha

n2

.0m

m

CLE

AN

SAN

DS

(Little

or

no

fin

es)

Wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of intermediate sizesmissing.

SW Sand

Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with some intermediate sizesmissing

SP Sand

SA

ND

S

WIT

HFI

NES

(Ap

pre

cia

ble

am

ou

nt

of

fin

es)

Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures see ML below) SM Silty Sand

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL below) SC Clayey Sand

FIN

EG

RA

INED

SOIL

S

Mo

reth

an

50

%o

fm

ate

rialle

ssth

an

63

mm

is

sma

ller

tha

n0.0

75

mm

1BIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON FRACTIONS < 0.2MM

DRY STRENGTH(Crushing

Characteristics)DILATANCY TOUGHNESS DESCRIPTION USCS Primary Name

None to LowQuick to

SlowNone

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands with slight plasticity

ML Silt

Medium toHigh

None MediumInorganic clays of low to medium plasticity 1,

gravely clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean claysCL 2 Clay

Low toMedium

Slow to VerySlow

Low Organic slits and organic silty clays of low plasticity OL Organic Silt

Low toMedium

Slow to VerySlow

Low toMedium

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous finesandy or silty soils, elastic silts

MH Silt

High None High Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays CH Clay

Medium toHigh

NoneLow to

MediumOrganic clays of medium to high plasticity OH Organic Silt

HIGHLYORGANIC

SOILSReadily identified by colour, odour, spongy feel and frequently by fibrous texture Pt Peat

Notes:1. Low Plasticity Liquid Limit WL < 35 % Medium Plasticity Liquid limit WL 35 to 60 % High Plasticity - Liquid limit WL > 60 %.2. CI may be adopted for clay of medium plasticity to distinguish from clay of low plasticity.


Soil Agricultural Classification Scheme

In some situations, such as where soils are to be used for effluent disposal purposes, soils are often more appropriately classifiedin terms of traditional agricultural classification schemes. Where a Martens report provides agricultural classifications, these areundertaken in accordance with descriptions by Northcote, K.H. (1979) The factual key for the recognition of Australian Soils,Rellim Technical Publications, NSW, p 26 - 28.

Symbol Field Texture Grade Behaviour of moist bolus Ribbon lengthClay content

(%)

S SandCoherence nil to very slight; cannot be moulded; single grains

adhere to fingers0 mm < 5

LS Loamy sand Slight coherence; discolours fingers with dark organic stain 6.35 mm 5

CLS Clayey sandSlight coherence; sticky when wet; many sand grains stick to

fingers; discolours fingers with clay stain6.35mm - 1.3cm 5 - 10

SL Sandy loamBolus just coherent but very sandy to touch; dominant sand

grains are of medium size and are readily visible1.3 - 2.5 10 - 15

FSL Fine sandy loam Bolus coherent; fine sand can be felt and heard 1.3 - 2.5 10 - 20

SCL- Light sandy clay loamBolus strongly coherent but sandy to touch, sand grains

dominantly medium size and easily visible2.0 15 - 20

L LoamBolus coherent and rather spongy; smooth feel when

manipulated but no obvious sandiness or silkiness; may besomewhat greasy to the touch if much organic matter present

2.5 25

Lfsy Loam, fine sandyBolus coherent and slightly spongy; fine sand can be felt and

heard when manipulated2.5 25

SiL Silt loam Coherent bolus, very smooth to silky when manipulated 2.5 25 + > 25 silt

SCL Sandy clay loamStrongly coherent bolus sandy to touch; medium size sand

grains visible in a finer matrix2.5 - 3.8 20 - 30

CL Clay loam Coherent plastic bolus; smooth to manipulate 3.8 - 5.0 30 - 35

SiCL Silty clay loam Coherent smooth bolus; plastic and silky to touch 3.8 - 5.0 30- 35 + > 25 silt

FSCL Fine sandy clay loam Coherent bolus; fine sand can be felt and heard 3.8 - 5.0 30 - 35

SC Sandy clayPlastic bolus; fine to medium sized sands can be seen, felt or

heard in a clayey matrix5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40

SiC Silty clay Plastic bolus; smooth and silky 5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40 + > 25 silt

LC Light clay Plastic bolus; smooth to touch; slight resistance to shearing 5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40

LMC Light medium clayPlastic bolus; smooth to touch, slightly greater resistance to

shearing than LC7.5 40 - 45

MC Medium claySmooth plastic bolus, handles like plasticine and can be

moulded into rods without fracture, some resistance to shearing> 7.5 45 - 55

HC Heavy claySmooth plastic bolus; handles like stiff plasticine; can be

moulded into rods without fracture; firm resistance to shearing> 7.5 > 50


Symbols for Rock

SEDIMENTARY ROCK METAMORPHIC ROCK

BRECCIA COAL SLATE, PHYLLITE, SCHIST

CONGLOMERATE LIMESTONE GNEISS

CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE LITHIC TUFF METASANDSTONE

SANDSTONE/QUARTZITE METASILTSTONE

SILTSTONE IGNEOUS ROCK METAMUDSTONE

MUDSTONE/CLAYSTONE GRANITE

SHALE DOLERITE/BASALT

Definitions

Descriptive terms used for Rock by Martens are based on AS1726 and encompass rock substance, defects and mass.

Rock Substance In geotechnical engineering terms, rock substance is any naturally occurring aggregate of minerals and organic matterwhich cannot be disintegrated or remoulded by hand in air or water. Other material is described using soil descriptiveterms. Rock substance is effectively homogeneous and may be isotropic or anisotropic.

Rock Defect Discontinuity or break in the continuity of a substance or substances.

Rock Mass Any body of material which is not effectively homogeneous. It can consist of two or more substances without defects, orone or more substances with one or more defects.

Degree of Weathering

Rock weathering is defined as the degree of decline in rock structure and grain property and can be determined in the field.

Term Symbol Definition

Residual soil1 RsSoil derived from the weathering of rock. The mass structure and substance fabric are no longer evident. Thereis a large change in volume but the soil has not been significantly transported.

Extremelyweathered1

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

Highlyweathered2

HW

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

Moderatelyweathered2

MWRock substance affected by weathering to the extent that staining extends throughout the whole of the rocksubstance and the original colour of the fresh rock is no longer recognisable.

Slightlyweathered

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

Fresh FR Rock substance unaffected by weathering

Notes:

2 Rs and EW material is described using soil descriptive terms.

Rock Strength

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

Term Is (50)MPa Field Guide Symbol

Very low 0.1 May be VL

Low >0.1 0.3A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter may be broken by hand and easily scored witha knife. Sharp edges of core may be friable and break during handling.

L

Medium >0.3A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter can be broken by hand with considerabledifficulty. Readily scored with a knife.

M

High 3A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter cannot be broken by unaided hands, can beslightly scratched or scored with a knife.

H

Very highA piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter may be broken readily with hand heldhammer. Cannot be scratched with pen knife.

VH

Extremelyhigh

>10A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter is difficult to break with hand held hammer.Rings when struck with a hammer.

EH


Degree of Fracturing

This classification applies to diamond drill cores and refers to the spacing of all types of natural fractures along which the coreis discontinuous. These include bedding plane partings, joints and other rock defects, but exclude fractures such as drillingbreaks (DB) or handling breaks (HB).

Term Description

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

Highly fractured Core lengths are generally less than 20 mm to 40 mm with occasional fragments.

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

Slightly fractured Core lengths are generally 300 mm to 1000 mm, with occasional longer sections and sections of 100 mm to 300 mm.

Unbroken The core does not contain any fractures.

Rock Core Recovery

TCR = Total Core Recovery SCR = Solid Core Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Designation

Rock Strength Tests

Point load strength Index (Is50) - axial test (MPa)

Point load strength Index (Is50) - diametral test (MPa)

Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) (MPa)

Defect Type Abbreviations and Descriptions

2BDefect Type (with inclination given) 3BPlanarity 4BRoughness

BP

FL

CL

JT

FC

SZ/SS

CZ/CS

DZ/DS

FZ

IS

VN

CO

HB

DB

Bedding plane parting

Foliation

Cleavage

Joint

Fracture

Sheared zone/ seam (Fault)

Crushed zone/ seam

Decomposed zone/ seam

Fractured Zone

Infilled seam

Vein

Contact

Handling break

Drilling break

Pl

Cu

Un

St

Ir

Dis

Planar

Curved

Undulating

Stepped

Irregular

Discontinuous

Pol

Sl

Sm

Ro

VR

Polished

Slickensided

Smooth

Rough

Very rough

Thickness 5BCoating or Filling

Zone

Seam

Plane

> 100 mm

> 2 mm < 100 mm

< 2 mm

Cn

Sn

Ct

Vnr

Fe

X

Qz

MU

Clean

Stain

Coating

Veneer

Iron Oxide

Carbonaceous

Quartzite

Unidentified mineral

6BInclination

Inclination of defect is measured from perpendicular to and down the core axis.

Direction of defect is measured clockwise (looking down core) from magnetic north.


Sampling

Sampling is carried out during drilling or excavation toallow engineering examination (and laboratory testingwhere required) of the soil or rock.

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

Undisturbed samples may be taken by pushing a thin-walled sampling tube, e.g. U50 (50 mm internal diameterthin walled tube), into soils and withdrawing a soil samplein a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yieldinformation on structure and strength and are necessaryfor laboratory determination of shear strength andcompressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generallyeffective only in cohesive soils. Other sampling methodsmay be used. Details of the type and method of samplingare given in the report.

Drilling /Excavation Methods

The following is a brief summary of drilling and excavationmethods currently adopted by the Company and somecomments on their use and application.

Hand Excavation - in some situations, excavation usinghand tools, such as mattock and spade, may be requireddue to limited site access or shallow soil profiles.

Hand Auger - the hole is advanced by pushing androtating either a sand or clay auger, generally 75-100 mmin diameter, into the ground. The penetration depth isusually limited to the length of the auger pole; howeverextender pieces can be added to lengthen this.

Test Pits - these are excavated with a backhoe or atracked excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soils and, if it is safe to descend into the pit, collectionof bulk disturbed samples. The depth of penetration islimited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for anexcavator. A potential disadvantage is the disturbancecaused by the excavation.

Large Diameter Auger (e.g. Pengo) - the hole is advancedby a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mmor larger in diameter. The cuttings are returned to thesurface at intervals (generally of not more than 0.5 m) andare disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content.Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliablethan with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usuallysupplemented by occasional undisturbed tube sampling.

Continuous Sample Drilling (Push Tube) - the hole isadvanced by pushing a 50 - 100 mm diameter socket intothe ground and withdrawing it at intervals to extrude thesample. This is the most reliable method of drilling in soils,since moisture content is unchanged and soil structure,strength etc. is only marginally affected.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - the hole is advancedusing 90 - 115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers,which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drillingin clays and in sands above the water table. Samples arereturned to the surface or, or may be collected afterwithdrawal of the auger flights, but they are very disturbedand may be contaminated. Information from the drilling(as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbedsamples) is of relatively lower reliability, due to remoulding,contamination or softening of samples by ground water.

Non-core Rotary Drilling - the hole is advanced by a rotarybit, with water being pumped down the drill rods andreturned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Onlymajor changes in stratification can be determined from

and rate of penetration.

Rotary Mud Drilling - similar to rotary drilling, but usingdrilling mud as a circulating fluid. The mud tends to maskthe cuttings and reliable identification is again onlypossible from separate intact sampling (eg. from SPT).

Continuous Core Drilling - a continuous core sample isobtained using a diamond tipped core barrel of usually50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery isachieved (not always possible in very weak or fracturedrocks and granular soils), this technique provides a veryreliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation.

In-situ Testing and Interpretation

Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT)Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to asDutch Cone) described in this report has been carried outusing an electrical friction cone penetrometer.

The test is described in AS 1289.6.5.1-1999 (R2013). In thetest, a 35 mm diameter rod with a cone tipped end 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 of the end bearing resistance onthe cone and the friction resistance on a separate 130mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone.Transducers in the tip of the assembly are connected byelectrical wires passing through the push rod centre to anamplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck.As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20 mmper second) the information is output on continuous chartrecorders. The plotted results given in this report havebeen traced from the original records. The informationprovided on the charts comprises:

(i) Cone resistance (qc) - the actual end bearing forcedivided by the cross sectional area of the cone,expressed in MPa.

(ii) Sleeve friction (qf) - the frictional force of the sleevedivided by the surface area, expressed in kPa.

(iii) Friction ratio - the ratio of sleeve friction to coneresistance, expressed in percent.

There are two scales available for measurement of coneresistance. The lower (A) scale (0 - 5 MPa) is used in verysoft soils where increased sensitivity is required and isshown in the graphs as a dotted line. The main (B) scale(0 - 50 MPa) is less sensitive and is shown as a full line.

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistance willvary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relativefriction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1 % - 2 % arecommonly encountered in sands and very soft clays risingto 4 % - 10 % in stiff clays.

In sands, the relationship between cone resistance andSPT value is commonly in the range:

qc (MPa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows/300 mm)

In clays, the relationship between undrained shearstrength and cone resistance is commonly in the range:

qc = (12 to 18) Cu


Interpretation of CPT values can also be made to allowestimation of modulus or compressibility values to allowcalculation of foundation settlements.

Inferred stratification as shown on the attached reports isassessed from the cone and friction traces and fromexperience and information from nearby boreholes etc.This information is presented for general guidance, butmust be regarded as being to some extent interpretive.The test method provides a continuous profile ofengineering properties, and where precise information onsoil classification is required, direct drilling and samplingmay be preferable.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)Standard penetration tests are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in cohesive soils as ameans of determining density or strength and also ofobtaining a relatively undisturbed sample.

The test procedure is described in AS 1289.6.3.1-2004. Thetest is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mmdiameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kghammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for thetube to be driven in three successive 150 mm penetration

number of blows for the last two 150 mm depthincrements (300 mm total penetration). In dense sands,very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetrationmay not be practicable and the test is discontinued. Thetest results are reported in the following form:

(i) Where full 450 mm penetration is obtained withsuccessive blow counts for each 150 mm of say 4, 6and 7 blows:

as 4, 6, 7N = 13

(ii) Where the test is discontinued, short of full penetration,say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows forthe next 40mm

as 15, 30/40 mm.

The results of the tests can be related empirically to theengineering properties of the soil. Occasionally, the testmethod is used to obtain samples in 50 mm diameter thinwalled sample tubes in clays. In such circumstances, thetest results are shown on the borehole logs in brackets.

Dynamic Cone (Hand) PenetrometersHand penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a rodinto the ground with a falling weight hammer andmeasuring the blows for successive 150mm increments ofpenetration. Normally, there is a depth limitation of 1.2mbut this may be extended in certain conditions by the useof extension rods. Two relatively similar tests are used.

Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) - a 16 mm diameter flatended rod is driven with a 9 kg hammer, dropping 600mm. The test, described in AS 1289.6.3.3-1997 (R2013), wasdeveloped for testing the density of sands (originating inPerth) and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.

Cone penetrometer (DCP)- sometimes known as the ScalaPenetrometer, a 16 mm rod with a 20 mm diameter coneend is driven with a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm. Thetest, described in AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 (R2013), wasdeveloped initially for pavement sub-grade investigations,with correlations of the test results with California BearingRatio published by various Road Authorities.

Pocket PenetrometersThe pocket (hand) penetrometer (PP) is typically a lightweight spring hand operated device with a stainless steel

loading piston, used to estimate unconfined compressivestrength, qu, (UCS in kPa) of a fine grained soil in fieldconditions. In use, the free end of the piston is pressed intothe soil at a uniform penetration rate until a line, engravednear the piston tip, reaches the soil surface level. Thereading is taken from a gradation scale, which is attachedto the piston via a built-in spring mechanism andcalibrated to kilograms per square centimetre (kPa) UCS.The UCS measurements are used to evaluate consistencyof the soil in the field moisture condition. The results maybe used to assess the undrained shear strength, Cu, of finegrained soil using the approximate relationship:

qu = 2 x Cu.

It should be noted that accuracy of the results may beinfluenced by condition variations at selected testsurfaces. Also, the readings obtained from the PP test arebased on a small area of penetration and could givemisleading results. They should not replace laboratory testresults. The use of the results from this test is typicallylimited to an assessment of consistency of the soil in thefield and not used directly for design of foundations.

Test Pit /Borehole Logs

Test pit / borehole log(s) presented herein are anengineering and / or geological interpretation of thesubsurface conditions. Their reliability will depend to someextent on frequency of sampling and methods ofexcavation / drilling. Ideally, continuous undisturbedsampling or excavation / core drilling will provide the mostreliable assessment but this is not always practicable, orpossible to justify on economic grounds. In any case, thetest pit / borehole logs represent only a very small sampleof the total subsurface profile.

Interpretation of the information and its application todesign and construction should therefore take intoaccount the spacing of test pits / boreholes, thefrequency of sampling and the possibility of other than

test pits / boreholes.

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with AS1289 Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes.Details of the test procedure used are given on theindividual report forms.

Ground Water

Where ground water levels are measured in boreholes,there are several potential problems:

In low permeability soils, ground water althoughpresent, may enter the hole slowly, or perhaps not atall 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 prior weather changes. They maynot be the same at the time of construction as areindicated in the report.

The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask anyground water inflow. Water has to be blown out of thehole and drilling mud must first be washed out of thehole if water observations are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installingstandpipes, which are read at intervals over several days,or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometerssealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in lowpermeability soils or where there may be interference froma perched water table.


DRILLING /EXCAVATION METHOD

HA Hand Auger RD Rotary Blade or Drag Bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm

AD/V Auger Drilling with V-bit RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core 51.9 mm

AD/T Auger Drilling with TC-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core 63.5 mm

AS Auger Screwing RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core 63.5 mm

HSA Hollow Stem Auger CT Cable Tool Rig DT Diatube Coring

S Excavated by Hand Spade PT Push Tube NDD Non-destructive digging

BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe PC Percussion PQ Diamond Core - 83 mm

JET Jetting E Tracked Hydraulic Excavator X Existing Excavation

SUPPORT

Nil No support S Shotcrete RB Rock Bolt

C Casing Sh Shoring SN Soil Nail

WB Wash bore with Blade or Bailer WR Wash bore with Roller T Timbering

WATER

Water level at date shown Partial water loss

Water inflow Complete water loss

GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED (NO) The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED (NX) The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could bepresent in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/testpit been left open for a longer period.

PENETRATION /EXCAVATION RESISTANCE

L Low resistance: Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.

M Medium resistance: Excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.

H High resistance: Further penetration possible at slow rate & requires significant effort equipment.

R Refusal/ Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without risk of damage/ unacceptable wear to digging implement / machine.

These assessments are subjective and dependent on many factors, including equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools,

and operator experience.

SAMPLING

D Small disturbed sample W Water Sample C Core sample

B Bulk disturbed sample G Gas Sample CONC Concrete Core

U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal undisturbed sample diameter in millimetres

TESTING

SPT

4,7,11

N=18

DCP

Notes:

RW

HW

HB 30/80mm

N=18

Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004

4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm.

150mm seating

Dynamic Cone Penetration test to AS1289.6.3.2-1997.

Penetration occurred under the rod weight only

Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight

only

Hammer double bouncing on anvil after 80 mm penetration

Where practical refusal occurs, report blows and

penetration for that interval

CPT

CPTu

PP

FP

VS

PM

PID

WPT

Static cone penetration test

CPT with pore pressure (u) measurement

Pocket penetrometer test expressed as

instrument reading (kPa)

Field permeability test over section noted

Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected

shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual

value)

Pressuremeter test over section noted

Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm

Water pressure tests

SOILDESCRIPTION ROCK DESCRIPTION

Density Consistency Moisture Strength Weathering

VL Very loose VS Very soft D Dry VL Very low EW Extremely weathered

L Loose S Soft M Moist L Low HW Highly weathered

MD Medium dense F Firm W Wet M Medium MW Moderately weathered

D Dense St Stiff Wp Plastic limit H High SW Slightly weathered

VD Very dense VSt Very stiff Wl Liquid limit VH Very high FR Fresh

H Hard EH Extremely high


preliminary salinity and geotechnical s …...design and construction of the proposed development....

Documents