JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

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

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

REPORT

TO

NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

ON

GEOTECHNICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL

INVESTIGATION

FOR

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

AT

12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND

47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT,

HOMEBUSH, NSW

22 March 2017

Ref: 29955ZArpt

29955ZArpt Page ii

Date: 22 March 2017 Report No: 29955ZArpt Revision No: 0

Report prepared by: Andrew Jackaman Senior Associate I Geotechnical Engineer

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

JK GEOTECHNICS

PO Box 976

NORTH RYDE BC NSW 1670

Document Copyright of JK Geotechnics.

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

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

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

c) the terms of contract between JK and the Client, including terms limiting the liability of JKG. If the Client, or any person, provides a copy of this Report to any third party, such third party must not rely on this Report, except with the express written consent of JKG which, if given, will be deemed to be upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as apply by virtue of (a), (b), and (c) above. Any third party who seeks to rely on this Report without the express written consent of JKG does so entirely at their own risk and to the fullest extent permitted by law, JKG accepts no liability whatsoever, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any such third party. At the Company’s discretion, JKG may send a paper copy of this report for confirmation. In the event of any discrepancy between paper and electronic versions, the paper version is to take precedence. The USER shall ascertain the accuracy and the suitability of this information for the purpose intended; reasonable effort is made at the time of assembling this information to ensure its integrity. The recipient is not authorised to modify the content of the information supplied without the prior written consent of JKG.

29955ZArpt Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE 2

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 4

3.1 Site Description 4

3.2 Subsurface Conditions 5

3.3 Laboratory Test Results 7

3.4 Pump-Out Test Results 8

3.5 Acid Sulfate Soils 8

4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS 9

4.1 Methodology 9

4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions 9

4.3 Analysis Results 10

4.4 Overview 10

5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11

5.1 Site Preparation 11

5.1.1 Dilapidation Surveys 11

5.1.2 Vibration Monitoring 12

5.1.3 Stripping 12

5.2 Excavation 13

5.2.1 Excavation Conditions 13

5.2.2 Potential Vibration Risks 13

5.2.3 Drainage 14

5.3 Excavation Retention 14

5.3.1 Retention Systems 14

5.3.2 Retention Design Parameters 15

5.4 Footings 18

5.4.1 Geotechnical Design 18

5.4.2 Earthquake Design Parameters 19

5.5 Basement 02 Floor Slab 19

5.6 Rail Corridor 20

5.7 Additional Geotechnical Input 22

6 GENERAL COMMENTS 22

29955ZArpt Page iv

STS Table A: Moisture Content Test Report

STS Table B: Point Load Strength Index Test Report

Borehole Logs 1, 2 & 3 (Including Rock Core Photographs)

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Borehole Location Plan

Figure 3: Graphical Borehole Summary

Figure 4: BH1 Groundwater Level Monitoring Results

Figure 5: BH2 Groundwater Level Monitoring Results

Figure 6: BH3 Groundwater Level Monitoring Results

Figure 7: Section A-A Hydrogeological Model

Figure 8: Section A-A Seepage Analysis Results

Vibration Emission Design Goals

Report Explanation Notes

29955ZArpt Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

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

proposed apartment building at 12-18 Bridge Road and 47 & 48 Loftus Crescent, Homebush,

NSW. A site location plan is presented as Figure 1. The investigation was commissioned by

Mr George Saade of Northline Constructions by signed ‘Acceptance of Proposal’ form dated

11 November 2016. The commission was on the basis of our fee proposal, Ref. ‘P43707A’ dated

27 October 2016.

Based on the supplied relevant preliminary architectural drawings prepared by Urban Link Pty Ltd

(Project No. 16-107, Drawing Nos. DA2001, DA2001_A, DA2002_A, DA2004, DA2005, DA3001,

DA3002, DA4001 & DA4002), we understand that the proposed development will comprise

demolition of the existing houses, garages, sheds and pavements, and construction of a five and

seven storey apartment building overlying two basement car parking levels. The lower proposed

Basement 02 will be constructed at RL11.5m and will require excavation to depths between 5.5m

and 7.3m below existing grade. The survey datum is the Australian Height Datum (AHD). Two

lifts are also proposed. We have assumed that the lift over-run pits will require a maximum

excavation depth of 1.5m below proposed Basement 02. Structural loads typical of this type of

development have been assumed.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions at three borehole

locations and, based on the information obtained, to present our comments on groundwater

seepage, and recommendations on excavation conditions, drainage, retention systems, footings,

earthquake design parameters, and the Basement 02 floor slab. We have also provided

comments on the possible effects of the proposed development on the nearby Sydney Trains

asset and recommendations on mitigation measures.

29955ZArpt Page 2

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

Prior to the commencement of the fieldwork, a specialist sub-consultant reviewed available ‘Dial

Before You Dig’ information and electro-magnetically scanned the borehole locations for buried

services.

The fieldwork was carried out on 28 & 29 November 2016 and comprised the drilling of three

boreholes (BH1, BH2 & BH3), at the locations shown on the attached Figure 2, to depths between

9.0m and 11.25m below existing grade. The boreholes were drilled using our track mounted

JK308 drill rig, which is equipped for site investigation purposes.

The borehole locations were set out by tape measurements from existing surface features. The

surface RL’s indicated on the attached borehole logs were interpolated between spot level

heights and ground contour lines shown on the supplied survey plan prepared by W Buxton Pty

Ltd (Ref. 204532, dated 27/07/16), and are therefore only approximate. The survey datum is

AHD. The supplied survey plan forms the basis of Figure 2.

The pavement at BH3 was diatube cored with water flush. The soil and upper weathered bedrock

profiles were spiral auger drilled. The strength of the subsoil profile was assessed from the

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values, together with hand penetrometer readings on clay

soils recovered in the SPT split-spoon sampler, and by tactile examination. The strength of the

underlying bedrock was assessed by observation of auger penetration resistance when using a

twin-pronged tungsten carbide (TC) bit, together with examination of recovered auger cuttings

and correlations with subsequent laboratory moisture content test results.

At depths of 5.65m in BH1 and 5.70m in BH3, both boreholes were extended by rotary diamond

coring techniques, using an NMLC triple tube core barrel with water flush. The strength of the

cored bedrock was assessed by examination of the recovered rock cores, together with

correlations with subsequent laboratory Point Load Strength Index (IS(50)) test results.

Further details of the methods and procedures employed in the investigation are presented in the

attached Report Explanation Notes.

Groundwater observations were also made in the boreholes during and on completion of drilling.

On completion of drilling each borehole, a groundwater monitoring well comprising a 50mm

diameter Class 18 PVC standpipe with end caps was installed. In order to accommodate the

50mm diameter standpipe and its backfill, the two cored boreholes (BH1 & BH3) were reamed out

29955ZArpt Page 3

using an approximately 110mm diameter drill bit. The machine slotted lengths (ie. the ‘response

zones’) were installed and sealed within the bedrock profile. The annulus between the borehole

and the slotted length was backfilled with 2mm washed sand. Above the sand backfill, the

annulus was sealed with bentonite. At each location, a cast-iron ‘Gatic’ cover was concreted

flush with the existing surface to protect the top of the standpipe. The installation details are

provided on the attached borehole logs.

Our geotechnical engineer (David Fisher) was present full-time during the fieldwork to set out the

borehole locations, direct the electro-magnetic scanning, nominate testing and sampling, prepare

the attached borehole logs, and to direct the groundwater monitoring well installations. The

Report Explanation Notes define the logging terms and symbols used.

Selected rock cutting samples were returned to a NATA registered laboratory, Soil Test Services

Pty Ltd (STS), for moisture content testing. The results are presented in the attached STS

Table A.

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

testing. The rock core photographs are enclosed. The Point Load Strength Index test results are

plotted on the borehole logs and summarised in the attached STS Table B. The unconfined

compressive strengths (UCS), as estimated from the Point Load Strength Index test results, are

also summarised in STS Table B.

Contamination testing of site soils, bedrock and groundwater was outside the scope of this

investigation.

During a return site visit on 30 November 2016, we pumped out the groundwater from the

monitoring wells for the purpose of undertaking a rising head infiltration test (also known as a

pump-out test). Water level data loggers programmed to take readings at 15 minute intervals

were installed into the standpipes to monitor the groundwater level recharge rate, as well as the

longer-term equilibrium groundwater levels.

On 22 February 2017 (ie. 12 week monitoring period), we returned to site to retrieve and

download the water level data loggers. The results for the BH1, BH2 & BH3 groundwater

monitoring wells for the 12 week period, presented as groundwater RL (mAHD) and daily rainfall

(mm) versus time, are presented as Figures 4, 5 & 6, respectively. The plotted rainfall data was

29955ZArpt Page 4

obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM) rainfall records for their nearby monitoring

station at Concord Golf Club (Station No. 66013).

From the monitored groundwater level recharge rate, and by using established seepage formulae

(and their assumptions), an approximate insitu permeability coefficient for the bedrock has been

calculated. The pump-out test results are presented in Section 3.4.

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Site Description

The site is located towards the crest of a gently sloping hillside, which grades down to the north-

east at about 2° to 3°. The site is bound by Bridge Road to the west and Loftus Crescent to the

south.

At the time of the fieldwork, the site comprised six residential properties. No. 12 Bridge Road was

occupied by a single storey brick house and separate brick garage, which appeared to be in good

external condition based on a cursory inspection. No. 14 Bridge Road was occupied by a two

storey rendered brick dwelling and a separate brick garage, which generally appeared to be in fair

external conditions with some stepped cracking up to 2mm wide. No. 16 Bridge Road was

occupied by a one and two storey brick and fibro house, which appeared to be in good external

condition based on a cursory inspection. No. 18 Bridge Road was occupied by a single storey

brick house with a fibro extension and a separate fibro garage. Based on a cursory external

inspection, the existing house appeared to be in good to fair condition with evidence of repointed

stepped cracks in the brickwork. Nos. 47 & 48 Loftus Crescent were occupied by semi-detached,

single storey houses, which appeared to be in good external condition based on a cursory

inspection.

Most of the properties contained concrete driveways and rear yard sheds. The undeveloped

portions of each property contained lawns. Numerous small to large sized trees lined the

southern and western site boundaries, and were scattered within the rear yards of the Bridge

Road properties.

The neighbouring property to the north (10 Bridge Road) was occupied by a fire damaged,

partially demolished house, which was set back 1m from the common boundary. The (eastern)

rear yard of the neighbouring property contained several small to large size trees. Surface levels

across the common boundary were similar.

29955ZArpt Page 5

The neighbouring property to the east (19 Crane Street) was occupied by a six storey apartment

building with two basement levels, which abutted the common boundary and appeared to be in

good condition when viewed from within the subject site and from Loftus Crescent. In 2013,

JK Geotechnics completed the geotechnical investigation report for the neighbouring apartment

building at 19 Crane Street. Based on previously supplied architectural drawings, the lower

basement level was constructed at RL11.45m and abutted the southern two-thirds of the common

boundary.

On the southern side of Loftus Crescent, approximately 15m from the southern site boundary, lies

a rail corridor which contains five tracks. The rail corridor to the south of the site was in cut, which

was approximately 3.5m deep below street level in line with the eastern site boundary, and

approximately 5m deep below street level in line with the western site boundary. The cut faces

were battered back and shotcreted. Bridge Road extended over the rail corridor by means of an

overbridge.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The 1:100,000 series geological map of Sydney (Geological Survey of NSW, Geological Series

Sheet 9130) indicates the site to be underlain by Ashfield Shale of the Wianamatta Group.

Generally, the boreholes encountered pavements or fill, overlying residual silty clay, then shale

bedrock at relatively shallow depths. Reference should be made to the attached borehole logs for

specific details at each location. A graphical borehole summary is presented as Figure 3. A

summary of the encountered subsurface characteristics is provided below:

Pavement

In BH3, the pavement comprised a 20mm thick tiled surface, overlying a 70mm thick reinforced

concrete slab, overlying a 110mm thick bedding sand layer, overlying 100mm thick brick pavers.

Fill

Sand fill, resembling imported topsoil, was encountered in BH1 and BH2 to 0.2m depth. The fill in

both boreholes was grass covered.

Residual Silty Clay

Residual silty clay of high plasticity and of very stiff to hard strength was encountered below the

pavement/fill in all boreholes.

29955ZArpt Page 6

Shale Bedrock

Shale bedrock was encountered in all boreholes at the depths and RL’s tabulated below:

Borehole Depth to Shale Bedrock Surface

(m)

RL of Shale Bedrock Surface

(mAHD)

BH1 1.0 16.5

BH2 1.2 17.3

BH3 1.0 16.8

The shale on first contact was generally extremely to distinctly weathered and of extremely low,

very low and low strength. This upper ‘weathered’ shale profile extended to depths between 4.7m

(BH1) and 5.2m (BH3); which correspond to levels between RL12.6m (BH3) and RL13.5m (BH2).

Below these depths, the shale was generally fresh and of medium and high strength. Based on

the rock cored lengths of BH1 and BH3, several defects (eg. joints, extremely weathered seams,

clay seams and crushed seams) were encountered.

An indicative engineering classification of the shale bedrock has been carried out for the

boreholes (in accordance with ‘Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the Sydney Region’ by

Pells et al., Australian Geomechanics, December 1998) and is tabulated below:

Borehole

Approx.

Surface

RL

(mAHD)

Indicative Engineering Classification of Shale Bedrock

Depths (m)

[RL at top of Unit (mAHD)]

Class V* Class IV* Class III Class II Class I

BH1 17.5 1.0-4.7

[16.5]

4.7-5.3

[12.8]

5.3-10.66

[12.2]

- -

BH2 18.5 1.2-5.0

[17.3]

- 5.0-9.0

[13.5]

- -

BH3 17.8 1.0-5.2

[16.8]

- 5.2-7.3

[12.6]

7.3-11.25

[10.5]

-

* Estimated from augered lengths of boreholes.

29955ZArpt Page 7

Groundwater

The boreholes were ‘dry’ during and on completion of augering; that is, to depths of 5.65m, 9.0m

and 5.7m in BH1, BH2 and BH3, respectively. At 1 day after completing the drilling of BH1 and at

2 days after completing the drilling of BH2 and BH3, groundwater was measured at depths of 8.7m

(RL8.8m), 5.7m (RL12.8m) and 6.4m (RL11.4m), respectively.

A summary of the groundwater level monitoring carried out between 30 November 2016 and

22 February 2017 is tabulated below:

Groundwater

Monitoring Well

Approximate

Surface RL

(mAHD)

Range in Groundwater RL’s for

12 Week Monitoring Period

between 30/11/16 & 22/02/17

(mAHD)

BH1 17.5 12.8 – 13.0

BH2 18.5 13.3 – 13.7

BH3 17.8 12.5 – 13.1

Groundwater was in the shale profile. Based on the groundwater RL (mAHD) and daily rainfall

(mm) versus time plots presented in Figures 4, 5 & 6, it appears that the majority of the

groundwater recharge following pump-out testing took approximately 35 days in BH1, 2 days in

BH2 and 9 days in BH3 to achieve, indicating a relatively impermeable rock mass. Furthermore,

the monitoring indicated negligible response in groundwater level to rainfall; particularly during

and immediately following the heavier rainfall events that occurred on 15-17 December 2016,

7-8 February 2017 and 18-20 February 2017 where total rainfalls of 43.6mm, 36.2mm and

32.6mm were recorded at the nearby BOM monitoring station, respectively. Reference should be

made to Figures 4, 5 & 6 for specific details.

3.3 Laboratory Test Results

The results of the moisture content tests carried out on recovered rock cutting samples correlated

well with our field assessment of bedrock strength. The results of the Point Load Strength Index

tests carried out on the recovered rock cores from BH1 and BH3 correlated well with our field

assessment of bedrock strength. The estimated UCS’s, based on the broadly accepted

approximate relationship of UCS = 20 x IS(50), generally ranged from 10MPa to 24MPa.

29955ZArpt Page 8

3.4 Pump-Out Test Results

The results of the borehole pump-out (rising head) tests indicate low permeability for the shale

bedrock. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the calculated range in

values of coefficient of permeability (k) for the pump-out tests are tabulated below:

Borehole Calculated Range in Coefficient of

Permeability Values

(m/sec)

BH1 1 x 10-8 to 5 x 10-8

BH2 8 x 10-9 to 1 x 10-8

BH3 2 x 10-9 to 7 x 10-9

We note that these values are the calculated horizontal coefficient of permeability (kh).

3.5 Acid Sulfate Soils

A review of the acid sulfate (ASS) risk map for the Prospect/Parramatta River area [1:25,000 Acid

Sulfate Soil Risk Map (Series 9130N3, Ed 2), Department of Land and Water Conservation

(1997)] indicates that the site is located in an area of no known occurrence of ASS. As residual

silty clay and shallow shale bedrock were encountered, we do not expect ASS at the subject site.

29955ZArpt Page 9

4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the groundwater seepage analysis was to assess the potential seepage volumes

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

4.1 Methodology

Based on the results of the investigation, we nominated one section (Section A-A) through the

proposed basement excavation for the seepage analysis. A bulk excavation level at RL11.2m

(ie. 0.3m lower than proposed Basement 02 floor level) was assumed. The section line is shown

on Figure 2. An idealised hydrogeological model for the section was established based on the

borehole information, site survey and the proposed basement geometry. Reference should be

made to Figure 7 for the Section A-A hydrogeological model.

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

(GeoStudio 2016 from Geo-Slope International Ltd).

4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions

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

residual silty clay and shale bedrock are provided below. Based on the known geological

structures of the residual silty clay and shale bedrock, and the fact that groundwater flow in the

bedrock occurs through defects, we have assumed isotropic permeability conditions for the

residual silty clay and anisotropic permeability conditions for the shale bedrock. From established

literature, we have adopted a ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability of 10 (ie. one order of

magnitude) for the shale bedrock.

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

(kh) and a vertical coefficient of permeability (kv) of 1 x 10-9 m/sec. This value is based on

our experience and published literature.

For the shale bedrock, based on the results of the borehole pump-out tests, we have

adopted a kh value of 8 x 10-9 m/sec and a kv value of 8 x 10-10 m/sec (Scenario 1). These

values are consistent with published literature. Based on the range of results obtained from

the pump-out tests, a sensitivity analysis was also carried out using a kh value of

5 x 10-8 m/sec and a kv value of 5 x 10-9 m/sec for the shale bedrock (Scenario 2).

The model has been set up with boundary conditions equivalent to the head of water on

each side and base of the model. Based on the groundwater level monitoring data at BH1

and BH2, we have adopted a groundwater head of water at RL13.7m on the southern side

29955ZArpt Page 10

of the proposed excavation, and a hydraulic gradient sloping down to the north. On the

northern side of the proposed excavation, we have adopted a groundwater head of water at

RL12.7m.

4.3 Analysis Results

For Section A-A, the calculated inflow was 1.15 x 10-8 m3/sec per metre width of section for

Scenario 1. For Scenario 2, the calculated inflow was 7.18 x 10-8 m3/sec per metre width of

section. For the proposed basement excavation, these values equate to an approximate inflow of

about 0.03ML/year (or 85L/day) for Scenario 1 and 0.2ML/year (or 530L/day) for Scenario 2.

Reference should be made to the seepage analysis results presented in Figure 8.

4.4 Overview

It should be noted that seepage flows through the bedrock typically occurs through defects (ie.

bedding partings, joints, etc.) within the rock mass. The mass permeability of the bedrock may be

different to that assessed from the pump-out test completed in the small diameter borehole. Also,

the inflow rate is likely to decrease once the proposed excavation has drained the local area.

Based on the results of our investigation and seepage analyses, we consider that a drained

basement is feasible. An appropriately sized sump with an automatic level control pump will be

required to intermittently discharge the seepage water to the stormwater system. Discharge will

require Council approval.

The results of the seepage analysis may be tentatively used for the design of the basement

drainage. Notwithstanding, we strongly recommend that during construction an inspection of the

bulk excavation be carried out by both JK Geotechnics and the hydraulic engineer and that the

inflow rate be measured. If higher than expected inflows occur, then there may be the need for

some grouting of defects to reduce the inflows to acceptable levels.

If the basement drainage design is based on our seepage analyses, then we recommend that a

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

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

layers with time.

In addition to considering the inflow into the basement, the drawdown of the groundwater levels

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

29955ZArpt Page 11

immediately adjacent to the basement excavation. However, as the drawdown of the

groundwater will occur within the shale bedrock at a depth of at least 4.5m below existing surface

levels, and that the hydraulic gradient of the groundwater drawdown is expected to be relatively

steep, we consider that such drawdown will have negligible adverse geotechnical effects on the

surrounding properties.

5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation

The advice provided below assumes that the fire damaged, partially demolished, neighbouring

house to the north (10 Bridge Road) will be repaired/reconstructed prior to the commencement of

demolition on the subject site. If not, then a dilapidation survey and vibration monitoring on this

house is considered unwarranted.

5.1.1 Dilapidation Surveys

Prior to commencement of any site works, including demolition of existing houses, garages,

sheds and driveway pavements, we recommend that detailed internal and external dilapidation

reports be completed on the neighbouring house to the north (10 Bridge Road), and on the

adjoining portion of the neighbouring apartment building to the east (19 Crane Street).

Dilapidation reports provide a record of existing conditions prior to commencement of any site

works. The dilapidation reports would therefore be used as a benchmark against which to set

vibration limits during rock excavation, and for assessing possible future claims for damage

arising from the works. The dilapidation report on the neighbouring apartment building to the east

should initially be completed on the portion adjacent to the subject site. If however, the

dilapidation report of this portion reveals substantial existing damage, then it may be prudent to

extend the survey to include the entire building.

The respective owners of the neighbouring properties should be asked to confirm in writing that

the dilapidation reports present a fair assessment of existing conditions. We forewarn that

Council may also require dilapidation surveys on the abutting roadways and footpaths. Similarly,

Sydney Trains may require a dilapidation survey on their nearby assets. As dilapidation reports

are relied upon for the assessment of potential damage claims, they must be carried out

thoroughly with all defects rigorously described (ie. defect type, defect location, crack width, crack

length etc).

29955ZArpt Page 12

We would be pleased to complete the dilapidation reports, if you commission us to do so. The

dilapidation reports should be reviewed by JK Geotechnics and the structural engineer prior to

commencement of the works.

5.1.2 Vibration Monitoring

We recommend that full-time quantitative vibration monitoring be carried out on the neighbouring

house to the north and on the neighbouring apartment building to the east whenever rock

hammers are operating on site. The vibration monitoring should include geophones affixed onto

the neighbouring buildings and a warning system (eg. flashing lights, audible alarm, etc.) which is

set to trigger when the permissible vibration limit has been recorded. The locations of the

geophones should be assessed following review of the dilapidation survey reports, and should be

jointly nominated by JK Geotechnics and the acoustic consultant.

The vibrations on the neighbouring house to the north should be tentatively limited to a peak

particle velocity of 5mm/s, subject to review of the dilapidation survey report. The vibrations on

the neighbouring apartment building to the east should be tentatively limited to a peak particle

velocity of 20mm/s, subject to review of the dilapidation survey report.

If higher vibrations are recorded, then they should be measured against the attached Vibration

Emission Design Goals as higher vibrations may be acceptable depending on the associated

vibration frequency. Reference should be made to Section 5.2.2 if it is confirmed that transmitted

vibrations are excessive during rock excavation.

If the monitoring during the initial stages of rock excavation indicates negligible vibration

emissions, then we may be able to justify periodic vibration monitoring in lieu of full-time.

5.1.3 Stripping

Site preparation will include demolition of existing houses, garages, sheds and pavements,

removal of existing trees (including their root balls) and stripping of grass, topsoil, root affected

soils and any deleterious or contaminated fill. Reference should be made to Section 6 for

guidance on the offsite disposal of site soils. Care should be taken during site stripping and

subsequent bulk excavation not to undermine or remove support from the site boundaries.

29955ZArpt Page 13

5.2 Excavation

Prior to any excavation commencing we recommend that reference be made to the Safe Work

Australia ‘Excavation Work Code of Practice’ dated July 2015.

5.2.1 Excavation Conditions

The proposed basement levels will require excavation to depths between 5.5m and 7.3m below

existing grade. We expect that excavation of the soil profile and much of the extremely low, very

low and low strength shale bedrock (ie. Class V shale) could be carried out using a ‘digging

bucket’ fitted to a large hydraulic excavator (say, at least 30 tonnes), using a ripping tyne where

necessary, and/or by using a dozer.

Hard ripping or ‘hard rock’ excavation conditions should be expected for the medium and high

strength shale bedrock (ie. Class III bedrock). Ripping may only just be possible with a

Caterpillar D9 dozer and a generous allowance would need to be made for hydraulic rock

hammer assistance to the ripping. Notwithstanding, rock hammers will need to be used for

detailed footing, lift pit and trench excavations.

5.2.2 Potential Vibration Risks

We reiterate that rock excavations using hydraulic rock hammers will need to be strictly controlled

as there may be direct transmission of ground vibrations to the neighbouring buildings. As

discussed in Section 5.1.2, we recommend that full-time quantitative vibration monitoring be

carried out during the rock excavation as a safeguard against possible vibration induced damage.

If it is confirmed that transmitted vibrations are excessive, then it would be necessary to change to

alternative rock excavation methods such as a smaller rock hammer.

The following procedures are recommended to reduce vibrations if rock hammers are used:

Maintain rock hammer oriented towards the face and enlarge excavation by breaking small

wedges off face.

Operate hammer in short burst only, to reduce amplification of vibrations.

Use excavation contractors with appropriate experience and a competent supervisor who is

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

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

29955ZArpt Page 14

5.2.3 Drainage

Groundwater inflows into the excavation are expected to occur as local seepage flows through

gravel bands or relic joints/fissures within the residual silty clay, at the soil/rock interface, and

through joints and bedding partings within the shale bedrock profile, particularly after heavy rain.

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

pump discharge systems, as discussed in Section 4.4. Discharge from the drainage system

should be piped to the stormwater system. The excavation should be monitored as it progresses

by Northline Constructions, JK Geotechnics and the hydraulic engineer to confirm the drainage

requirements.

5.3 Excavation Retention

5.3.1 Retention Systems

We recommend that the proposed vertical cuts in the soil and shale bedrock profiles be supported

by contiguous pile walls (in areas which are highly sensitive to lateral movement, such as

adjacent to the neighbouring house to the north) and soldier pile walls with shotcrete infill panels

elsewhere. We note that a retention system will not be required along the southern two-thirds of

the eastern site boundary as the lower basement level of the abutting neighbouring building has

been constructed at a similar level as the proposed Basement 02. If the neighbouring basement

level has not been constructed at RL11.45m, as discussed in Section 3.1, then further

geotechnical advice must be sought from JK Geotechnics.

The piles must be installed prior to excavation commencing and must be progressively shotcreted

and anchored, or internally propped, as the excavation proceeds (ie. once the restraining point

has been uncovered).

The piles can be used as load bearing piles for the proposed new building if taken down to the

appropriate founding depths; that is, they will need to be embedded below bulk excavation level

(including nearby footings, service trenches and pits) at suitable depths to satisfy founding and

stability considerations.

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

equipped with rock augers should be brought to site. Due to the expected groundwater inflows

into open pile holes, conventional bored pile construction will be difficult. All conventional bored

pile holes should be cleaned out using a cleaning bucket (for all pile diameters) for effective

removal of the expected sludge at the base of the open pile holes. Piles should only be cleaned

29955ZArpt Page 15

out when concrete is ready to be poured. All conventional bored piles must be tremie poured due

to the expected depths of the pile holes and groundwater seepage inflows. Alternatively,

continuous flight auger (CFA) piles could be used in the construction of the basement walls. The

prospective piling contractors should be provided with a full copy of this report so that appropriate

drilling rigs and equipment are brought to site.

Construction of the piled walls must be of high quality. For soldier pile walls, the shotcrete infill

panels must be completed without delay to reduce the shrinkage of clay soils immediately outside

the excavation. Such shrinkage could result in ground subsidence immediately behind the wall.

The construction sequence should be fully specified and carefully controlled to reduce potential

movements.

The proposed lift pit excavations are expected to encounter medium and high strength shale

bedrock. The proposed lift pits can be cut vertically on condition that the rock faces are inspected

on completion of excavation by an experienced geotechnical engineer to assess the need for

support (eg. shotcrete, mesh and/or dowels). Due to the presence of seams and steeply inclined

joints, which could initiate rock wedge failures in vertically cut faces, we forewarn that rock face

support will most likely be required and should be allowed for in the construction program and

budget.

5.3.2 Retention Design Parameters

The major consideration in the selection of earth pressures for the design of the retention system

is the need to limit deformations occurring outside the excavation. The characteristic earth

pressure coefficients and subsoil parameters provided below may be adopted for the static design

of the retention systems.

For progressively anchored or propped walls, where only minor movements can be

tolerated (possibly the western and southern basement walls, provided there are no

movement sensitive buried services) we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure

distribution and a lateral earth pressure of 6H (kPa) for the soil and shale bedrock profiles,

where H is the retained height in metres (ie. between surface level and bulk excavation

level, including nearby footings, service trenches and lift pits). These pressures should be

assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system. For the shotcrete infill

panel design, a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution and a lateral earth pressure of 4H

(kPa) can be adopted for the soil and shale bedrock profiles.

29955ZArpt Page 16

For progressively anchored or propped walls which are highly sensitive to lateral movement

(possibly the northern basement wall), we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth

pressure distribution and a lateral earth pressure of 8H (kPa) for the soil and shale bedrock

profiles, where H is the retained height in metres (ie. between surface level and bulk

excavation level, including nearby footings, service trenches and lift pits). These pressures

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

shotcrete infill panel design, a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution and a lateral earth

pressure of 6H (kPa) can be adopted for the soil and shale bedrock profiles.

Under ultimate load conditions, the design should be checked for the presence of a 45

inclined joint within the deeper Class III shale bedrock which daylights at or just above bulk

excavation level. The joint should be assumed to be clay coated and smooth with a friction

angle of 25. Nevertheless, it is essential that the rock faces between soldier piles are

progressively inspected by an experienced geotechnical engineer as the excavation

proceeds at no more than 1.5m depth intervals, in order that any wedges that could detach

are identified and appropriate support measures implemented (eg. dowels and/or rock

bolts).

Any surcharge affecting the walls (eg. traffic loading, nearby footings, etc.) should be

allowed in the design using an ‘at rest’ earth pressure coefficient (K0) of 0.5 for the soil and

shale bedrock profiles, assuming a horizontal retained surface. A (weighted) bulk unit

weight of 22kN/m3 should be adopted for the soil and shale bedrock profiles.

The basement walls should be designed to withstand some lateral hydrostatic pressures for

a head of water at RL14.0m, which allows for some short duration ‘spiking’ of the

groundwater level during a heavier rainfall period than experienced during the 12 week

monitoring period. Notwithstanding, the basement walls should be designed as a drained

system with measures undertaken to induce complete and permanent drainage of the

ground behind the walls. Weep hole outlets (also known as spitter pipes) should be

provided between contiguous piles at a horizontal spacing no greater than 1.35m and

should incorporate a non-woven geotextile filter fabric (at the inserted end) to reduce

subsoil erosion. Between soldier piles, at least two equally spaced strip drains (with weep

hole outlets) should be provided. All drainage water should be piped to the stormwater

system.

29955ZArpt Page 17

The lift over-run pits should be designed to withstand lateral and uplift hydrostatic pressures

with a design head of water at RL11.5m (ie. Basement 02 slab level). Rock bolts could be

used to counter the buoyancy. Rock bolts bonded into medium and high strength shale

may be designed for a maximum allowable bond stress of 200kPa. Permanent rock bolts

must be designed for corrosion resistance and for long-term durability (for example, use hot

dipped galvanised with sacrificial thickness).

For perimeter piles embedded at least 0.5m into medium and high strength shale bedrock

below bulk excavation level (including below nearby internal footing excavations, service

trenches and lift pits), an allowable lateral toe resistance of 500kPa may be adopted. The

above design value assumes excavation is not carried out within the zone of influence of

the wall toe. The upper 0.2m depth of the socket should not be taken into account to allow

for disturbance and tolerance effects during excavation. The quality of the toe restraint rock

should be progressively inspected at bulk excavation level by an experienced geotechnical

engineer to confirm that unexpected conditions do not exist. If the piles are inadequately

socketed, then it may be necessary to install an additional rock anchor or rock bolt at the

base of the piles.

For rock anchors, permission must be sought from the neighbouring property owners and

Council prior to installation. Rock anchors bonded at least 3m into medium strength or

stronger shale bedrock, beyond a 45 line inclined up from bulk excavation level (including

nearby footings, service trenches and pits) may be tentatively designed for a maximum

allowable bond stress of 200kPa. All anchors should be proof tested to 1.3 times the

working load under the supervision of an experienced engineer independent of the anchor

contractor. The testing may allow an upgrading of the above bond stress. We recommend

that only experienced contractors be considered for the anchor installations. We have

assumed that permanent lateral support of the piled walls will be provided by the proposed

structure, after which time the rock anchors can be de-stressed. If not, then the rock

anchors will need to be designed for corrosion resistance and for long-term durability.

29955ZArpt Page 18

5.4 Footings

5.4.1 Geotechnical Design

Based on the results of the investigation, we expect that the proposed basement excavation will

expose Class III or better quality shale bedrock. Pad and strip footings founded in Class III shale

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

Conventional bored piles or CFA piles, used in the construction of the perimeter walls, founded in

Class III or better quality shale bedrock below bulk excavation level may also be designed for a

maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 3,500kPa. From 0.5m depth below bulk excavation

level (including adjacent footing excavations, pits and service trenches), rock sockets for soldier

piles completed by conventional bored piling techniques may be designed for a maximum

allowable shaft adhesion value of 350kPa (compression) on condition that the pile shaft is suitably

roughened. If CFA piles are adopted, then the shaft adhesion value above should be reduced to

250kPa since the pile shafts cannot be inspected for roughness or sidewall smear.

The provided bearing pressures are based upon serviceability criteria of deflections at the footing

base of less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension/pile diameter. We note that these footing

settlements will be of an elastic nature and are expected to occur as construction proceeds.

Inclined joints, which could potentially isolate unstable rock wedges, were encountered in the rock

cored lengths of BH1 & BH3. As such, pad and strip footings located in close proximity to the lift

pits must be founded below a 45º line inclined up from the pit bases.

All pad and strip footings should be cleaned out, inspected by a geotechnical engineer (prior to

the installation of reinforcement cages) and poured on the same day as excavation. At least one

third of all pad and strip footings should also be spoon tested. If delays in pouring are envisaged,

then we recommend that a concrete blinding layer be provided over the bases to reduce

deterioration due to weathering.

Conventional bored piles should be cleaned out, inspected and poured on the same day as

drilling. All pile holes should be cleaned out using a cleaning bucket (for all pile diameters) for

effective removal of sludge and loose material. Due to the expected groundwater seepage, the

piles should only be cleaned out when concrete is ready to be tremie poured. We recommend

that the bored pile drilling be inspected by a geotechnical engineer during the initial stages and

then periodically during the works.

29955ZArpt Page 19

CFA piling, if adopted, should be witnessed at the commencement of the work and then

periodically throughout, and compared to the borehole information by a geotechnical engineer to

confirm that a satisfactory bearing stratum has been achieved. Notwithstanding, all CFA piles

must be certified by the piling contractor.

5.4.2 Earthquake Design Parameters

The following parameters should be adopted for earthquake design in accordance with AS1170.4-

2007 ‘Structural Design Actions, Part 4: Earthquake Actions in Australia’:

Hazard Factor (Z) = 0.08

Site Subsoil Class = Class Be

5.5 Basement 02 Floor Slab

We forewarn that the shale bedrock exposed at bulk excavation level will be susceptible to

weathering and degradation following exposure to the elements and in particular rainfall periods.

We therefore recommend that good and effective drainage be provided during construction. The

principal aim of the drainage is to promote run-off towards designated sumps by cross-falls and to

reduce ponding. Any softened material should be scraped off prior to floor slab (including sub-

floor drainage) construction.

The proposed Basement 02 on-grade floor slab should be constructed independent of the

building footings and walls (ie. designed as a ‘floating’ slab). Slab joints should be designed to

resist shear forces but not bending moments by providing dowelled or keyed joints. The floor

slabs should be provided with at least a 100mm thick sub-base of good quality, durable, single

size, crushed rock (free of fines) such as ‘Blue Metal’ gravel or crushed concrete aggregate (free

of fines), which will also act as underfloor drainage.

The underfloor drainage should include a sump and pump dewatering system. The basement

wall drains should be connected into the underfloor drainage system. Groundwater seepage

monitoring should be carried out during basement excavation prior to finalising the design of the

pump out facility. In order to avoid flooding of proposed Basement 02, appropriately sized sumps

each with an automatic level control pump will be required to intermittently discharge the seepage

water to the stormwater system. Outlets into the stormwater system will require Council approval.

The results of the seepage analysis may be tentatively used for the design of the basement

drainage. Notwithstanding, we strongly recommend that during construction an inspection of the

29955ZArpt Page 20

bulk excavation be carried out by both JK Geotechnics and the hydraulic engineer and that the

inflow rate be measured. If higher than expected inflows occur, then there may be the need for

some grouting of defects to reduce the inflows to acceptable levels.

5.6 Rail Corridor

The rail corridor is located on the southern side of Loftus Crescent, approximately 15m from the

southern site boundary, and approximately 19m from the proposed southern basement wall. At

the time of preparing this report, a survey plan of the rail corridor was not available.

Notwithstanding, by inspection is it evident that the construction associated with the proposed

basement levels on the subject site is relatively remote from the existing rail corridor and will have

minimal to negligible impacts on the Sydney Trains assets.

However, we have discussed below each stage of construction, assessed their potential impacts

on the Sydney Trains assets and presented recommendations for precautions which will enable

any adverse impacts to be managed and reduced. Many of the recommendations have been

reproduced from the sections above.

Site Preparation

No adverse impact on Sydney Trains assets is anticipated.

Perimeter Pile Wall Installation

No adverse impact on Sydney Trains assets is anticipated during the installation of conventional

bored piles or CFA piles. Based on our experience, vibration emissions during pile drilling are

expected to be negligible. In our opinion, vibration monitoring during pile drilling is unwarranted.

Furthermore, the Sydney Trains assets are located well outside the zone of influence of the piled

walls. We recommend however, that geotechnical inspections be carried out during pile

installation to confirm the founding conditions and that adequate embedment has been achieved.

Bulk Excavation

The anticipated impact on Sydney Trains assets due to ground vibrations during bulk excavations

is expected to be negligible due to the distance of about 19m between the proposed basement

excavation and the rail corridor.

However for structural considerations, the ground vibrations during excavation should be

quantitatively monitored in view of the close proximity of the neighbouring house to the north and

neighbouring apartment building to the west, as discussed in Section 5.1.2. The expected

29955ZArpt Page 21

negligible vibration emissions to the rail corridor should be demonstrated on site at the

commencement of rock excavation and when rock hammers are first used by developing

attenuation curves of ground vibration versus distance from source. In the unlikely event that the

attenuation curves indicate that there is not a sharp decrease in ground vibrations at distances in

excess of 19m from source (ie. a peak particle velocity of less than 1mm/sec), the need for a track

monitoring plan and for a rail safety plan should be considered.

Notwithstanding, as a further safeguard to Sydney Trains assets, we recommend that a

geotechnical engineer carry out regular visual inspections of the shotcrete covered rail cut batter

slope adjacent to the site. These inspection should be carried out from the Bridge Road

overbridge prior to excavation commencing, and progressively whilst excavation proceeds.

Anchor Installation and Testing

No adverse impact on Sydney Train assets is anticipated. Anchors are not expected to extend

below the rail corridor. Irrespective, the anchor installation and proof loading should be witnessed

by an engineer independent of the contractor to confirm adequacy and also that no unexpected

conditions are encountered or triggered. The records of all anchor proof testing must in any event

be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for review.

Shotcreting

No adverse impact on Sydney Trains assets is anticipated as a result of shotcreting the piled

walls.

Drainage

No adverse impact on Sydney Trains assets is anticipated from drainage of groundwater seepage

into the proposed basement excavation due to the distance away from the rail corridor.

Notwithstanding, during each stage of excavation, we recommend that the base be graded

towards the north and a sump provided from which any water can be pumped to the stormwater

system.

As discussed in Section 4.4, we also consider that groundwater drawdown due to basement

excavation drainage will have negligible adverse geotechnical effects on the rail corridor.

29955ZArpt Page 22

Footings

No adverse impacts on Sydney Trains assets is anticipated as the proposed footings will be

founded in Class III or better quality shale, well below track level, and settlements are expected to

be minimal.

5.7 Additional Geotechnical Input

We summarise below the previously recommended additional work that needs to be carried out:

1. Dilapidation survey reports.

2. Vibration monitoring when using hydraulic rock hammers.

3. Proof testing of anchors.

4. Progressive rock face inspections (between soldier piles) as the excavation proceeds.

5. Rock face inspections of both lift pit excavations.

6. Groundwater monitoring of seepage volumes.

7. Inspections of the shotcrete covered rail cut batter slope adjacent to the site from the

Bridge Road overbridge.

8. Footing inspections, including spoon testing.

6 GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

tested, inspected and documented.

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

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

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

exist, we recommend that you immediately contact this office.

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

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

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

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

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

29955ZArpt Page 23

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

been correctly implemented.

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

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

Natural Material (VENM), General Solid, Restricted Solid or Hazardous Waste. Analysis takes

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

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

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

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

site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES

U50

DB

DS

GRASS COVER

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE

VERY LOW TO LOWRESISTANCE

LOW TO MODERATERESISTANCE

H

EL - VL

VL - L

L - M

M

>600>600

M

MC<PL

XW - DW

DW

DW - SW

FR

N = 105,4,6

N=SPT11/ 100mmREFUSAL

DR

Y O

NC

OM

PLE

TIO

NO

F A

UG

ER

ING

CH

-

FILL: Clayey silty sand topsoil, fine tomedium grianed, brown, trace of roots.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, light grey,brown and orange brown.

SHALE: light grey and light orangebrown.

SHALE: grey.

as above,but dark grey.

REFER TO CORED BOREHOLE LOG

Gro

undw

ater

Rec

ord

RL

(m A

HD

)

Str

engt

h/R

el D

ensi

ty

Han

dP

enet

rom

ete

rR

eadi

ngs

(kP

a)

Remarks

Moi

stu

reC

ondi

tion/

Wea

ther

ing

Fie

ld T

ests

COPYRIGHT

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

Method: SPIRAL AUGERJob No.: 29955ZA

Date: 29/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

R.L. Surface: ~17.5 m

Datum: AHD

1 / 2

1Borehole No.

BOREHOLE LOG

JKGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Geotechnics

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K A

UG

ER

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

DESCRIPTIONSAMPLES

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

AF

TE

R 1

DA

Y 1

00%

RE

TU

RN

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

as above,but with incipient J, 75°, P at 30mmspacing.

as above,but with no incipient joints.

as above,but with incipient J, 75-80°, P at40-50mm spacing.

START CORING AT 5.65m

END OF BOREHOLE AT 10.66 m

M - HFR

Wat

erLo

ss\L

evel

Bar

rel L

ift

RL

(m A

HD

)

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

COPYRIGHT

Core Size: NMLC

Inclination: VERTICAL

Bearing: N/A

Job No.: 29955ZA

Date: 29/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

JK Geotechnics

CORED BOREHOLE LOG

R.L. Surface: ~17.5 m

Datum: AHD

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

2 / 2

1Borehole No.

General

DESCRIPTION

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

POINT LOADSTRENGTH

INDEXIs(50)

CORE DESCRIPTION

Specific500

300

100

50 30 10

DEFECT DETAILS

Gra

phic

Log

-0.0

3

-0.1

-0.3

-1 -3 -10

Rock Type, grain characteristics, colour,structure, minor components. Type, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating.

Str

engt

h

Wea

ther

ing

(6.35m) XWS, 0°, 15 mm.t

(7.00m) J, 70°, P, HEALED, IS

(7.52m) J, 80°, P, HEALED, IS

(7.95m) CS, 0°, 5 mm.t(8.00m) CS, 0°, 5 mm.t(8.05m) CS, 5°, 25 mm.t(8.06m) J, 60°, Un, R

(8.63m) XWS, 0°, 25 mm.t

(8.80m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

(9.07m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

(9.35m) XWS, 0°, 50 mm.t

(9.59m) XWS, 0°, 50 mm.t

(9.73m) XWS, 0°, 20 mm.t

(10.09m) XWS, 0°, 25 mm.t

(10.20m) XWS, 0°, 10 mm.t

(10.40m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t(10.43m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t(10.47m) Cr, 0°, 50 mm.t

MONITORING WELL INSTALLED TO 10.5m, CLASS18 SLOTTED 50mm PVC PIPE 10.5m TO 4.5m.CASING 4.5m TO 0.1m, 2mm SAND FILTER PACK10.5m TO 4.2m, BENTONITE SEAL 4.2m TO 3m,BACKFILLED WITH CUTTINGS TO SURFACE,COMPLETED WITH GATIC COVER AT SURFACE

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

Dep

th (

m)

6

7

8

9

10

11

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

ES

U50

DB

DS

GRASS COVER

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE

VERY LOW TO LOWRESISTANCE

LOW TO MODERATERESISTANCE

MODERATE RESISTANCE

H

EL

VL - L

M

M

MC<PL

XW

DW

FR

N = 157,7,8

N=SPT8/ 50mm

REFUSAL

AF

TE

R 2

DA

YS

DR

Y O

NC

OM

PLE

TIO

N

CH

-

FILL: Silty sand topsoil, fine to mediumgrained, brown, trace of roots.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, brown andorange brown, trace of fine to mediumgrained ironstone gravel.

SHALE: light grey and light orangebrown, with L-M strength iron induratedbands.

SHALE: grey and brown.

SHALE: dark grey.

Gro

undw

ater

Rec

ord

RL

(m A

HD

)

Str

engt

h/R

el D

ensi

ty

Han

dP

enet

rom

ete

rR

eadi

ngs

(kP

a)

Remarks

Moi

stu

reC

ondi

tion/

Wea

ther

ing

Fie

ld T

ests

COPYRIGHT

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

Method: SPIRAL AUGERJob No.: 29955ZA

Date: 28/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

R.L. Surface: ~18.5 m

Datum: AHD

1 / 2

2Borehole No.

BOREHOLE LOG

JKGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Geotechnics

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K A

UG

ER

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

DESCRIPTIONSAMPLES

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

ES

U50

DB

DS

MODERATE RESISTANCE

HIGH RESISTANCE

'TC' BIT RFFUSAL

MONITORING WELLINSTALLED TO 8.8m,CLASS 18 SLOTTED50mm PVC PIPE 8.8m TO2.8m. CASING 2.8m TO0m, 2mm SAND FILTERPACK 8.8m TO 2.7m,BENTONITE SEAL 2.7mTO 2.2m, BACKFILLEDWITH CUTTINGS TOSURFACE, COMPLETEDWITH GATIC COVER ATSURFACE

M

M - H

FRSHALE: dark grey.

END OF BOREHOLE AT 9.00 m

Gro

undw

ater

Rec

ord

RL

(m A

HD

)

Str

engt

h/R

el D

ensi

ty

Han

dP

enet

rom

ete

rR

eadi

ngs

(kP

a)

Remarks

Moi

stu

reC

ondi

tion/

Wea

ther

ing

Fie

ld T

ests

COPYRIGHT

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

Method: SPIRAL AUGERJob No.: 29955ZA

Date: 28/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

R.L. Surface: ~18.5 m

Datum: AHD

2 / 2

2Borehole No.

BOREHOLE LOG

JKGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Geotechnics

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K A

UG

ER

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

DESCRIPTIONSAMPLES

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

Dep

th (

m)

8

9

10

11

12

13

ES

U50

DB

DS

5mm DIA.REINFORCEMENT, 50mmTOP COVER

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE

VERY LOW TO LOWRESISTANCE WITHMODERATE BANDS

MODERATE RESISTANCE

VSt

EL - VL

VL - L

M

280340360

MC>PL

XW - DW

DW

FR

N = 73,3,4

N=SPT17/ 150mmREFUSAL

DR

Y O

NC

OM

PLE

TIO

NO

F A

UG

ER

ING -

CH

-

TILES: 20mm.t

CONCRETE: 70mm.t over BEDDINGSAND: 100mm.tBRICK PAVERS: 100mm.t

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, brown.

as above,but light grey and orange brown, trace offine to medium grained ironstone gravel.

SHALE: light grey and light orangebrown.

SHALE: grey and brown, with L-Mstrength iron indurated bands.

SHALE: dark grey.

REFER TO CORED BOREHOLE LOG

Gro

undw

ater

Rec

ord

RL

(m A

HD

)

Str

engt

h/R

el D

ensi

ty

Han

dP

enet

rom

ete

rR

eadi

ngs

(kP

a)

Remarks

Moi

stu

reC

ondi

tion/

Wea

ther

ing

Fie

ld T

ests

COPYRIGHT

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

Method: SPIRAL AUGERJob No.: 29955ZA

Date: 28/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

R.L. Surface: ~17.8 m

Datum: AHD

1 / 2

3Borehole No.

BOREHOLE LOG

JKGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Geotechnics

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K A

UG

ER

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

DESCRIPTIONSAMPLES

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

AF

TE

R 2

DA

YS

100

%R

ET

UR

N

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

as above,but with incipient J, 85°, P at 30mmspacing.

as above,but with no incipient joints.

START CORING AT 5.70m

END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.25 m

M - HFR

Wat

erLo

ss\L

evel

Bar

rel L

ift

RL

(m A

HD

)

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Log

J &

K C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

MA

ST

ER

299

55Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

22/

03/2

017

09:5

1 P

rod

uced

by

gIN

T P

rofe

ssio

nal,

Dev

elop

ed b

y D

atge

l

Client: NORTHLINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Project: PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING

Location: 12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT, HOMEBUSH, NSW

COPYRIGHT

Core Size: NMLC

Inclination: VERTICAL

Bearing: N/A

Job No.: 29955ZA

Date: 28/11/16

Plant Type: JK308

GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

JK Geotechnics

CORED BOREHOLE LOG

R.L. Surface: ~17.8 m

Datum: AHD

Logged/Checked By: D.A.F./A.J.

2 / 2

3Borehole No.

General

DESCRIPTION

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

POINT LOADSTRENGTH

INDEXIs(50)

CORE DESCRIPTION

Specific500

300

100

50 30 10

DEFECT DETAILS

Gra

phic

Log

-0.0

3

-0.1

-0.3

-1 -3 -10

Rock Type, grain characteristics, colour,structure, minor components. Type, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating.

Str

engt

h

Wea

ther

ing

(5.78m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

(5.91m) XWS, 0°, 10 mm.t(5.92m) HEALED, J 65°, Un(6.00m) CS, 0°, 5 mm.t(6.06m) XWS, 0°, 2 mm.t

(6.79m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t(6.85m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t(6.90m) XWS, 0°, 2 mm.t

(7.10m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

(7.26m) XWS, 0°, 2 mm.t

(8.67m) XWS, 0°, 30 mm.t(8.74m) XWS, 0°, 40 mm.t

(9.36m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

(10.85m) J, 80°, P, S(10.93m) XWS, 0°, 60 mm.t(10.98m) XWS, 0°, 5 mm.t

MONITORING WELL INSTALLED TO 10.15m, CLASS18 SLOTTED 50mm PVC PIPE 10.15m TO 4.15m.CASING 4.15m TO 0m, 2mm SAND FILTER PACK10.15m TO 4m, BENTONITE SEAL 4m TO 3.5m,BACKFILLED WITH SAND TO SURFACE,COMPLETED WITH GATIC COVER AT SURFACE

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

Dep

th (

m)

6

7

8

9

10

11

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

T

h

e

C

re

s

c

e

n

t

L

o

ftu

s

C

re

s

c

e

n

t

AERIAL IMAGE SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO 7.1.5.1557

AERIAL IMAGE ©: 2015 GOOGLE INC.

PLO

T D

AT

E: 22/03/2017 1:02:15 P

M D

WG

F

ILE

: S

:\6 G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL\6F

G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL JO

BS

\29000'S

\29955Z

A H

OM

EB

US

H\C

AD

\29955Z

A.D

WG

SITE

SITE

© JK GEOTECHNICS

29955ZA

This plan should be read in conjunction with the JK Geotechnics report.

Report No:

Location:

Title:

12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT

HOMEBUSH, NSW

29955ZA

JK Geotechnics

Figure No:

SITE LOCATION PLAN

1

SOURCE: http://www.whereis.com/

BR

ID

GE

R

OA

D

L

O

F

T

U

S

C

R

E

S

C

E

N

T

3

2

1

PL

OT

D

AT

E: 2

2/0

3/2

01

7 1

:0

5:1

1 P

M D

WG

F

IL

E: S

:\6

G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\6

F G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

JO

BS

\2

90

00

'S

\2

99

55

ZA

H

OM

EB

US

H\C

AD

\2

99

55

ZA

.D

WG

0

SCALE@A3

2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5

1:250

METRES

Report No:

29955ZA

Location:

Title:

12-18 BRIDGE ROAD AND 47 & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT

HOMEBUSH, NSW

29955ZA

JK Geotechnics

© JK GEOTECHNICS

Figure No:

This plan should be read in conjunction with the JK Geotechnics report.

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

2

APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF

PROPOSED BASEMENT 02

NOTE:

REFER TO SECTION 4 AND FIGURE 7 FOR

DETAILS OF SECTION A-A.

A

A

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

BRICK

SILTY CLAY

CONCRETE

FILL

SHALE

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m A

HD

)

H 1:10

V 1:100

JK_L

IB_C

UR

RE

NT

- V

8.00

.GLB

Fen

ce F

EN

CE

A3L

NO

PLA

N 2

9955

ZA

HO

ME

BU

SH

.GP

J 2

9955

ZA

FIG

3.G

DW

17/

03/2

017

11:1

1 P

rodu

ced

by g

INT

Pro

fess

iona

l, D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

3Figure No:Report No:

COPYRIGHT

(A3)Scales Title:

Location:

29955ZA

JK Geotechnics

12-18 BRIDGE ROAD & 48 LOFTUS CRESCENT,HOMEBUSH, NSW

GRAPHICAL BOREHOLE SUMMARY

(0 m)

(0 m)

(0 m)1

2

3

COPYRIGHT

LOFTUS CRESCENT

Northern Site BoundarySouthern Site Boundary

COPYRIGHT

LOFTUS CRESCENT

Northern Site BoundarySouthern Site Boundary

115 Wicks Road PO Box 978 T: 61 2 9888 5000 E: engineers@jkgeotechnics.com.au

Macquarie Park NSW 2113 North Ryde BC NSW 1670 F: 61 2 9888 5001 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au

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

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

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

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

Table 1: DIN 4150 – Structural Damage – Safe Limits for Building Vibration

Group Type of Structure

Peak Vibration Velocity in mm/s

At Foundation Level at a Frequency of:

Plane of Floor of Uppermost

Storey

Less than 10Hz

10Hz to 50Hz

50Hz to 100Hz

All Frequencies

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

20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40

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

5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15

3

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

3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8

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

JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

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

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES Dec16 Page 1 of 4

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

INTRODUCTION

These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnical report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and certain matters relating to the Comments and Recommendations section. Not all notes are necessarily relevant to all reports.

The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety of characteristics and properties which vary from place to place and can change with time. Geotechnical engineering involves gathering and assimilating limited facts about these characteristics and properties in order to understand or predict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site under certain conditions. This report may contain such facts obtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling, testing or other means of investigation. If so, they are directly relevant only to the ground at the place where and time when the investigation was carried out.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS

The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726, the SAA Site Investigation Code. In general, descriptions cover the following properties – soil or rock type, colour, structure, strength or density, and inclusions. Identification and classification of soil and rock involves judgement and the Company infers accuracy only to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

Soil types are described according to the predominating particle size and behaviour as set out in the attached Unified Soil Classification Table qualified by the grading of other particles present (eg. sandy clay) as set out below:

Soil Classification Particle Size

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel

less than 0.002mm

0.002 to 0.06mm

0.06 to 2mm

2 to 60mm

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from the results of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as below:

Relative Density SPT ‘N’ Value (blows/300mm)

Very loose

Loose

Medium dense

Dense

Very Dense

less than 4

4 – 10

10 – 30

30 – 50

greater than 50

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

Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength kPa

Very Soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

Friable

less than 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 200

200 – 400

Greater than 400

Strength not attainable

– soil crumbles

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

Sampling is carried out during drilling or from other excavations to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minor constituents and, depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Bulk samples are similar but of greater volume required for some test procedures.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walled sample tube, usually 50mm diameter (known as a U50), into the soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soil contained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength, and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils.

Details of the type and method of sampling used are given on the attached logs. INVESTIGATION METHODS

The following is a brief summary of investigation methods currently adopted by the Company and some comments on their use and application. All except test pits, hand auger drilling and portable dynamic cone penetrometers require the use of a mechanical drilling rig which is commonly mounted on a truck chassis.

JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES Dec16 Page 2 of 4

Test Pits: These are normally excavated with a backhoe or

a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about 3m for a backhoe and up to 6m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are the problems associated with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatement and the consequent effects on close-by structures. Care must be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pit locations to either properly recompact the backfill during construction or to design and construct the structure so as not to be adversely affected by poorly compacted backfill at the test pit location. Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of 50mm to 100mm

diameter is advanced by manually operated equipment. Premature refusal of the hand augers can occur on a variety of materials such as hard clay, gravel or ironstone, and does not necessarily indicate rock level. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers: The borehole is

advanced using 75mm to 115mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling and insitu testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they can be very disturbed and layers may become mixed. Information from the auger sampling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively lower reliability due to mixing or softening of samples by groundwater, or uncertainties as to the original depth of the samples. Augering below the groundwater table is of even lesser reliability than augering above the water table. Rock Augering: Use can be made of a Tungsten Carbide

(TC) bit for auger drilling into rock to indicate rock quality and continuity by variation in drilling resistance and from examination of recovered rock fragments. This method of investigation is quick and relatively inexpensive but provides only an indication of the likely rock strength and predicted values may be in error by a strength order. Where rock strengths may have a significant impact on construction feasibility or costs, then further investigation by means of cored boreholes may be warranted. Wash Boring: The borehole is usually advanced by a rotary

bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from “feel” and rate of penetration. Mud Stabilised Drilling: Either Wash Boring or Continuous

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

Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core sample is

obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in very low strength rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel, which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually used with water flush. The length of core recovered is compared to the length drilled and any length not recovered is shown as CORE LOSS. The location of losses are determined on site by the supervising engineer; where the location is uncertain, the loss is placed at the top end of the drill run. Standard Penetration Tests: Standard Penetration Tests

(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can also be used in cohesive soils as a means of indicating density or strength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes” – Test F3.1.

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

The test results are reported in the following form:

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

N = 13 4, 6, 7

In a case where the test is discontinued short of full penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows for the next 40mm, as

N>30 15, 30/40mm

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

Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mm diameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In such circumstances, the test results are shown on the borehole logs in brackets.

A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving

system is used with a solid 60 tipped steel cone of the same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid cone can be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays or loose sands, or may be used where damage would otherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) are shown as ‘Nc’ on the borehole logs, together with the number of blows per 150mm penetration.

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES Dec16 Page 3 of 4

Static Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation:

Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as a Dutch Cone) described in this report has been carried out using a Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT). The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test F5.1.

In the tests, a 35mm or 44mm diameter rod with a conical tip is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction being provided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fitted with a hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the frictional resistance on a separate 134mm or 165mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly are electrically connected by wires passing through the centre of the push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck.

As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm per second) the information is output as incremental digital records every 10mm. The results given in this report have been plotted from the digital data.

The information provided on the charts comprise:

Cone resistance – the actual end bearing force divided by the cross sectional area of the cone – expressed in MPa.

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

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

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistance will vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands and occasionally very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiff clays and peats. Soil descriptions based on cone resistance and friction ratios are only inferred and must not be considered as exact.

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

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

Stratification can be inferred from the cone and friction traces and from experience and information from nearby boreholes etc. Where shown, this information is presented for general guidance, but must be regarded as interpretive. The test method provides a continuous profile of engineering properties but, where precise information on soil classification is required, direct drilling and sampling may be preferable. Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers: Portable

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out by driving a rod into the ground with a sliding hammer and counting the blows for successive 100mm increments of penetration.

Two relatively similar tests are used:

Cone penetrometer (commonly known as the Scala Penetrometer) – a 16mm rod with a 20mm diameter cone end is driven with a 9kg hammer dropping 510mm (AS1289, Test F3.2). The test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio have been published by various Road Authorities.

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

LOGS

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

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

Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and its application to design and construction, should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, the method of drilling or excavation, the frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of other than ‘straight line’ variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurface conditions between boreholes or test pits may vary significantly from conditions encountered at the borehole or test pit locations. GROUNDWATER

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

Although groundwater may be present, in low permeability soils it may enter the hole slowly or perhaps not at all during the time it is left open.

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

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

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

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read after stabilising at intervals ranging from several days to perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from perched water tables or surface water.

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES Dec16 Page 4 of 4

FILL

The presence of fill materials can often be determined only by the inclusion of foreign objects (eg. bricks, steel, etc) or by distinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification of the extent of fill materials will also depend on investigation methods and frequency. Where natural soils similar to those at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult with limited testing and sampling to reliably determine the extent of the fill.

The presence of fill materials is usually regarded with caution as the possible variation in density, strength and material type is much greater than with natural soil deposits. Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverse engineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume and quality of fill is of importance to a project, then frequent test pit excavations are preferable to boreholes. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 1289 ‘Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes’. Details of the test procedure used

are given on the individual report forms. ENGINEERING REPORTS

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

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

Unexpected variations in ground conditions – the potential for this will be partially dependent on borehole spacing and sampling frequency as well as investigation technique.

Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory authorities.

The actions of persons or contractors responding to commercial pressures.

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

SITE ANOMALIES

In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, the company requests that it immediately be notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed that at some later stage, well after the event. REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES

Attention is drawn to the document ‘Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents’, published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Where information obtained from this investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. The company would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge.

Copyright in all documents (such as drawings, borehole or test pit logs, reports and specifications) provided by the Company shall remain the property of Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd. Subject to the payment of all fees due, the Client alone shall have a licence to use the documents provided for the sole purpose of completing the project to which they relate. License to use the documents may be revoked without notice if the Client is in breach of any objection to make a payment to us. REVIEW OF DESIGN

Where major civil or structural developments are proposed or where only a limited investigation has been completed or where the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quite complex, it is prudent to have a joint design review which involves a senior geotechnical engineer. SITE INSPECTION

The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical aspects of work to which this report is related.

Requirements could range from:

i) a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are no worse than those interpreted, to

ii) a visit to assist the contractor or other site personnel in identifying various soil/rock types such as appropriate footing or pier founding depths, or

iii) full time engineering presence on site.

JKG Graph

GEOTEC

hic Log Symbols fo

HNICAL & ENVI

or Soils and Rock

GRAPHI

RONMENTAL E

s Rev1 July12

IC LOG SY

NGINEERS

MBOLS FOOR SOILS AAND ROCKSKS

Pag

ge 1 of 1

Note:

1 Soils possessing2 Soils with liquid

g characteristics of twolimits of the order of 3

UNIF

o groups are designat35 to 50 may be visual

FIED SOIL

ted by combinations olly classified as being

CLASSIFIC

of group symbols (eg. Gof medium plasticity.

CATION TA

GW-GC, well graded g

ABLE

gravel-sand mixture wwith clay fines).

JKG Log S

LOG

Groundw

Samples

Field Te

Moisture(Cohesiv (Cohesio

Strength(ConsistCohesiv

Density Relative(Cohesio

Hand PeReading

Remarks

GEOTEC

ymbols Rev1 Jun

G COLUMN

water Record

s

ests

e Condition ve Soils)

onless Soils)

h tency)

ve Soils

Index/ e Density onless Soils)

enetrometer gs

s

CHNICAL & ENV

e12

SYMBOL

ES U50 DB DS

ASB ASS SAL

N = 17 4, 7, 10

Nc = 5

7

3R

VNS = 25

PID = 100

MC>PL MC≈PL MC<PL

D M W

VS S F St

VSt H

( )

VL L

MD D

VD ( )

300 250

‘V’ bit

‘TC’ bit

60

VIRONMENTAL

C

4

Standing wa

Extent of bo

Groundwate

Soil sample Undisturbed Bulk disturbeSmall disturbSoil sample Soil sample Soil sample

Standard Peshow blows

Solid Cone Pfigures show ‘R’ refers to

R

Vane shear

Photoionisat

Moisture conMoisture conMoisture conDRY –MOIST –WET –

VERY SOFTSOFTFIRMSTIFFVERY STIFFHARDBracketed sy

Density IndVery LooseLooseMedium DenDenseVery DenseBracketed sy

Numbers indnoted otherwise.

Hardened st

Tungsten caPenetration rotation of au

ENGINEERS

LOG SYM

ater level. Time d

rehole collapse s

er seepage into b

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

enetration Test (Sper 150mm pen

Penetration Testw blows per 150mo apparent hamm

reading in kPa o

tion detector rea

ntent estimated tntent estimated tntent estimated t

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

T – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin

F – Unconfin -– Unconfin

ymbol indicates

ex (ID) Range (%<1515-35

nse 35-6565-85>85

ymbol indicates

dicate individual

teel ‘V’ shaped b

arbide wing bit. of auger string inugers.

MBOLS

D

delay following c

shortly after drilli

borehole or exca

h indicated, for er tube sample ta

n over depth indictaken over dept

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

SPT) performed etration. ‘R’ as n

t (SCPT) performmm penetration fmer refusal within

of Undrained She

ding in ppm (So

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

ned compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressiveestimated consis

%)

estimated densit

test results in kP

bit.

n mm under stat

EFINITION

completion of dril

ng.

vation noted dur

environmental anken over depth incated. h indicated.

asbestos screeniacid sulfate soil asalinity analysis.

between depthsnoted below.

med between depfor 60 degree son the correspond

ear Strength.

il sample headsp

n plastic limit. tely equal to plas

plastic limit.

ee water visible oface.

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

SPT ‘N

ty based on ease

Pa on representa

ic load of rig app

lling may be sho

ring drilling or ex

nalysis. ndicated.

ing. analysis.

s indicated by lin

pths indicated byolid cone driven bing 150mm dept

pace test).

stic limit.

on soil surface.

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

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

e of drilling or ot

ative undisturbed

plied by drill head

Pag

own.

xcavation.

es. Individual fig

y lines. Individuaby SPT hammer.th increment.

tion or other test

(Blows/300mm)

0 0

her tests.

d material unless

d hydraulics with

ge 1 of 2

gures

al .

ts.

)

s

hout

JKG Log Symbols Rev

ROCK M

Residual

Extremel

Distinctly

Slightly w

Fresh roc

ROCK SRock strenbedding. Abstract V

TE

Extremel

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

Very Low

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

Low:

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

Medium

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

High:

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

Very Hig

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

Extremel

ABBRE

ABBR

v1 June12

MATERIAL W

TERM

l Soil

ly weathered roc

y weathered rock

weathered rock

ck

STRENGTH ngth is defined bThe test proc

Volume 22, No 2,

ERM SY

ly Low:

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

w:

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

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

Strength:

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

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

h:

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

ly High:

----

----

----

----

-----

-----

EVIATIONS U

REVIATION

Be CS J P

Un S R IS

XWS Cr 60t

WEATHERIN

SYMBO

RS

ck XW

k DW

SW

FR

by the Point Loacedure is desc 1985.

YMBOL Is (5

EL

-----------

VL

-----------

L

-----------

M

-----------

H

-----------

VH

-----------

EH

USED IN DE

DES

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

LO

NG CLASSIF

OL

Soil develoevident; th

Rock is weremoulded

Rock strenironstainingweathering

Rock is slig

Rock show

d Strength Indexribed by the

50) MPa

0.03

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Eas May A pieknife

A piewith A piescra

A pieone

A pieRing

EFECT DESC

SCRIPTION

Parting

thered Seam

efect in millimetre

OG SYMBOL

FICATION

oped on extremelyhere is a large cha

eathered to such , in water.

ngth usually chang. Porosity mayg products in pore

ghtly discoloured

ws no sign of deco

x (Is 50) and refInternational Jo

ily remoulded by

y be crumbled in t

ece of core 150me. Sharp edges o

ece of core 150m knife.

ece of core 150matched or scored w

ece of core 150mblow. Cannot be

ece of core 150mgs when struck wi

CRIPTION

es

Defec(ie re

LS continue

D

y weathered rockange in volume bu

an extent that it

nged by weathery be increased bes.

but shows little or

omposition or stain

fers to the strengournal of Rock

hand to a materia

he hand. Sandst

mm long x 50mm dof core may be fria

mm long x 50mm d

mm long x 50mm dwith knife; rock ri

mm long x 50mm de scratched with p

mm long x 50mm dith a hammer.

ct orientations melative to horizont

d

DEFINITION

k; the mass strucut the soil has not

has “soil” proper

ring. The rock y leaching, or m

r no change of str

ning.

gth of the rock sk Mechanics, M

FIELD GUIDE

al with soil propert

one is “sugary” an

dia. may be brokeable and break du

dia. can be broken

dia. core cannot bngs under hamme

dia. may be brokeen knife; rock rin

dia. is very difficul

NOT

measured relativetal for vertical ho

cture and substant been significantl

rties, ie it either d

may be highly dmay be decreased

rength from fresh

substance in theMining, Science

E

ties.

nd friable.

en by hand and eauring handling.

n by hand with dif

be broken by hander.

en with hand-held ngs under hamme

lt to break with ha

TES

e to the normal oles)

Page

nce fabric are no y transported.

disintegrates or c

discoloured, usuad due to deposit

rock.

direction normae and Geomec

asily scored with a

fficulty. Readily s

d, can be slightly

pick after more ther.

and-held hammer.

to the long core

2 of 2

longer

can be

ally by tion of

al to the chanics.

a

cored

han

.

e axis