GLADESVILLE SHOPPING VILLAGE RETAIL AND … · geotechnical investigation report gladesville shopping village retail and residential development cowell, flagstaff and massey streets,

GEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATION

REPORT

GLADESVILLE SHOPPING VILLAGERETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENTCOWELL, FLAGSTAFF AND MASSEY

STREETS, GLADESVILLE

Prepared for

GSV Developments Pty Ltd

Report No. GS4992/2-A

25th July 2012

July 2012Geotechnical Investigation Report, Ref: GS4992/2-AGladesville Shopping Centre, Gladesville NSW page 2 of 36

_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Copy No. Custodian Location

_____________________________________________________________________

1 Nick Kariotoglou Aargus (Library)

2 GSV Developments Level 1 Suite 1, No. 10 Help Street,

Pty Ltd Chatswood NSW 2067

3 (electronic) Bernard Young Design [email protected]

Group Pty Ltd

(Mr Adrin Wong)

Note: This register identifies the current custodians of controlled copies of the subject

document.

It is expected that these custodians would be responsible for:

The storage of the document.

Ensuring prompt incorporation of amendments.

Making the document available to pertinent personnel within the organisation.

Encouraging observance of the document by such personnel.

Making the document available for audit.

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Revision No. Issue Date Description

_____________________________________________________________________

25/07/2012 Initial Issue

Issued By:


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aargus Pty Ltd (‘Aargus’) was requested to conduct a geotechnical investigation at an area

surrounding the existing Gladesville Shopping Centre complex bounded by Massey Street,

Flagstaff Street, Cowell Street and an additional retail precinct fronting Victoria Road. A

retail and residential development consisting of two storeys of commercial development

and four residential towers was proposed.

The purpose of this report was to assess the subsurface conditions within accessible areas

of the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of

the proposed development.

The fieldwork involved a detailed walk-over inspection of the site and surrounds and the

drilling of six boreholes, BH1 and BH6, using TC-bit and solid flight augers, diamond bit

and NMLC coring within the bedrock profile and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) within

the profile to assess the characteristics of subsurface materials. A standpipe piezometer

was installed in one borehole to monitor groundwater levels.

The subsurface profile generally consisted of minor fill and natural soil profiles overlying

shale and sandstone bedrock sequences of varying weathering and strength.

Shallow pad or strip foundations or deeper piles or rock sockets founded within either Class

IV or Class III shale or the underlying Class III and Class II sandstones appear likely and

appropriate for foundation systems associated with the building structures.

Based on the results of this investigation, it is considered the proposed development is

feasible at this site subject to the recommendations provided in this report.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................7

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................8

3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY......................................................................................................9

4.0 AVAILABLE INFORMATION .........................................................................................9

5.0 FIELDWORK................................................................................................................... 10

6.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS......................................................................................... 12

6.1 Sub-surface Conditions.................................................................................................................12

6.2 Groundwater Conditions..............................................................................................................15

7.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.................................................................................. 16

7.1 Point Load Strength Test Results...............................................................................................16

8.0 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 18

8.1 General ...........................................................................................................................................18

8.2 Excavation Conditions ..................................................................................................................21

8.3 Groundwater Management ..........................................................................................................24

8.4 Temporary Batter Slopes..............................................................................................................25

8.5 Excavation Support.......................................................................................................................26

8.6 Retaining Structures .....................................................................................................................26

8.7 Foundation Systems ......................................................................................................................27

9.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 30

10.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 36


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 – FIELDWORK RESULTS 12

TABLE 2 – GROUND WATER RESULTS 16

TABLE 3 – POINT LOAD STRENGTH TEST RESULTS 17

TABLE 4 – GENERALISED PROFILES BASED ON ESTIMATED ROCK 21

STRENGTHS

TABLE 5 – MINIMUM TEMPORARY BATTER SLOPES 25

TABLE 6 – GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 27

TABLE 7 – ESTIMATED DEPTHS TO VARYING ROCK CLASSES 28


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

APPENDIX B SITE LOCALITY MAP (FIGURE 1), SITE PLAN (FIGURE 2) &

GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTIONS

APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS AND COREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

REFERENCES

1.Australian Standard – Geotechnical Site Investigation, AS1726-1993.

2.Australian Standard – Piling – Design and Installation, AS2159-2009.

3.Pells, P.J.N, Mostyn, G. & Walker B.F., “Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the

Sydney region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents and interprets the findings of the geotechnical investigation carried out

between 6th to 8th and 14th June 2012 at an area surrounding the existing Gladesville

Shopping Centre complex, Gladesville NSW, for a proposed retail and residential

development consisting of two storeys of commercial development and four residential

towers. While it is envisaged the existing basements carparks may be utilised for parts of

the development, basements to approximately four levels have been proposed towards the

southern areas of the development. The proposed development would involve demolition

of existing structures within the site area.

The investigation was requested by Mr Adrin Wong of Bernard Young Design Group Pty

Ltd on behalf of Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) Developments Pty Ltd.

The purpose of this investigation was to assess the existing site and subsurface conditions

and provide geotechnical input for the conceptual stage design of the proposed

development.

The following are addressed in this report:

Method of investigation,

Site description, including surface and sub-surface conditions,

Site plan indicating borehole locations and footprint of the proposed

development,

Indications of groundwater or seepages, including water table levels.

Excavation conditions and possible excavation methods, site trafficability and

potential vibration conditions.

Results of the field in-situ tests and laboratory testing.

Design parameters for retaining structures and temporary measures.

Recommendations on foundation systems and allowable bearing capacities.

Any other geotechnical information or issues considered relevant to design and

construction processes.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site of the existing Gladesville Shopping Centre complex was located within the

Hunter’s Hill Local Government Area (Municipality of Hunter’s Hill), about 10 kilometres

to the north-west of Sydney CBD. The development site was bounded by Massey Street

and townhouse residential development to the north, Flagstaff Street to the west, Cowell

Street to the south and an additional retail precinct, fronting Victoria Road, to the west.

This retail area did not form part of the development site and was separated by carpark

areas, access roadways and footways.

At the time of the investigation the proposed site included an existing whitegoods retail

store operated under Betta, which fronted Massey Street, but excluded existing residences

fronting Massey Street to its intersection with Flagstaff Street. It included the existing

shopping centre complex over the central area of the site, encompassing a Coles

supermarket, additional variety and specialty shops and two levels of parking under the

complex.

The southern area of the development site encompassed a house at No. 10 Cowell Street

(intersection of Cowell and Flagstaff Streets) utilised as Centre Management by CSV

Developments, an adjoining block of home units fronting Cowell Street, an open carpark

and vehicle access from Cowell Street to the shopping centre, and an additional residence

in the south-west corner. Provided information indicated that at the time of the

investigation the proposed development area was the property of GSV Developments,

except for 10 Cowell Street and the open carpark and vehicle access from Cowell Street,

which were property of Hunter’s Hill Council.

Remaining natural profiles tended to slope down from Massey Street in the north to Cowell

Street to the south and from Victoria Road in the west to Flagstaff Street in the east.

Cowell Street sloped down from the south-west corner to the north-east with its

intersection with Flagstaff Street, this intersection, encompassing 10 Cowell Street, being

the lowest area of the site. Carpark levels beneath the existing shopping complex had been

excavated into the original topographic profile during its initial construction.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

The site locations have been shown on Figure 1, “Site Locality Map”, and Figure 2, “Site

Plan.”

3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Reference to the Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 Edition 1, 1983,

indicated the site may be close to boundaries between the Ashfield Shale (Rwa) and

Hawkesbury Sandstone (Rh) of the Wianamatta Group. Ashfield Shale generally

comprises black to dark grey shale and laminate while the Hawkesbury Sandstone

generally consists of medium to coarse-grained quartz sandstone, with very minor shale

and laminate lenses.

4.0 AVAILABLE INFORMATION

At the time of preparation of this report, the following drawings were made available to

Aargus:

Survey plans of the site and neighbouring area undertaken by Craig & Rhodes

(Surveyors Engineers Planners) for Moch Pty Ltd, Ref 67/05, Drawing File

6705T03, Sheets 1 to 8 of 8, dated 5/2005, updated 10/08/2005.

Architectural drawings of the existing shopping complex by Bernard Young

Design Group P/L including:

Precinct 4-Existing Plan – Existing Basement 2, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing

No. DA/B-08A, dated 19/04/2012.

Precinct 4-Existing Plan – Existing Retail/Basement 1, Ref 03-11-403,

Drawing No. DA/B-09A, dated 19/04/2012.

Precinct 4-Existing Plan – Existing Shopping Level 2, Ref 03-11-403,

Drawing No. DA/B-10A, dated 19/04/2012.

Architectural drawings of the proposed development basements provided by

Bernard Young Design Group P/L including:


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Precinct 4-Existing Replan, Precinct 4-New Extension, Precinct 3-New

Extension – Plaza and Shopping Level 2, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing No.

DA/PS-10, dated 09/05/12.


Extension – Roof Plan, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing No. DA/R-12, dated

09/05/12.

Precinct 4- New Extension – Proposed Basement 3 & 3A, Ref 03-11-403,

Drawing No. DA/B-05, dated 09/05/12.

Precinct 4- New Extension – Proposed Basement 4 & 4A, Ref 03-11-403,

Drawing No. DA/B-06, dated 09/05/12.


Extension – Proposed Basement 2 & 2A, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing No.

DA/B-08, dated 09/05/12.


Extension – Proposed Retail/Basement 1, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing No.

DA/B-09, dated 09/05/12.

South and East Elevations, Ref 03-11-403, Drawing No. DA/EL-12, dated

26/07/11.

North Elevation, West Elevation, Massey Street Elevation, Ref 03-11-403,

Drawing No. DA/EL-13, dated 26/07/11.

5.0 FIELDWORK

Fieldwork for the geotechnical investigation was carried out by an engineering team from

Aargus, and comprised the following works:

A detailed walk-over inspection of the site to determine the overall surface

conditions and to confirm geotechnical consistency with the surrounding

landform.

Drilling of six boreholes, BH1 to BH6, using a track-mounted Dando Terrier

drilling rig owned and operated by Tightsite. The boreholes were drilled using

a TC-bit with solid flight augers, taken the depths of TC-bit refusal, except

BH1, and thence progressed with diamond bit and NMLC coring within the


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

bedrock profile. Surface levels at the borehole locations were estimated from

provided survey drawings.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) undertaken at regular intervals within the

boreholes to assess the in-situ strength of subsurface soil layers.

One standpipe piezometer installed in borehole BH4 to determine water table

levels.

Reinstatement of the boreholes with displaced soils and coal mix materials.

The six boreholes were located to cover the approximate locations of the proposed

towers. BH1 was located within the existing Hunter’s Hill Council carpark in the

south-west corner of the proposed development site with BH3 located in the south-east

corner within No. 10 Cowell Street. BH4 was located in the grassed area at the rear of

the existing residential unit block at No. 8 Cowell Street. These boreholes were

estimated to be within the approximated area of the tower block comprising four levels

of basements. BH5 and BH6 were located on the lower carpark level within the

existing shopping complex, designated as Basement 2 on provided drawings of the

existing facility or as P1 within the centre. BH5 was located in the northern corner of

the carpark with BH6 at the southern end. Locations were selected to not only cover

the areas of investigation but also in locations so as to have minimal impact on

operations within the complex. BH2 was located within the access laneway to the

north-east of the commercial facility being utilised as a whitegoods retail outlet by

Betta, which fronts to Massey Street. The approximate locations and designations of

the boreholes are presented in Figure 2, “Site Plan”.

The approximate depths to TC-bit refusal and borehole termination for the six

boreholes have been presented in Table 1.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE 1 – Fieldwork Results

BoreholeTC-Bit Refusal Core Termination

Depth (m)RL(mAHD)

approx.Depth (m)

RL(mAHD)approx.

BH1 5.0* 40.8 16.23 29.6

BH2 6.0 39.2 10.37 34.8

BH3 3.9 33.8 7.8 29.9

BH4 6.0 36.4 11.8 30.6

BH5 2.5 35.4 5.36 32.5

BH6 2.0 35.9 5.89 32.0

* - Termination of auger drilling.

6.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

6.1 Sub-surface Conditions


shale and sandstone bedrock sequences.

The profile within BH2, in the north-western corner of the site within Precinct 3, indicated

150mm of concrete and medium plasticity fill to a depth of about 0.3m, the fill underlain

by natural, hard, medium to high plasticity, light brown clay to a depth of about 1.1m

(approximate RL 44.1m).

The soil profile was underlain by highly weathered, extremely to very low strength, grey

brown shale to a depth of about 2.6m (approximate RL 42.6m) and very low to low

strength, grey shale to the TC-bit refusal depth of 6.0m (approximate RL 39.2m).

Recovered core indicated highly weathered, grey and dark grey, very low to low strength

shales extended to a depth of about 7.5m (approximate RL 37.7m). These shales were

fragmented to highly fractured and thinly laminated. Moderately to slightly weathered,

dark grey, low strength shales extended to an approximate depth of 9.2m (approximate RL

36.0m), these being fractured to a depth of about 8.2m and slightly fractured to about 9.2m.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

The shale bedrock was underlain by slightly weathered, medium to high strength, grey

white, slightly fractured sandstone to the BH2 termination depth of about 10.4m.

Boreholes BH5 and BH6, located in the existing lower level basement within Precinct 4-

Existing Replan, indicated 150mm and 120mm thick concrete pavement slabs respectively

and minor fill underlain by shale and sandstone bedrock. Light grey sandy gravel fill was

encountered under the concrete to a depth of 0.4m (approximate RL 37.5m) in BH6.

Shale bedrock was encountered from respective depths of 0.15m (approximate RL 37.75m)

and 0.4m (approximate RL 37.5m) in BH5 and BH6. Moderately weathered, very low to

low strength, grey shale was evidenced to depths of about 2.3m (approximate RL 35.6m) in

BH5 and 1.6m (approximate RL 36.3m) in BH6, these materials being underlain by low to

medium strength shale to TC-bit refusal depths of 2.5m (approximate RL 35.4m) and 2.0m

(approximate RL 35.9m) in BH5 and BH6 respectively. Recovered rock core indicated the

grey, low to medium strength shales extended to respective depths of about 2.9m

(approximate RL 35.0m) and 3.3m (approximate RL 34.6m) in BH5 and BH6. The shales

ranged from highly weathered to slightly weathered and from fragmented to fractured.

The shales were underlain by slightly weathered, medium to high strength, light grey

sandstone with yellow staining in BH5 to the borehole termination depth of 5.36m

(approximate RL 32.5m). These sandstones were generally slightly fractured. In BH6

moderately weathered, medium strength, fractured to slightly fractured, grey sandstone

with yellow staining was encountered to a depth of about 4.3m (approximate RL 33.6m),

the materials becoming slightly fractured to a depth of about 5.3m (approximate RL

32.6m). Slightly weathered, high strength sandstone was evidenced to the BH6

termination depth of 5.89m (approximate RL 32.0m).

Boreholes BH1, BH3 and BH4, located in the area designated as being Precinct 4-New

Extension, generally comprised clayey sand fills and clay based natural soils overlying

shale and sandstone bedrock.

BH1, located within the existing carpark, encountered dense, grey and grey brown, clayey

sand fill to a depth of about 1.1m (approximate RL 44.7m) underlain by hard, brown,


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

sandy clay fill to about 1.3m (approximate RL 44.5m). BH3, within the south-east corner

of No. 10 Cowell Street, encountered firm, low plasticity, dark grey silty clay topsoil and

fill to a depth of about 0.4m (approximate RL 37.3m) underlain by natural, firm, dark grey

silty clay to about 0.9m (approximate RL 36.8m). BH4, located at the rear of the unit

block at No. 8 Cowell Street, encountered natural, very stiff, medium to high plasticity, red

brown clay to a depth of about 1.1m (approximate RL 41.3m).

The soil profiles were underlain by shale bedrock from depths of about 1.3m (approximate

RL 44.5m), 1.1m (approximate RL 41.3m) and 0.9m (approximate RL 36.8m) in BH1,

BH4 and BH3 respectively.

Very low to low strength, light grey to dark grey shales were encountered to a TC-bit

termination depth of about 5.0m (approximate RL 40.8m) in BH1. Bands of extremely low

strength and medium strength materials were located within the profile. Recovered core

indicated highly weathered, extremely low to very low strength, fragmented, light to dark

grey shales continued to a depth of about 7.0m (approximate RL 38.8m) underlain by low

strength , dark grey, highly fractured shale to about 8.1m (approximate RL 37.7m).

BH4 encountered extremely low strength, grey brown shale to a depth of about 1.5m

(approximate RL 40.9m) underlain by very low to low strength materials to about 4.2m

(approximate RL 38.2m) and low strength shale to TC-bit refusal depth of 6.0m

(approximate RL 36.4m). Some medium strength rock was recorded as present within this

profile.

Very low to low strength, grey shale was encountered to a depth of about 3.6m

(approximate RL 34.1m) in BH3 underlain by low to medium strength shale to the TC-bit

refusal depth of 3.9m (approximate RL 33.8m).

The shale bedrock profile was underlain by sandstones from about 8.1m (approximate RL

37.7m), 6.0m (approximate RL 36.4m) and 3.9m (approximate RL 33.8m) in BH1, BH4

and BH3 respectively.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Moderately to slightly weathered, low to medium strength, fractured, grey, stained

sandstone was encountered to a depth of about 9.0m (approximate RL 36.80m) in BH1

underlain by medium strength, slightly fractured rock to about 11.8m (approximate RL

34.0m) and high strength sandstone to 12.8m (approximate RL 33.0m). These layers were

composed of essentially fine to medium grained sandstone. Slightly weathered to fresh,

medium strength, slightly fractured, grey and light grey sandstone of fine to coarse grain

was encountered to a depth of about 14.5m (approximate RL 31.2m) underlain by high

strength material to the borehole termination depth of 16.23m (approximate RL 29.6m).

Medium to high strength, medium to coarse grained, grey sandstone was encountered

throughout the cored profile within BH4 from a depth of about 6.0m (approximate RL

36.4m) to a borehole termination depth of 11.8m (approximate RL 30.6m). Moderately to

slightly weathered, fractured to slightly fractured bedrock was encountered to a depth of

about 7.4m (approximate RL 35.0m) underlain by slightly weathered to fresh, slightly

fractured sandstone to about 10.5m (approximate RL 31.9m) and thence light grey, slightly

weathered, slightly fractured material to 11.8m.

Moderately to slightly weathered, medium strength, fine to coarse grained, yellow and grey

sandstones were encountered to a depth of about 5.6m (approximate RL 32.1m) in BH3,

being underlain by slightly weathered, slightly fractured, yellow brown and grey, bedrock

to about 7.0m (approximate RL 30.7m). Medium to high strength, grey, medium to coarse

grained sandstone was encountered to the borehole termination depth of 7.8m. This

sandstone was also considered to be slightly weathered and slightly fractured.

The generalised subsurface strata have been presented on the geological cross sections

presented in Appendix B with the detailed subsurface conditions encountered within the

boreholes provided on the Engineering Borehole Logs given in Appendix C.

6.2 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater or seepage was encountered within the augered soil profile within a number

of boreholes at the time of the investigation. The levels have been given in Table 2.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 2- Ground Water Results

Borehole

Water level on Drilling

Depth(m) RL(mAHD)

BH1 1.2 – 1.3 44.6 – 44.5

BH2 NE –

BH3 NE –

BH4 NE –

BH5 0.3 37.6

BH6 1.0 – 1.4 36.9 – 36.5

NOTE:NE – Not encountered within augered profile during drilling.

A standpipe piezometer was installed in BH4. Water level within BH4 was monitored on

14th of June, approximately six days after initial drilling, and recorded at 4.4m below

existing ground level, an approximate level of RL 38.0m. The water level within this

piezometer was again monitored on 24th of July and recorded as being at a depth of 6.0m,

an approximate level of RL 36.4m.

It should be further noted, groundwater levels may be subject to seasonal fluctuations,

rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and also future development of the surrounding

lands.

7.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

7.1 Point Load Strength Test Results

Recovered rock cores were returned to the Aargus Sydney laboratory for rock strength

testing. This testing involved diametral and axial Point Load Strength Index tests. The

Point Load Strength Indices for the rock cores and the assessed rock strengths, in

accordance with Australian Standards (AS4133.4.1-2007), are summarised in Table 3.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE 3 – Point Load Strength Test Results

BoreholeDepth

(m)

Reduced Level

(mAHD)

Diametral Is(50)

(MPa)

Axial Is(50)

(MPa)Assessed Strength

BH1

8.10 37.70 0.11 0.18 Low

9.10 36.70 1.26 1.03 High

10.70 35.10 0.39 0.44 Low – Medium

11.20 34.60 0.85 0.37 Medium

12.10 33.70 1.35 1.47 High

13.30 32.50 0.51 0.09 Low - Medium

14.20 31.60 0.67 1.00 Medium

14.95 30.85 2.05 1.68 High

15.60 30.20 1.92 1.51 High

16.10 29.70 2.15 1.61 High

BH2

8.50 36.7 1.10 1.37 Medium - High

8.90 36.3 0.26 0.88 Low – Medium

9.40 35.8 0.41 0.46 Medium

9.90 35.3 1.09 1.51 Medium – High

10.30 34.9 1.18 1.03 Medium – High

BH3

4.18 33.52 1.71 1.28 High

5.20 32.50 0.52 0.62 Medium

6.25 31.45 0.78 0.81 Medium

7.30 30.40 0.82 0.93 Medium

7.60 30.10 0.81 1.35 Medium - High

BH4

6.20 36.20 0.60 0.65 Medium

6.90 35.50 1.14 0.68 Medium - High

7.30 35.10 1.24 1.43 High

8.80 33.60 0.88 0.73 Medium

9.90 32.50 0.82 1.13 Medium - High

10.50 31.90 1.32 1.46 High

11.60 30.80 1.58 1.68 High

BH5

2.80 35.10 1.03 0.91 Medium

3.60 34.30 1.67 1.05 Medium - High

4.40 33.50 1.07 1.38 Medium - High

5.30 32.60 1.05 1.44 Medium - High

BH6

4.15 33.75 0.92 0.95 Medium

4.60 33.30 0.82 0.93 Medium

5.01 32.89 0.90 0.99 Medium

5.60 32.30 1.18 1.10 High


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

8.0 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 General



The profile within BH2, in the north-eastern corner of the site within Precinct 3, indicated

150mm of concrete and medium plasticity fill to a depth of about 0.3m, the fill underlain

by natural, hard, medium to high plasticity, light brown clay to a depth of about 1.1m.

The soil profile was underlain by highly weathered, extremely to very low strength, grey

brown shale to a depth of about 2.6m and highly weathered, grey and dark grey, very low

to low strength shales to about 7.5m (approximate RL 37.7m). Moderately to slightly

weathered, dark grey, low strength shales extended to an approximate depth of 9.2m

(approximate RL 36.0m).

The shale bedrock was underlain by slightly weathered, medium to high strength, grey

white, slightly fractured sandstone to the BH2 termination depth of about 10.4m.


Existing Replan, indicated 150mm and 120mm thick concrete pavement slabs respectively

and minor fill underlain by shale and sandstone bedrock. Light grey sandy gravel fill was

encountered under the concrete to a depth of 0.4m.

Shale bedrock was encountered from respective depths of 0.15m (approximate RL 37.75m)

and 0.4m (approximate RL 37.5m) in BH5 and BH6. Moderately weathered, very low to

low strength, grey shale was evidenced to depths of about 2.3m in BH5 and 1.6m in BH6,

being underlain by grey, low to medium strength shales to respective depths of about 2.9m

(approximate RL 35.0m) and 3.3m (approximate RL 34.6m).

The shales were underlain by slightly weathered, medium to high strength, generally

slightly fractured, light grey sandstone with yellow staining in BH5 to the borehole

termination depth of 5.36m (approximate RL 32.5m). In BH6 moderately weathered,


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

medium strength, fractured to slightly fractured, grey sandstone with yellow staining was

encountered to a depth of about 4.3m, the materials becoming slightly fractured to a depth

of about 5.3m (approximate RL 32.6m). Slightly weathered, high strength sandstone was

evidenced to the BH6 termination depth of 5.89m (approximate RL 32.0m).




BH1, located within the existing carpark, encountered dense, grey and grey brown, clayey

sand fill to a depth of about 1.1m (approximate RL 44.7m) underlain by hard, brown,

sandy clay fill to about 1.3m (approximate RL 44.5m). BH4, located at the rear of the unit

block at No. 8 Cowell Street, encountered natural, very stiff, medium to high plasticity, red

brown clay to a depth of about 1.1m (approximate RL 41.3m). BH3, within the south-east

corner of No. 10 Cowell Street, encountered firm, low plasticity, dark grey silty clay

topsoil and fill to a depth of about 0.4m (approximate RL 37.3m) underlain by natural,

firm, dark grey silty clay to about 0.9m (approximate RL 36.8m).

The soil profiles were underlain by shale bedrock from depths of about 1.3m (approximate

RL 44.5m), 1.1m (approximate RL 41.3m) and 0.9m (approximate RL 36.8m) in BH1,

BH4 and BH3 respectively.

Very low to low strength, light grey to dark grey shales were encountered to an augering

termination depth of about 5.0m (approximate RL 40.8m) in BH1 with bands of extremely

low strength and medium strength materials located within this profile. Recovered core

indicated highly weathered, extremely low to very low strength, fragmented, light to dark

grey shales continued to a depth of about 7.0m (approximate RL 38.8m) underlain by low

strength , dark grey, highly fractured shale to about 8.1m (approximate RL 37.7m).

BH4 encountered extremely low strength, grey brown shale to a depth of about 1.5m

(approximate RL 40.9m) underlain by very low to low strength materials to about 4.2m

(approximate RL 38.2m) and low strength shale to 6.0m (approximate RL 36.4m). Some

medium strength rock was recorded as present within this profile.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Very low to low strength, grey shale was encountered to a depth of about 3.6m

(approximate RL 34.1m) in BH3 underlain by low to medium strength shale to the TC-bit

refusal depth of 3.9m (approximate RL 33.8m).

The shale bedrock profile was underlain by sandstones from about 8.1m (approximate RL

37.7m), 6.0m (approximate RL 36.4m) and 3.9m (approximate RL 33.8m) in BH1, BH4

and BH3 respectively.

Moderately to slightly weathered, low to medium strength, fractured, grey, stained

sandstone of essentially fine to medium grain was encountered to a depth of about 9.0m

(approximate RL 36.80m) in BH1 underlain by medium strength, slightly fractured rock to

about 11.8m (approximate RL 34.0m) and high strength sandstone to 12.8m (approximate

RL 33.0m). Slightly weathered to fresh, medium strength, slightly fractured, fine to coarse

grained, grey and light grey sandstone was encountered to a depth of about 14.5m

(approximate RL 31.2m) underlain by high strength material to 16.23m (approximate RL

29.6m).

Medium to high strength, medium to coarse grained, grey sandstone was encountered

throughout the cored profile within BH4 from a depth of about 6.0m (approximate RL

36.4m) to 11.8m (approximate RL 30.6m). Moderately to slightly weathered, fractured

bedrock was encountered to a depth of about 7.4m underlain by slightly weathered to fresh,

slightly fractured sandstone to 11.8m.

Moderately to slightly weathered, medium strength, fine to coarse grained, yellow and grey

sandstones were encountered to a depth of about 5.6m in BH3, being underlain by slightly

weathered, slightly fractured, yellow brown and grey, bedrock to about 7.0m (approximate

RL 30.7m). Medium to high strength, slightly weathered, slightly fractured, grey, medium

to coarse grained sandstone was encountered to a depth of 7.8m.

Generalised profiles within the boreholes based on estimated rock strengths have been

given in Table 4.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE 4: Generalised Profiles based on Estimated Rock Strengths

Material

BH2 BH5 BH6 BH1 BH4 BH3

Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL Depthbelow

EGL (m)

RL

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Surface Level 0 45.2 0 37.9 0 37.9 0 45.8 0 42.4 0 37.7

Concrete/Bitumen 0.15 45.05 0.15 37.75 0.12 37.78 - - - - - -

Topsoil - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fill 0.3 44.9 - - 0.4 37.5 1.3 44.5 - - 0.4 37.3

Natural Soil 1.1 44.1 - - - - - - 1.1 41.3 0.9 36.8

Shale - EL - - - - - - - - 1.5 40.9 - -

Shale - EL-VL 2.6 42.6 - - - - - - - - - -

Shale - VL-L 7.5 37.7 1.6 36.3 1.6 36.3 3.3 42.5 2.7 39.7 3.6 34.1

Shale - L 9.2 36.0 2.3 35.6 - - - - - - - -

Shale - L-M - - 2.5 35.4 3.3 34.6 5.0 40.8 3.6 38.8 3.9 33.8

Shale - M - - 2.9 35.0 - - - - - - - -

Shale - EL-VL - - - - - - 7.0 38.8 - - - -

Shale - L - - - - - - 8.1 37.7 - - - -

Shale -VL-L - - - - - - - - 4.2 38.2 - -

Shale - L - - - - - - - - 6.0 36.4 - -

Sandstone - L-M - - - - - - 9.0 36.8 - - - -

Sandstone - M - - - - 5.3 32.6 11.8 34.0 - - 7.0 30.7

Sandstone - M-H 10.4* 35.1 5.4* 32.5 - - - - 11.8* 30.6 7.8* 29.9

Sandstone - H - - - - 5.9* 32.0 12.8 33.0 - - - -

Sandstone - M - - - - - - 14.5 31.3 - - - -

Sandstone - H - - - - - - 16.2* 29.6 - - - -

NOTES:Data given in Table 4 to be considered in conjunction with the information supplied in Section 6.1 and the Borehole Logsin Appendix C.Data given in Table 4 based on rock strength only.Rock Strengths – EL - extremely low; VL - very low; L - low; M - medium; H – high* Borehole Termination Depth

8.2 Excavation Conditions

Based on provided information at the time of the investigation, basement excavation was

proposed to extend to a level of RL 38.00m within Precinct 3-New Extension. Basement

level for development within Precinct 4-Existing Replan was also given as being at RL

38.00m, while levels for Basements 4 and 4A within Precinct 4-New Extension were given

as RL 30.00m and RL 31.65m respectively.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Observations on site showed the lower level of the current store facility occupying

proposed Precinct 3 exited into the retail complex at existing shopping level two.

Information from drawings relating to the existing complex indicated this level is

approximately RL 44.60m. Therefore excavation of approximately 7m may be required to

achieve the new basement level of RL 38.00m, pending the configuration of the existing

structure within Precinct 3.

Drawings of the existing complex indicated the level of the lower level basement,

designated as existing basement two and encompassing much of the development area

considered as Precinct 4-Existing Plan, to be at approximately RL 38.00m, this being the

same level as provided for the new development. Therefore, it is anticipated further

excavation for development within this area may be minimal based on supplied concepts.

Estimated ground surface levels at BH1, BH4 and BH3, within Precinct 4-New Extension,

were recorded as approximately RL 45.8m, RL 42.4m and RL 37.7m respectively. It may

be likely excavation depths ranging between approximately 8m to 15m may be expected

for basement construction.

Excavation of soil-based materials and weathered, lower strength shales and sandstones

may be possible using conventional earthmoving equipment such as backhoes or tracked

excavators.

It is likely heavy ripping and/or vibratory rock breaking techniques will be required within

the more competent, less weathered shales and sandstones of medium to high strength.

Should vibratory rock breaking equipment be required for excavations in bedrock, it is

recommended it be complemented with saw cutting using an appropriate excavator

mounted rock saw or approved alternative measure prior to excavation so as to minimise

transmission of vibrations to adjoining structures. Hammering should be carried out

horizontally along bedding planes where possible to minimise transmission of vibrations to

adjoining structures.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the excavation should not exceed a peak

particle velocity (PPV) of 10mm/sec for structures in good condition or 2mm/sec for

heritage or poor-conditioned structures. Consideration of a possible reduction of the PPV

value to 5mm/sec may be appropriate where some existing commercial and residential

structures are likely to be in close proximity to deep excavations. If vibrations in adjacent

structures exceed these values or appear excessive, excavation should cease and Aargus

should be contacted immediately for appropriate reviews.

Should the development of induced vibrations be considered possible during construction,

it is recommended a structural assessment of adjoining structures be undertaken prior to

project excavation proceeding.

The investigation indicated the presence of existing structures and pavements over the site

with vegetated areas. All topsoil and fill materials, vegetation, including root systems, and

deleterious materials, including old footings, services and concrete and bituminous

pavement materials should be stripped and removed from development areas to spoil.

Site earthworks should be appropriately drained to minimise the effects of wetting up and

softening of exposed, natural materials, which may be caused by extraneous water sources

and climatic variations. Should possible bulk excavation be terminated within weathered

bedrock layers, and particularly within weathered shales, it is considered the natural

materials at the base of such excavations may require the incorporation of a granular

surfacing so as to remain trafficable under unfavourable and adverse climatic conditions.

Trafficability problems may also be possible where “wetting” from groundwater sources

may occur.

If loose or soft rocks or clay seams are encountered within the basement floor areas it is

recommended removal to competent rock and replacement with mass concrete be

considered.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

8.3 Groundwater Management

Groundwater or seepage was encountered within the augered soil profile in boreholes BH1,

BH5 and BH6 during the investigation drilling with the initial levels recorded being given

in Table 2. A standpipe piezometer was installed in BH4.

Groundwater during initial drilling was encountered between approximate levels of RL

36.5m and RL 37.6m (approximately 1.4m to 0.3m below the surface) within BH6 and

BH5 in the development area considered as Precinct 4-Existing Plan.

Groundwater or seepage levels in BH1, within Precinct 4-New Extension, recorded during

initial drilling ranged between depths of approximately 1.2m to 1.3m below the surface,

that is, an average level of approximately RL 44.55m. Water level within BH4 was

monitored on 14th of June, approximately six days after initial drilling, and recorded at

4.4m below existing ground level, an approximate level of RL 38.0m. The water level was

again monitored on 24th of July and recorded as being at a depth of 6.0m, an approximate

level of RL 36.4m.

Water level monitoring indicated some basement level excavation and excavations for

foundations may likely be required to be undertaken at depths below recorded water levels.

It is recommended ongoing groundwater presence or levels be assessed if construction is

undertaken during or following adverse weather or if a significant time period elapses

between this investigation and construction.

Dewatering systems on the site should be evaluated and designed mindful of groundwater

presence within and effects on adjoining areas. Dewatering of the development site may not

only lower water tables directly on this site but also result in a lowering of levels within

adjoining areas. The effects of dewatering on this site and on developments on adjoining

sites should be evaluated prior to the adoption of a system.

During all stages of the excavation, observations of excavated faces for any presence of

effects of water flow should be carried out to ensure any local softening of material

resulting from a possible groundwater regime is pre-empted.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

It is recommended the final construction drawings be provided to Aargus for further

assessment and confirmation of a suitable dewatering system, if required.

8.4 Temporary Batter Slopes

Temporary batter slopes may be appropriate for possible excavations or cut slopes provided

basement excavations or cut slopes are set back sufficiently from common site boundaries to

facilitate the formation of the recommended safe temporary batters outlined in Table 5.

Table 5- Minimum Temporary Batter Slopes

MaterialsTemporary

(Horizontal:

Vertical)

Clayey Sands 3.0:1.0

Silty Clays and Clays 2.0:1.0

Very low to low strength

Shale1.0.1.0

Medium strength Shales 1.0.1.0

Medium to high strength

Sandstones0.5:1.0

Temporary surface protection of slopes against erosion may be provided by covering the

batter with plastic sheets or other applicable method. It should be noted however the plastic

sheeting, if adopted, should extend at least 1.5m behind the crest of the cut face or at least up

to the common site boundaries. Plastic sheeting should be positioned and fastened to prevent

water infiltration into or onto the batter which may lead to softening and possible instability.

Installation of such sheeting should be considered as a temporary erosion protection measure

only and not as a measure of temporary ground support.

Drainage should be provided around any temporary batters to prevent any erosion of the

surfaces. All stormwater runoff should be directed away from all temporary and permanent

slopes.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

8.5 Excavation Support

Where there is insufficient space for batter slopes, it is likely to be necessary to install

continuous support systems. Such a system may consist of continuous piles, secant piles or

diaphragm walls, each of which may be suitable for the materials encountered during the

time if this investigation.

Diaphragm walls may be installed to provide a clean surface finish as well as providing

structural support for the buildings. The concrete floors can also be keyed into the

diaphragm wall to provide a watertight unit. Secant pile walls may also provide a good

interlocking watertight wall. Secant piles are the most economical methods of creating an

effective water control barriers.

Contiguous piles may also be considered in the excavation areas which may be above the

current water table pending the positioning of multi-level basements. These systems may

not be water tight should groundwater levels rise after wet periods.

8.6 Retaining Structures

In the long term, the excavation faces must be retained by engineered retaining structures.

These structures should be designed to withstand the applied lateral pressures of the

soil/rock layers, the existing surcharges in their zone of influence; including existing

structures, and construction related activities, and also hydrostatic pressures (if it is

appropriate). Contiguous or Secant Pile walls are feasible options for this purpose.

The pressure distribution on cantilever retaining structures, only due to the earth pressures

and surcharges behind the wall, may be assumed to be triangular and estimated as follows

(ignoring cohesion effect):

ph = kH + qk

Where,

ph = Horizontal pressure (kN/m2)

= Wet density (kN/m3)

k = Coefficient of earth pressure (ka or ko)

H = Retained height (m)


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

q = Surcharge pressure behind retaining wall (kN/m2)

For the design of flexible retaining structures, where some lateral movement is acceptable,

an active earth pressure coefficient is recommended. Should it be critical to limit the

horizontal deformation of a retaining structure, use of an earth pressure coefficient at rest

should be considered. Recommended parameters for the design of retaining structures are

presented in the following Table 6.

Table 6: Geotechnical Design Parameters

MaterialsUnit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Active Earth

Pressure

coefficient

(Ka)

At Rest Earth

Pressure

Coefficient

(Ko)

Dense Clayey Sands 20 0.33 0.50

Silty Clays and Clays 18 0.36 0.50

Very low to low strength

Shales21 0.25 0.40

Medium strength Shales 21 0.25 0.40

Medium to high strength

Sandstones22 0.17 0.29

The above coefficients assume that ground level behind the retaining structures is

horizontal and the retained material is effectively drained.

8.7 Foundation Systems

Based on the information from the investigation boreholes it is anticipated shales and

sandstones of varying degrees of weathering and strength may be encountered within the

proposed bulk excavation levels with the majority of basement base excavation being taken

into bedrock. Shallow foundations, such as pad footings, founded in the underlying

bedrock profiles beneath basement levels may be appropriate for foundation systems

associated with the building structures. Bored piles socketed into bedrock may also be

considered as an alternative system, or in conjunction with shallow footings, should

variations in subsurface conditions be anticipated as a result of basement layouts.

Bedrock characteristics, such as, weathering, strength, fracturing and the presence of

defects have been used to classify the shales and sandstones in accordance with the


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

guidelines provided by Pells et. al. Approximate depths and levels of the various classes of

shale and sandstone estimated from the cored boreholes have been given in Table 7.

TABLE 7: Estimated Depths of Varying Rock Classes

Material

BH2 BH5 BH6 BH1 BH4 BH3

DepthbelowEGL(m)

RLDepthbelowEGL(m)

RLDepthbelowEGL(m)

RLDepthbelowEGL(m)

RLDepthbelowEGL(m)

RLDepthbelowEGL(m)

RL

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Surface Level 0 45.2 0 37.9 0 37.9 0 45.8 0 42.4 0 37.7

Rock Level 1.1 44.1 0.15 37.75 0.4 37.5 1.3 44.5 1.1 41.3 0.9 36.8

Shale – Class V * 2.6 42.6 - - - - - - 1.5 40.9 - -

Shale – Class IV * 6.0 39.2 2.5 35.4 2.0 35.9 5.0 40.8 6.0 36.4 3.9 33.8

Shale – Class IV 8.2 37.0 - - 3.3 34.6 8.1 37.7 - - - -

Shale – Class III 9.2 36.0 2.9 35.0 - - - - - - - -

Sandstone – Class V - - - - - - - - - - 5.2 32.5

Sandstone – Class IV - - - - - - 9.0 36.8 - - - -

Sandstone – Class III 10.0 35.2 - - 4.3 33.6 11.8 34.0 7.4 35.0 7.0 30.7

Sandstone – Class II 10.4** 34.8 5.4** 32.5 5.9** 32.0 12.8 33.0 11.8** 30.6 7.8** 29.9

Sandstone – Class III 14.0 31.8

Sandstone –Class II 16.2** 29.6

NOTE:* Class No. assumed only over augered depths.** Borehole Termination Depth

Provided information at the time of the investigation indicated basement excavation was

proposed to extend to a level of RL 38.00m within Precinct 3-New Extension, RL 38.00m

for development within Precinct 4-Existing Replan, while levels for Basements 4 and 4A

within Precinct 4-New Extension were given as RL 30.00m and RL 31.65m respectively.

Based on indicated basement levels and estimations of Class Numbers of shales and

sandstones likely to be encountered beneath basement levels, it is possible Class IV and

Class III shales with underlying Class III and Class II sandstones may be encountered

within founding levels within the Precinct 3-New Extension and Precinct 4-Existing

Replan areas. Deeper basement excavations within the Precinct 4-New Extension area

indicate it is likely Class III and Class II sandstones may be encountered within founding

levels beneath basements.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Shallow pad or strip foundations or piles or rock sockets founded within Class IV or Class

III shale may be designed with maximum allowable end bearing pressures of 1000 kPa and

3500 kPa respectively. Pads, strips or socketed piles founded in medium strength Class III

sandstone may be designed with a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 3500 kPa.

This value may be increased to a value of 6000 kPa for foundations embedded into Class II

sandstone. A minimum embedment depth for footings or socket length for piles of 0.3m

into the underlying bedrock should be adopted.

Shaft adhesion that may be applied to socketed piles should be adopted to conform to

appropriate classes of shale and sandstone in accordance with Pells et. al and levels of shaft

sidewall cleanliness and roughness. A shaft adhesion value of 350 kPa may be applied to

socket lengths within Class III shale and Class III sandstone with the value being increased

to 600 kPa for sockets within Class II sandstone. The rock socket sidewalls should be free

of soil and/or crushed rock to the extent that natural rock is exposed over at least 80% of

the socket sidewall. Shaft adhesion should not be applied to the upper 500mm of socket

length within the bedrock sequence or socket lengths that are smeared and fail to satisfy

cleanliness requirements. Reduced shaft adhesion values will be applicable for sockets that

fail to satisfy the necessary criteria.

To minimise the effects of differential settlement all foundations should be founded on

consistent, natural in-situ layers of similar bearing capacity.

Should groundwater flow, seepages or surface runoff be encountered within foundation

excavations, the excavations should be dewatered prior to concrete placement or correct

underwater placement techniques should be adopted. Any loose debris and wet soils

should also be removed from excavations.

A geotechnical consultant should inspect foundation base excavations at the time of

excavation to ensure the foundation bases have been taken to suitable materials of

appropriate bearing capacity. It is likely this will only be possible where foundation

excavations, either as shallow footings, such as pads, or shafts, in the case of piles, are

dewatered. The presence of groundwater within foundation excavations may negate


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

satisfactory examination of founding surfaces and certification of founding material

quality. Where shaft adhesion may be adopted, shaft lengths should be inspected to verify

rock conditions and other criteria in accordance with industry adopted practice have been

satisfied. Foundation and shaft inspections should only be undertaken under conditions

satisfying OHS requirements.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

This report presents and interprets the findings of the geotechnical investigation carried out

within an area surrounding the existing Gladesville Shopping Centre complex, Gladesville,

NSW, for a proposed retail and residential development consisting of two storeys of

commercial development and four residential towers. It is envisaged the existing

basements carparks may be utilised for parts of the development with basements to

approximately four levels proposed towards the southern areas of the development.



The profile within BH2, in the north-eastern corner of the site within Precinct 3, indicated

concrete and medium plasticity fill underlain by natural, hard, medium to high plasticity,

light brown clay. The soil profile was underlain by generally highly weathered, very low

to low strength, shale and moderately to slightly weathered, low strength shales. The shale

bedrock was underlain by slightly weathered, medium to high strength, grey white, slightly

fractured sandstone.


Existing Replan, indicated concrete pavement slabs and minor fill underlain by shale and

sandstone bedrock. Moderately weathered, very low to low strength shale was underlain

by grey, low to medium strength shales. The shales were underlain by generally slightly

weathered, medium to high strength, slightly fractured, light grey sandstones.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd




BH1, located within the existing carpark, encountered clayey sand fill underlain by sandy

clay fill. BH4, located at the rear of the unit block at No. 8 Cowell Street, encountered

natural, red brown clay and BH3, within the south-east corner of No. 10 Cowell Street,

encountered silty clay topsoil and fill underlain by natural, silty clay.

The soil profiles were underlain by shale bedrock from depths of about 1.3m, 1.1m and

0.9m in BH1, BH4 and BH3 respectively. Very low to low strength shales were

encountered with bands of extremely low strength and medium strength materials located

within the profile. Recovered core indicated shales ranging from fragmented to fractured.

The shale bedrock profile was underlain by sandstones from about 8.1m, 6.0m and 3.9m in

BH1, BH4 and BH3 respectively. These generally ranged from low to medium strength

materials becoming medium to high strength with depth and slightly weathered and slight

fractured.

Materials likely to be encountered during basement excavation may generally comprise

very low to low strength shales with some medium strength layers with underlying medium

to high strength sandstones.

Excavation of soil-based materials and weathered, lower strength shales and sandstones

may be possible using conventional earthmoving equipment such as backhoes or tracked

excavators.

It is possible heavy ripping and/or vibratory rock breaking techniques will be required

within the more competent, less weathered shales and sandstones of medium to high

strength. Should vibratory rock breaking equipment be required for proposed excavations,

it is considered the excavation processes should be complemented with saw cutting using

an appropriate excavator mounted rock saw or approved alternative measure prior to


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

excavation so as to minimise transmission of vibrations to adjoining structures.

Hammering should be carried out horizontally along bedding planes where possible.

Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the excavation should not exceed a peak

particle velocity (PPV) of 10mm/sec for structures in good condition or 2mm/sec for

heritage or poor-conditioned structures. Consideration of a possible reduction of the PPV

value to 5mm/sec may be appropriate where some existing commercial and residential

structures are likely to be in close proximity to deep excavations.

Should the development of induced vibrations be considered possible during construction,

it is recommended a structural assessment of adjoining structures be undertaken prior to

project excavation proceeding.

The investigation indicated the presence of existing structures and pavements over the site

with vegetated areas. All topsoil and fill materials, vegetation, including root systems, and

deleterious materials, including old footings, services and concrete and bituminous

pavement materials should be stripped and removed from development areas to spoil.

Site earthworks should be appropriately drained to minimise the effects of wetting up and

softening of exposed, natural materials, which may be caused by extraneous water sources

and climatic variations. Trafficability problems may also be possible where “wetting”

from groundwater sources may occur and may require the incorporation of a granular

surfacing so as to remain trafficable under unfavourable and adverse climatic conditions.

If loose or soft rocks or clay seams are encountered within the basement floor areas it is

recommended removal to competent rock and replacement with mass concrete be

considered.

Groundwater or seepage was encountered on the site within the augered soil profile. It

should be noted groundwater levels may further vary subject to seasonal fluctuations,

rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and also future development of the surrounding

lands.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Water level monitoring indicated some basement level excavation and excavations for

foundations may likely be required to be undertaken at depths below recorded water levels.

It is recommended ongoing groundwater presence or levels be assessed if construction is

undertaken during or following adverse weather or if a significant time period elapses

between this investigation and construction.

Dewatering systems on the site should be evaluated and designed mindful of groundwater

presence within and effects on adjoining areas with the effects of dewatering being evaluated

prior to the adoption of a system.

During all stages of the excavation, observations of excavated faces for any presence of

effects of water flow should be carried out to ensure any local softening of material

resulting from a possible groundwater regime is pre-empted.

Temporary batter slopes may be appropriate for possible excavations or cut slopes provided

basement excavations or cut slopes are set back sufficiently from common site boundaries to

facilitate the formation of the recommended safe temporary batters outlined in Table 5.

Where there is insufficient space for batter slopes, it is likely to be necessary to install

continuous support systems. Such a system may consist of continuous piles, secant piles or

diaphragm walls, each of which may be suitable for the materials encountered during the

time if this investigation.

Temporary surface protection of slopes against erosion may be provided by covering the

batter with plastic sheets or other applicable method. Installation of such measures should be

considered as a temporary erosion protection measure only and not as a method of temporary

ground support. Drainage should be provided around any temporary batters to prevent any

erosion. All runoff should be directed away from all temporary and permanent slopes.

Recommended parameters for the design of retaining structures are presented in Table 6.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Shallow foundations, such as pad footings, founded in the underlying bedrock profiles

beneath basement levels may be appropriate for foundation systems associated with the

building structures. Bored piles socketed into bedrock may also be considered as an

alternative system, or in conjunction with shallow footings, should variations in subsurface

conditions be anticipated as a result of basement layouts.

Bedrock characteristics, such as, weathering, strength, fracturing and the presence of

defects have been used to classify the shales and sandstones in accordance with the

guidelines provided by Pells et. al. Approximate depths and levels of the various classes of

shale and sandstone estimated from the cored boreholes have been given in Table 7.

Foundation systems founded within Class IV or Class III shale may be designed with

maximum allowable end bearing pressures of 1000 kPa and 3500 kPa respectively.

Systems founded in medium strength Class III sandstone may be designed with a

maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 3500 kPa. This value may be increased to a

value of 6000 kPa for foundations embedded into Class II sandstone. A minimum

embedment depth for footings or socket length for piles of 0.3m into the underlying

bedrock should be adopted.

Shaft adhesion that may be applied to socketed piles should be adopted to conform to

appropriate classes of shale and sandstone in accordance with Pells et. al and levels of shaft

sidewall cleanliness and roughness. A shaft adhesion value of 350 kPa may be applied to

socket lengths within Class III shale and Class III sandstone with the value being increased

to 600 kPa for sockets within Class II sandstone.

Shaft adhesion should not be applied to the upper 500mm of socket length within the

bedrock sequence or socket lengths that are smeared and fail to satisfy cleanliness

requirements. Reduced shaft adhesion values will be applicable for sockets that fail to

satisfy the necessary criteria.

To minimise the effects of differential settlement all foundations should be founded on

consistent, natural in-situ layers of similar bearing capacity.


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

Should groundwater flow, seepages or surface runoff be encountered within foundation

excavations, the excavations should be dewatered prior to concrete placement or correct

underwater placement techniques should be adopted. Any loose debris and wet soils

should also be removed from excavations.

A geotechnical consultant should inspect foundation base excavations at the time of

excavation to ensure the foundation bases have been taken to suitable materials of

appropriate bearing capacity. The presence of groundwater within foundation excavations

may negate satisfactory examination of founding surfaces and certification of founding

material quality.

Where shaft adhesion may be adopted, shaft lengths should be inspected to verify rock

conditions and other criteria in accordance with industry adopted practice have been

satisfied. Foundation and shaft inspections should only be undertaken under conditions

satisfying OHS requirements.

Based on supplied conceptual information and the findings of this investigation, it is

considered proposed development of this site is feasible provided recommendations given

in this report are taken into account.

For and on behalf of

Aargus Pty Ltd Reviewed by

Michael Ferry Noriman Mak

BSc, MSc, MBA, MIEAust,

BE, MEngSc ,MIEAust, CPEng RPE (Civ, Geo) NPER (Civ, Geo)

Senior Geotechnical Engineer National Engineering Manager

(MM)


_______________________________________________________________________________________© Aargus Pty Ltd

10.0 LIMITATIONS

The assessment of the sub-surface profile and geotechnical conditions within the proposed

development area and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have

been based on available information obtained from the drilling and associated site works

carried out at provided locations over the period of 6th to 8th and 14th June 2012 together

with survey plans of the site and neighbouring area undertaken by Craig & Rhodes

(Surveyors Engineers Planners) for Moch Pty Ltd, Ref 67/05, Drawing File 6705T03,

Sheets 1 to 8 of 8, dated 5/2005, updated 10/08/2005, and architectural drawings of the

existing shopping complex (Drawing Nos DA/B-08A to DA/B-10A, dated 19/04/2012) and

proposed development (Drawing Nos. DA/PS-10, DA/R-12, DA/B-05, DA/B-06, DA/B-08

AND DA/B-09, dated 09/05/12, and DA/EL-12 and DA/EL-13, dated 26/07/2011)

provided by Bernard Young Design Group P/L, Ref 03-11-403.

Any site inspections and certifications should be performed by experienced Geotechnical

Engineers, Engineering Geologists and field testing personnel.

It is recommended that should ground conditions encountered during construction vary

substantially from those anticipated within this report, Aargus be contacted immediately

for further advice and any necessary review of recommendations or if surface and

groundwater conditions encountered during excavation and construction vary from those

presented in this report

Aargus does not assume any liability for site conditions not observed or accessible during

the time of the investigation. This report and associated documentation and the

information herein have been prepared solely for the use of GSV Developments Pty Ltd

and any reliance assumed by third parties on this report shall be at such parties’ own risk.

Any ensuing liability resulting from use of the report by third parties cannot be transferred

to Aargus.

The conclusions and recommendations of this report should be read in conjunction with the

entire report.

APPENDIX A

_____________________________IMPORTANT INFORMATIONABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICALREPORT

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOURGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

More construction problems are caused by sitesubsurface conditions than any other factor. Astroublesome as subsurface problems can be, theirfrequency and extent have been lessenedconsiderably in recent years, due in largemeasure to programs and publications of ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicingin the Geosciences.

The following suggestions and observations areoffered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, cost-overruns and other costlyheadaches that can occur during a constructionproject.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET

OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS

A geotechnical engineering report is based on asubsurface exploration plan designed toincorporate a unique set of project-specificfactors. These typically include the generalnature of the structure involved, its size andconfiguration, the location of the structure on thesite and its orientation, physical concomitantssuch as access roads, parking lots, andunderground utilities, and the level of additionalrisk which the client assumed by virtue oflimitations imposed upon the exploratoryprogram.

To help avoid costly problems, consult thegeotechnical engineer to determine how anyfactors which change subsequent to the date ofthe report may affect its recommendations.

Unless your consulting geotechnical engineerindicates otherwise, your geotechnicalengineering report should NOT be used:

when the nature of the proposed structure ischanged: for example, if an office building willbe erected instead of a parking garage, or if arefrigerated warehouse will be built instead ofan un-refrigerated one,

when the size or configuration of the proposedstructure is altered,

when the location or orientation of the proposedstructure is modified,

when there is a change of ownership, or

for application to an adjacent site.

Geotechnical engineers cannot acceptresponsibility for problems which may develop ifthey are not consulted after factors considered intheir report's development have changed.

Geotechnical reports present the results ofinvestigations carried out for a specific project andusually for a specific phase of the project. Thereport may not be relevant for other phases of theproject, or where project details change.

The advice herein relates only to this project and thescope of works provided by the Client.

Soil and Rock Descriptions are based on AS1726-1993, using visual and tactile assessment except atdiscrete locations where field and/or laboratory testshave been carried out. Refer to the attached termsand symbols sheets for definitions.

MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"

ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES

Site exploration identifies actual subsurfaceconditions only at those points where samples aretaken, when they are taken. Data derived throughsampling and subsequent laboratory testing areextrapolated by geotechnical engineers who thenrender an opinion about overall subsurfaceconditions, their likely reaction to proposedconstruction activity, and appropriate foundationdesign. Even under optimal circumstances actualconditions may differ from those inferred to exist,because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

qualified, and no subsurface explorationprogram, no matter how comprehensive, canreveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time.The actual interface between materials maybe far more gradual or abrupt than a reportindicates. Actual conditions in areas notsampled may differ from predictions. Nothingcan be done to prevent the unanticipated, butsteps can be taken to help minimize theirimpact. For this reason, most experiencedowners retain their geotechnical consultantsthrough the construction stage, to identifyvariances, conduct additional tests which maybe needed, and to recommend solutions toproblems encountered on site.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN

CHANGE

Subsurface conditions may be modified byconstantly changing natural forces. Because ageotechnical engineering report is based onconditions which existed at the time ofsubsurface exploration, construction decisionsshould not be based on a geotechnicalengineering report whose adequacy may havebeen affected by time. Speak with thegeotechnical consultant to learn if additionaltests are advisable before construction starts.

Construction operations at or adjacent to thesite and natural events such as floods,earthquakes or groundwater fluctuationsmay also affect subsurface conditions, andthus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnicalreport. The geotechnical engineer should bekept apprised of any such events, and should beconsulted to determine if additional tests arenecessary.

Subsurface conditions can change with timeand can vary between test locations.Construction activities at or adjacent to the siteand natural events such as flood, earthquake orgroundwater fluctuations can also affect thesubsurface conditions.

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE

PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC

PURPOSES AND PERSONS

Geotechnical engineers’ reports are prepared to meetthe specific needs of specific individuals. A reportprepared for a consulting civil engineer may not beadequate for a construction contractor, or even someother consulting civil engineer. Unless indicatedotherwise, this report was prepared expressly for theclient involved and expressly for purposes indicatedby the client. Use by any other persons for anypurpose, or by the client for a different purpose, mayresult in problems.No individual other than the client should applythis report for its intended purpose without firstconferring with the geotechnical engineer. Noperson should apply this report for any purposeother than that originally contemplated withoutfirst conferring with the geotechnical engineer.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS SUBJECT TO

MISINTERPRETATION

Costly problems can occur when other designprofessional develop their plans based onmisinterpretations of a geotechnicalengineering report. To help avoid theseproblems, the geotechnical engineer should beretained to work with other appropriate designprofessionals to explain relevant geotechnicalfindings and to review the adequacy of theirplans and specifications relative togeotechnical issues.

The interpretation of the discussion andrecommendations contained in this report are basedon extrapolation/interpretation from data obtained atdiscrete locations. Actual conditions in areas notsampled or investigated may differ from thosepredicted

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE

SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING

REPORT

Final boring logs are developed bygeotechnical engineers based upon theirinterpretation of field logs (assembled by sitepersonnel) and laboratory evaluation of fieldsamples. Only final boring logs customarilyare included in geotechnical engineeringreports. These logs should not under anycircumstances be redrawn for inclusion inarchitectural or other design drawings becausedrafters may commit errors or omissions in the

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

transfer process. Although photographicreproduction eliminates this problem, itdoes nothing to minimize the possibilityof contractors misinterpreting the logsduring bid preparation. When this occurs,delays, disputes and unanticipated costsare the all-too-frequent result.

To minimise the likelihood of boring logmisinterpretation, give contractors readyaccess in the complete geotechnicalengineering report prepared or authorizedfor their use. Those who do not providesuch access may proceed under mistakenimpression that simply disclaimingresponsibility for the accuracy ofsubsurface information always insulatesthem from attendant liability. Providingthe best available information tocontractors helps prevent costlyconstruction problems and the adversarialattitudes which aggravate them todisproportionate scale.READ RESPONSIBILITY

CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because geotechnical engineering is basedextensively on judgment and opinion, it isfar less exact than other designdisciplines. This situation has resulted inwholly unwarranted claims being lodgedagainst geotechnical consultants. To helpprevent this problem, geotechnicalengineers have developed model clausesfor use in written transmittals. These arenot exculpatory clauses designed to foistgeotechnical engineers’ liabilities ontosomeone else. Rather, they are definitiveclauses which identify where geotechnicalengineers' responsibilities begin and end.Their use helps all parties involved rec-ognize their individual responsibilitiesand take appropriate action. Some ofthese definitive clauses are likely toappear in your geotechnical engineeringreport, and you are encouraged to readthem closely. Your geotechnical engineerwill be pleased to give full and frankanswers to your questions.

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO

REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineerwill be pleased to discuss other

techniques which can be employed to mitigaterisk. In addition, ASFE has developed avariety of materials which may be beneficial.Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of itspublications directory.

FURTHER GENERAL NOTES

Groundwater levels indicated on the logs are takenat the time of measurement and may not reflect theactual groundwater levels at those specific locations.It should be noted that groundwater levels canfluctuate due to seasonal and tidal activities.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not bereproduced either totally or in part without theexpress permission of the Company. Whereinformation from this report is to be included incontract documents or engineering specifications forthe project, the entire report should be included inorder to minimise the likelihood ofmisinterpretation.

APPENDIX B

________________________________SITE LOCALITY MAP (FIGURE 1),SITE PLAN (FIGURE 2) &GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION

Reference Google Maps (2011)

Drawn: MM

Approved: MF

Date: 27/06/12

Scale: NTS

Aargus Environmental- Remediation- Engineering- Drilling - Laboratories

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Site Locality Map

N


Geotechnical Investigation

Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey

Streets, Gladesville NSW

Figure

1

Scale: NTS

Date: 05/07/2012

Approved MF

Drawn MM


Figure

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Site Plan

2GSV Developments Pty Ltd


Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey

Streets, Gladesville NSW

Approximate Borehole Locations

BH6

BH5

BH4

B

B

A

A

BH2

BH1

BH3

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Geotechnical Cross SectionDate: 5/07/2012 Client: GSV Developments Pty Ltd

Project:

Bituminous Concrete

Concrete

Legend

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Shale

Silty Clay

Fine Grained

R.L

(mA

HD

)

Distance (m)

Geotechnical Investigation - Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, Gladesville

Sandy Gravel

Clay

Clayey Sand

Sandy Clay

No.10 CowellStreet

No.2 CowellStreet

No.8 CowellStreet

BH1

BH4

BH3

FlagstaffStreet

ShaleBedrock

Sandstone

Natural Surface

SoilProfile

SECTION A-A??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

Towards VictoraRoad

*Note approximate dimensions only

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34 ^

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

GS4992/2-A Project: Geotechnical Investigation - Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, Gladesville

Silty Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Gravel

Legend

Shale Clay Bituminous Concrete

Sandstone Clayey Sand Concrete

R.L

(mA

HD

)

Distance (m)

Geotechnical Cross SectionDate: 5/07/2012 Client: GSV Developments Pty Ltd

Job No:

Approximate Existing Shopping Centre Outline

BH2

MasseyStreet

ShaleBedrock

Sandstone

Natural Surface

BH3

SoilProfile

SECTION B-B

CowellStreet

??

?? ??

????

????

????

*Note approximate dimensions only

BH6

APPENDIX C

_________________________________ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGSAND COREHOLE LOGS

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 1 of 6

ENGINEERING LOG OF DRILLED BOREHOLEClient: GSV Developments Pty Ltd Test Location: Refer to Figure 2Project: Geotechnical Investigation Test Method: Drill Rig - AugerProject Location: Date: Logged by: MM

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity

Additional Comments De

pth

(m)

0.1 Bitumen Seal - 50mm 0.1

0.2 M 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.4 Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, brown with traces of gravel M 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 M-W 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 SHALE, grey, very low to low strength 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 SHALE, light grey, extremely low strength 2.6

2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 SHALE, light grey with some iron staining, very low to low strength 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 SHALE, dark grey, low to medium strength 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:

Consistency Density Index Samples Moisture

VS Very Soft VL Very Loose B Bulk Sample D Dry

S Soft L Loose D Disturbed Sample M Moist

F Firm MD Medium Dense U50 Undisturbed Sample W Wet

St Stiff D Dense (50mm diam.) Wp Plastic Limit

VSt Very Stiff VD Very Dense N S.P.T. Value Wl Liquid Limit

H Hard

Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, Gladesville NSW6/06/2012

Surface Level: R.L 45.8 mAHD (approx.)

0.50m

SPT

11,15,19

N=34

SC Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, grey brown with traces of gravel D Fill Material

SC D

0.50m

Groundwater seepage

between approx. 1.2m and

1.3mCL Sandy CLAY, low plasticity, fine to medium grained, brown with traces of

sandH

1.30m

SPT '64

blows on

seating'

Bedrock

1.45m TC-Bit resistance

Reduced TC-Bit resistance

Increased penetration rate

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 2 of 6


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

3.6 As above 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 See Corelog BH1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 3 of 6

CORELOG OF TEST HOLEClient: GSV Developments Pty Ltd Hole Commenced: 6/06/2012Project: Geotechnical Investigation Hole Completed: 6/06/2012Project Location: Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets,

Gladesville NSWDrill Model: Dando Terrier Slope: Vertical

(Approx from survey plan)

Barrel Type / Length: NMLC/1.6m Bearing: - AHDDrilling Information Rock Substance Rock Mass Defects

Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Substance Description We

ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0

Defect Description De

pth

(m)

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 See Borehole Log BH1 5.0

5.1 HW 5.00m-7.40m, fragmented rock 5.1

5.2 with clay bands 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 6.90m to 7.00m, 100mm core loss 7.0

7.1 SW 7.1

7.2 7.2

7.3 7.3

7.4 7.4

7.5 7.5

Key - Method Case - lift Weathering Strength Is (50) MPa

AS Auger Screwing Casing used Fr Fresh EL Extremely Low < 0.03AD Auger Drilling Barrel withdrawn water level SW Slightly weathered VL Very Low 0.03 - 0.1R Roller / Tricone date shown MW Moderately weathered L Low 0.1 - 0.3W Washbore Water inflow HW Highly weathered M Medium 0.3 - 1.0NMLC NMLC Core Drill Partial drilling water loss EW Extremely weathered H High 1.0 - 3.0NQ,HQ Wireline Core Drill Complete drilling water loss VH Very High 3.0 - 10.0

EH Extremely High >10.0

NM

LC

89%

SHALE, low strength, dark grey with minor brown

staining, slightly weathered, highly fractured, thinly

laminated

RQD 0%

NM

LC

100%

SHALE, extremely low to very low strength, light to

dark grey with red and brown staining, highly

weathered, fragmented, thinly laminated with light

grey and grey brown clay bands

Supervised by: MMChecked by: MF

RQD 0%

R.L. Surface: 45.8m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 4 of 6





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

7.6 As above 7.60m, clay band 30mm 7.6

7.7 7.7

7.8 7.8

7.9 7.9

8.0 8.0

8.1 8.1

8.2 MW- 0.11(D) 8.2

8.3 SW 0.18(A) 8.3

8.4 8.4

8.5 8.50m, B=00,planar,rough,clean 8.5

8.6 8.6

8.7 8.70m-8.80m, XW seam 10mm 8.7

8.8 8.8

8.9 8.9

9.0 8.95m-8.98m, fragmented zone 30mm 9.0

9.1 As above, medium strength, slightly fractured MW- 1.26(D) 9.05m-9.10m, 2× B=00,planar,rough, 9.1

9.2 SW 1.03(A) stained 9.2

9.3 9.3

9.4 9.40m, EW seam 10mm 9.4

9.5 9.5

9.6 9.54m, EW seam 2mm 9.6

9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8


10.0 10.0

10.1 10.1

10.2 10.2

10.3 10.3

10.4 10.4

10.5 10.47m, EW seam 20mm 10.5

10.6 10.6

10.7 0.39(D) 10.7

10.8 0.44(A) 10.76m, EW seam 40mm 10.8

10.9 10.85m, EW seam 10mm 10.9

11.0 10.96m, EW seam 10mm 11.0




RQD 98%

NM

LC

100%

NM

LC

100%

9.70m-10.50m, vertical joint, intact, red

staining


NM

LC

100%

R.L. Surface: 45.8m

SANDSTONE, low to medium strength, grey with

yellow brown and some red staining, moderately

weathered to slightly weathered, fractured, fine to

medium grained

7.80m-8.10m, fragmented rock zone

300mm

Datum:

RQD 9%

RQD 85%

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 5 of 6





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

11.1 11.1

11.2 0.85(D) 11.18m, J=600,irregular,rough,stained 11.2

11.3 0.37(A) 11.3

11.4 11.4

11.5 11.45m, J=450,intact,brown staining 11.5

11.6 11.6

11.7 11.7

11.8 11.80m, EW seam 10mm 11.8

11.9 As above, high strength MW- 11.84m, B=100,irregular,rough,stained 11.9

12.0 SW 11.90m, B=00,planar,rough,clean 12.0

12.1 1.35(D) 12.1

12.2 1.47(A) 12.2

12.3 12.12m, J=250,planar, rough,clean 12.3

12.4 12.4

12.5 12.50m, ironstained EW seam 20mm 12.5

12.6 12.6


12.8 12.8

12.9 SW- 12.9

13.0 Fr 13.00m, B=00,planar,rough,clean 13.0

13.1 13.1

13.2 13.2

13.3 0.51(D) 13.30m, B=100,planar,rough,clean 13.3

13.4 0.29(A) 13.4

13.5 13.5

13.6 13.55m, J=600,planar,rough,clean 13.6

13.7 13.7

13.8 13.8


14.0 14.0

14.1 SW- 14.1

14.2 Fr 0.67(D) 14.2

14.3 1.00(A) 14.30m, B=100,planar,rough,clean 14.3

14.4 14.4

14.5 14.5





RQD 100%

RQD 97%

NM

LC

100%

SANDSTONE, medium strength, grey, slightly

weathered to fresh, slightly fractured, fine to coarse

grained

NM

LC

100%

R.L. Surface: 45.8m

11.90m-12.07m, vertical

joint,intact,brown staining

Datum:

SANDSTONE, medium strength, light grey, slightly

weathered to fresh, slightly fractured, fine to coarse

grained

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH1

Sheet 6 of 6





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

14.6 As above, high strength SW- 14.56m, B=50,planar,rough,clean 14.6

14.7 Fr 14.7

14.8 14.8

14.9 2.05(D) 14.9

15.0 1.68(A) 15.0

15.1 15.1

15.2 15.2


15.4 15.4


15.6 SW 1.92(D) 15.6

15.7 1.51(A) 15.7

15.8 15.8

15.9 15.9

16.0 16.0


16.2 1.61(A) 16.2

16.3 BH1 Terminated at 16.23m 16.3

16.4 16.4

16.5 16.5

16.6 16.6

16.7 16.7

16.8 16.8

16.9 16.9

17.0 17.0

17.1 17.1

17.2 17.2

17.3 17.3

17.4 17.4

17.5 17.5

17.6 17.6

17.7 17.7

17.8 17.8

17.9 17.9

18.0 18.0




NM

LC

100%

SANDSTONE, high strength, light grey with minor

brown staining, slightly weathered, slightly fractured,

fine to coarse grained

RQD 100%


R.L. Surface: 45.8m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 1 of 4


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

0.1 Concrete Pavement - 150mm 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 CLAY, medium plasticity, dark grey with traces of gravel M 0.3

0.4 CLAY, medium to high plasticity, light brown M 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 SHALE, grey, very low to low strength, highly weathered 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



0.15m

SPT

10,11,13

N=24

CI H Fill Material

CI-CH H Natural Soil

0.60m

SHALE, grey brown, extremely to very low strength, highly weathered

1.50m

SPT

15,16,25

N=41

1.95m

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 2 of 4


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

3.6 As above 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0


6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard

Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, GladesvilleNSW

7/06/2012Surface Level: R.L 45.2 mAHD (approx.)

TC-Bit Refusal

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 3 of 4





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9


6.1 HW 6.00m-7.60m, fragmented zone 1600mm 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

7.1 7.1

7.2 7.2

7.3 7.3

7.4 7.4

7.5 7.5




NM

LC

100%

SHALE, very low to low strength, light to dark grey

with brown staining, highly weathered, fragmented to

highly fractured, thinly laminated


RQD 0%

R.L. Surface: 45.2m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 4 of 4





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

7.6 MW- 7.6

7.7 SW 7.7

7.8 7.8

7.9 7.9

8.0 7.90m-8.00m, highly fractured zone 100m 8.0



8.3 MW- 8.3

8.4 SW 8.4

8.5 1.10(D) 8.5

8.6 1.37(A) 8.60m, B=00, planar,rough,clean 8.6

8.7 8.7

8.8 8.8

8.9 0.26(D) 8.90m, B=150, planar,rough,clean 8.9

9.0 0.88(A) 9.0

9.1 9.05m-9.10m 2×B=50,planar,rough,stained 9.1

9.2 9.2

9.3 SW 9.3


9.5 0.46(A) 9.5


9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8


10.0 1.51(A) 10.0


10.2 10.2

10.3 1.18(D) 10.3

10.4 1.03(A) 10.4


10.6 10.6

10.7 10.7

10.8 10.8

10.9 10.9

11.0 11.0





RQD 56%

RQD 91%

SHALE, low strength, dark grey with minor brown

staining, moderately to slightly weathered, fractured,

thinly laminated

NM

LC

100%

SHALE, low strength, dark grey, moderately to

slightly weathered, slighlty fractured, thinly laminated

SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, grey white

with brown staining, slightly weathered, slightly

fractured, fine to coarse grained

NM

LC

100%

R.L. Surface: 45.2m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH3

Sheet 1 of 4


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

0.1 Silty CLAY, low plasticity, dark grey with traces of gravel M 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 Silty CLAY, low plasticity, dark grey M 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



0.00m CL F Topsoil / Fill Material

CL F Natural Soil0.45m

SPT 1,2,4

N=6

SHALE, grey with some ironstaining, very low to low strength, highly

weathered

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH3

Sheet 2 of 4


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

3.6 3.6

3.7 As above, low to medium strength 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9


4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



TC-Bit Resistance

TC-Bit Refusal

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH3

Sheet 3 of 4





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

3.6 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8


4.0 MW- 4.0

4.1 SW 4.1

4.2 1.71(D) 4.18m, J=150,irregular,rough,clean 4.2

4.3 1.28(A) 4.3

4.4 4.36m, EW clay seam 50mm 4.4

4.5 4.50m, J=450,irregular,rough,stained 4.5


4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 MW- 5.00m-5.40m, 4xB=50, 5.0

5.1 SW irregular,rough,stained 5.1

5.2 0.52(D) 5.2

5.3 0.62(A) 5.3

5.4 5.4


5.6 5.6

5.7 SW 5.7

5.8 5.80m-6.00m, 3xB=00, 5.8

5.9 planar,rough,stained 5.9

6.0 6.0


6.2 0.78(A) 6.2

6.3 SW 0.81(D) 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.92m-6.94m, 2xB=00, 6.9

7.0 planar,rough,clean 7.0





RQD 40%

RQD 51%

R.L. Surface: 37.7m

Datum:

SANDSTONE, medium strength, yellow brown,

slightly weathered, slightly fractured, fine to coarse

grained

NM

LC

100%

4.76m-4.90m Core Loss 140mm

NM

LC

86%

NM

LC

100%

SANDSTONE, medium strength, yellow with grey

staining, moderately to slightly weathered, highly

fractured to fractured, fine to coarse grained

SANDSTONE, medium strength, grey with yellow

staining, moderately to slightly weathered, fractured,

fine to coarse grained

RQD 91%

SANDSTONE, medium strength, grey with red

staining, slightly weathered, slighty fractured,

medium to coarse grained

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH3

Sheet 4 of 4





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

7.1 SW 7.1

7.2 7.2


7.4 0.93(A) 7.4

7.5 7.5

7.6 0.81(D) 7.52m-7.80m, 3×B=100, 7.6

7.7 1.35(A) planar,rough,clean 7.7

7.8 7.8


8.0 8.0

8.1 8.1

8.2 8.2

8.3 8.3

8.4 8.4

8.5 8.5

8.6 8.6

8.7 8.7

8.8 8.8

8.9 8.9

9.0 9.0

9.1 9.1

9.2 9.2

9.3 9.3

9.4 9.4

9.5 9.5

9.6 9.6

9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8

9.9 9.9

10.0 10.0

10.1 10.1

10.2 10.2

10.3 10.3

10.4 10.4

10.5 10.5





SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, slightly

weathered, slighlty fractured, grey, medium to

coarse grained

R.L. Surface: 37.7m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH4

Sheet 1 of 5


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

0.1 CLAY, medium to high plasticity, red brown M 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 SHALE, grey brown, extremely low strength, highly weathered 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 As above, very low to low strength 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 2.7


2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



0.00m CI-CH VSt Topsoil / Natural Soil

SPT 6,7,9

N=16

0.45m

TC-Bit Resistance

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH4

Sheet 2 of 5


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)

3.6 3.6

3.7 As above, very low to low strength 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 As above, low strength 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0


6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



Increased penetration rate

Groundwater encountered

at approximately 4.4m

TC-Bit Refusal

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH4

Sheet 3 of 5





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

3.6 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9


6.1 MW- 6.07m EW seam 10mm 6.1

6.2 SW 0.60(D) 6.14m-6.33m, 4×B=0-50, 6.2

6.3 0.65(A) planar,rough,clean 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.60m, B=0-50,planar,rough,clean 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 1.14(D) 6.9

7.0 0.68(A) 7.00m, B=0-50,planar,rough,clean 7.0




NM

LC

100%

SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, moderately

to slightly weathered, fractured to slightly fractured,

grey with yellow staining, medium to coarse grained


RQD 57%

R.L. Surface: 42.4m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH4

Sheet 4 of 5





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

7.1 7.1

7.2 7.18m-7.25m, fractured zone 70mm 7.2

7.3 1.24(D) 7.3

7.4 1.43(A) 7.4

7.5 SW- 7.5

7.6 Fr 7.52m-7.80m, 3×B=100, 7.6


7.8 7.8

7.9 7.9

8.0 8.0

8.1 8.1

8.2 8.18m, EW seam 10mm 8.2

8.3 8.3

8.4 8.4

8.5 8.5

8.6 8.6

8.7 8.7

8.8 0.88(D) 8.8

8.9 0.73(A) 8.9

9.0 9.0

9.1 9.1

9.2 9.2

9.3 9.3

9.4 9.4

9.5 9.5

9.6 9.6

9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8


10.0 1.13(A) 10.0

10.1 10.1

10.2 10.2

10.3 10.3

10.4 10.4





NM

LC

100%

NM

LC

100%

SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, grey with

minor yellow staining, slightly weathered to fresh,

slightly fractured, medium to coarse grained

RQD

100%

RQD

100%


R.L. Surface: 42.4m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH4

Sheet 5 of 5





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

10.6 SW 1.46(A) 10.6

10.7 10.7


10.9 10.9

11.0 11.0

11.1 11.1

11.2 11.2

11.3 11.30m,B=00,planar,rough,clean 11.3

11.4 11.4

11.5 11.5

11.6 1.58(D) 11.56m, J=50,planar,rough,clean 11.6

11.7 1.68(A) 11.7

11.8 11.8


12.0 12.0

12.1 12.1

12.2 12.2

12.3 12.3

12.4 12.4

12.5 12.5

12.6 12.6

12.7 12.7

12.8 12.8

12.9 12.9

13.0 13.0

13.1 13.1

13.2 13.2

13.3 13.3

13.4 13.4

13.5 13.5

13.6 13.6

13.7 13.7

13.8 13.8

13.9 13.9

14.0 14.0




100%

Recovery

RQD 100%


SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, light grey

with minor yellow staining and some brown staining,

slightly weathered, slightly fractured, medium to

coarse grained

R.L. Surface: 42.4m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH5

Sheet 1 of 3


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)


0.2 0.2

0.3 SHALE, dark grey, very low to low strength, moderately weathered 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 As above, low strength 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3


2.5 2.5


2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



0.15m

SPT

33,46

N>60

Bedrock

Groundwater encountered

at approximately 0.3m0.45m

TC-Bit Resistance

TC-Bit Refusal

Job No: GS4938/3

Hole No: BH5

Sheet 2 of 3





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4


2.6 SW 2.56m, B=50,planar,rough,clean 2.6

2.7 2.61m, EW seam 10mm 2.7

2.8 1.03(D) 2.70m, EW seam 15mm 2.8

2.9 0.91(A) 2.72m-2.90m, 5xB=100,planar,rough,clean 2.9

3.0 SW 3.0

3.1 3.05m, EW seam 5mm 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.30m, EW seam 10mm 3.3

3.4 3.42m-3.45m, 2×B=50, 3.4





RQD 75%SANDSTONE, medium to high strength, light grey

with minor yellow staining, slightly weathered,

slightly fractured, medium to coarse grainedNM

LC

100%

SHALE, medium strength, grey with minor brown

staining, slightly weathered, fractured, thinly

laminated

R.L. Surface: 37.9m

Datum:


Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH5

Sheet 3 of 3





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

3.6 As above SW 1.67(D) 3.6

3.7 1.05(A) 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.26m, EW seam 3mm 4.3

4.4 1.07(D) 4.4

4.5 1.38(A) 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 1.05(D) 5.2



5.5 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0




NM

LC

100%

RQD 98%


R.L. Surface: 37.9m

Datum:

Job No: GS4992/2-A

Hole No: BH6

Sheet 1 of 3


Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

Description Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l.D

en

sity


pth

(m)


0.2 0.2

0.3 Sandy GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, light grey D-M 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 SHALE, light grey, very low to low strength, moderately weathered 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6


1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0


2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:







H Hard



0.15m

SPT

33,46

N>60

VD Fill Material

Natural Rock0.45m

Groundwater seepage

between approx. 1.0m and

1.4m

TC-Bit Resistance

TC-Bit Refusal

Job No: GS4938/3

Hole No: BH6

Sheet 2 of 3





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9


2.1 HW 2.08m, EW seam 10mm 2.1


2.3 2.25m, EW seam 10mm 2.3

2.4 2.30m, EW seam 5mm 2.4

2.5 2.5



2.8 2.8

2.9 2.90m, EW seam 80mm 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.28m, EW seam 20mm 3.3

3.4 MW 3.36m, J=300,planar,rough,stained 3.4

3.5 3.5





R.L. Surface: 37.9m

Datum:

SANDSTONE, medium strength, grey with yellow

staining, moderately weathered, fractured to

NM

LC

100%

SHALE, low to medium strength, grey with red iron

stained bands, highly weathered, fragmented to

highly fractured

RQD 18%

Job No: GS4992-2A

Hole No: BH6

Sheet 3 of 3





Me

tho

d

Ca

se

-L

ift

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

les

/

Fie

ldT

ests

De

pth

(m)

Gra

ph

icL

og


ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

LE

stim

ate

dM H

Str

en

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

MpaA:Axial

D:Diam-

etral 30 10

0D

efe

ct

30

01

00

0S

pa

cin

g3

00

0


pth

(m)

3.5 slightly fractured, medium to coarse grained 3.5

3.6 3.58m, J=100,planar,rough,stained 3.6

3.7 3.66m, EW seam 30mm 3.7

3.8 3.76m, J=300,planar,rough,stained 3.8

3.9 3.80m, EW seam 20mm 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 0.92(D) 4.07m, EW seam 10mm 4.1

4.2 0.95(A) 4.20m, EW seam 3mm 4.2

4.3 4.30m, EW seam 4mm 4.3

4.4 SW 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 0.82(D) 4.56m, EW seam 10mm 4.6

4.7 0.93(A) 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 0.90(D) 5.1


5.3 5.3

5.4 As above, high strength SW 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 1.18(D) 5.56m, J=250,planar,rough,clean 5.6

5.7 1.10(A) 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9


6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0




RQD 100%

NM

LC

100%

Datum:

NM

LC

100%


SANDSTONE, medium strength, light grey with

minor yellow staining, slightly weathered, slightly

fractured, medium to coarse grained

RQD 75%

R.L. Surface: 37.9m

Soil Sand

Bituminous ConcreteClayey Sand

ConcreteSilty Sand

Topsoil

GravelFill

Sandy GravelPeat

ClaySedimentary Rock

Silty Clay Sandstone Coarse Grained

Silt Sandstone Fine Grained

Sandy Clay Siltstone

Gravelly Clay Laminite

Shaly Clay Shale

Clayey Silt Coal

Sandy Silt Limestone

GRAPHIC SYMBOLS FOR SOIL AND ROCK


Job No: GS4992/2-A

Core Box Photographs



Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, Gladesville NSW

July 2012

BH1: 5.0m to 16.23m


Job No: GS4992/2-A





July 2012


Job No: GS4992/2-A





July 2012

BH2: 6.0m to 10.37m


Job No: GS4992/2-A





July 2012

BH3: 3.90m to 7.80m


Job No: GS4992/2-A





July 2012

BH4: 6.0m to 11.80m


Job No: GS4992/2-A





July 2012

BH6: 2.0m to 5.89m

BH5: 2.5m to 5.36m

APPENDIX D

________________________________SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Client GSV Developments Pty LtdProject Geotechnical InvestigationLocation Corner of Cowell, Flagstaff and Massey Streets, Gladesville NSWJob No. GS4992/2-AChecked By MM

Photograph 1 Photograph 2

View along Cowell Street facing north east View of existing shopping centre facing north

Photograph 3 Photograph 4

Photograph 6Photograph 5

View from centre of basement 2 facing south west

View of existing Cowell Street car park facing west View of the driveway along No.17 Massey Street facingsouth east

View from corner of Cowell and Flagstaff Streets facingnorth

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Documents

GLADESVILLE SHOPPING VILLAGE RETAIL AND … · geotechnical investigation report gladesville shopping village retail and residential development cowell, flagstaff and massey streets,