No. 105 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill, NSW Weyand Pty Ltd · PDF filePoint Load Strength Index ... (Overhead Power Lines) ... using Bentley gINT software together with borehole explanatory

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

No. 105 Cudgegong Road

Rouse Hill, NSW

Prepared for

Weyand Pty Ltd

Reference No. ESWN-PR-2017-118

26th

June 2017

Geotechnical Engineering Services

- Geotechnical investigation

- Site classification - Geotechnical design - Excavation methodology and monitoring plans

- Footing inspections - Slope stability analysis - Landslide risk assessment

- Environmental Investigation

ESWNMAN PTY LTD ABN 70 603 089 630

PO Box 6, Ashfield NSW 1800

Telephone +61 2 7901 5582 Email [email protected] http://www.eswnman.com.au

mailto:[email protected]

Page 2 of 23

No. 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW 2155 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2017-118

Geotechnical Investigation Report 26th June 2017

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

Revision Details Date Amended By

00 Original 26/06/2017

©ESWNMAN Pty Ltd (ESWNMAN) [2014].

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the

information) is the property of ESWNMAN Pty Ltd. This document and the information

are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and may not be used, copied or reproduced

in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by ESWNMAN.

ESWNMAN makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to

any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

Author: Jiameng Li ......................................................

Signed: ........................................................................

Date: 26/06/2017 ......................................................

Page 3 of 23



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Available Information .................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Proposed Development................................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................. 7

2. SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 8

3. LOCAL GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 9

4. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 9

4.1 Pre-fieldwork ............................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Borehole Drilling .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) Test ..................................................................................... 10

4.4 Laboratory Test ......................................................................................................................... 10

5. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... 10

5.1 Surface Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 10

5.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................... 10

5.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 11

5.4 Laboratory Test ......................................................................................................................... 12

6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................ 13

6.1 Site Characterisation and Classifications .................................................................................. 14

6.2 Excavation Conditions ............................................................................................................... 14

6.3 Excavation Support / Stability of Basement Excavation ........................................................... 15

6.4 Earth Retaining Structures ........................................................................................................ 16

6.5 Foundations ................................................................................................................................ 18

6.6 Salinity Assessment .................................................................................................................... 19

6.7 Groundwater Management ........................................................................................................ 20

6.8 Earthworks and Material Reuse ................................................................................................ 20

6.9 Preliminary Comments on Pavement Subgrade........................................................................ 21

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 22

8. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 23

Page 4 of 23



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of Subsurface Conditions 11

Table 2 - Results of Laboratory Test on Soil Samples 13

Table 3 - Recommended Safe Excavation Batters 16

Table 4 - Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 17

Table 5 - Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 17

Table 6 - Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Parameters 19

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS AND EXPLAINATORY NOTES

APPENDIX D CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E RESULTS OF POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX (PLSI) TEST

APPENDIX F RESULTS OF LABORATORY TEST

APPENDIX G LIMITATIONS OF GEOETCHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Page 5 of 23



REFERENCES

1. Australian Standard – AS 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigation.

2. Australian Standard – AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings.

3. Australian Standard – AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation.

4. Australian Standard – AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and

Residential Developments.

5. Australian Standard – AS 1170.4-2007 Structural Design Actions – Part 4:

Earthquake actions in Australia.

6. „NSW WorkCover: Code of Practice – Excavation‟ March 2000.

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

Sydney Region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998.

8. Austroads – “Pavement Design – A Guide to the Structural Design of Road

Pavements”, 2004.

9. Sydney Water, “Technical Guidelines for Building over and adjacent to Pipe Assets”,

October 2015.

10. Groundwater Management Information - Fact Sheet 1: Groundwater and the Sydney

Coastal Region.

11. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), “Western

Sydney Salinity Code of Practice”, March 2003 (Amended January 2004).

Page 6 of 23



1. INTRODUCTION

ESWNMAN Pty Ltd (ESWNMAN) was commissioned by Weyand Pty Ltd to undertake a

geotechnical investigation at No. 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW 2155 in a

Professional Services Agreement referenced ESWN-PP-2017-113 Rev A and dated 18th

April 2017. The site investigation was carried out on the 29th of May 2017.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the feasibility of the site in geotechnical

prospective for a proposed residential development.

This report presents results of the geotechnical investigation, interpretation of test results,

and geotechnical assessment, and provides comments on geotechnical related issues and

recommendations for the proposed development.

1.1 Available Information

The following information was provided to ESWNMAN prior to the fieldwork:

Architectural drawings titled “Residential Development, 105 Cudgegong Road,

Rouse Hill” prepared by Dreamscapes Architects, referenced Project No. 17003,

drawing nos. A101, A201 and A213 inclusive, A310, A311, A320 & A321, dated

6th June 2017; and

A survey plan titled “Plan of Detail & Levels over Lot 80 in D.P. 208203 Known as

No. 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill” prepared by Mepstead & Associates,

referenced drawing No. 5442-DET1_A, Issue A and dated 16th March 2016.

1.2 Proposed Development

The design drawings provided indicated that the proposed development will include the

demolition of existing building at 105 Cudgegong Road and construction of the following:

Subdivision of site into three blocks, identified as Lots A, B & C;

Proposed four storey residential building with two basement levels in Lot A;

Proposed four storey residential building with one & two basement levels in Lot B;

Proposed roads within the site.

The site is bounded by the following properties and infrastructure:

East: Carriageway and road reserve of Cudgegong Road;

South: Adjoining property at 95 Cudgegong Road;

Page 7 of 23



West: Adjoining properties at 84 Tallawong Road, and 100 Macquarie Road; and

North: A two storey brick house at Lot 81 in DP 208203.

Based on existing ground elevations as indicated in a survey plan and proposed Finished

Basement Floor Levels (FFLs), the following depths of excavation are expected:

Lot A: Proposed FFL of RL61.000m for Lower Ground Level and RL58.000m for

Basement Level for building block A, the excavation depth is estimated to be

between 3.0m and 6.0m approximately;

Lot B: Proposed FFLs of RL62.000m for Basement Level 2 and RL64.750m for

Basement Level 2 for building block B, the excavation depth is estimated to be

between 3.0m and 7.0m approximately.

The following approximate setbacks were proposed from the basement wall:

21.5m from existing electricity transmission easement to the east;

6.0m from site southern boundary;

15.1m from site western boundary; and

15m from site northern boundary.

1.3 Scope of Work

The geotechnical investigation involved machine drilling of four boreholes using Han-Jin

8D type drilling rig and supervised by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from

ESWNMAN, including the following:

Collection and review of Dial-Before-You-Dig (DBYD) plans;

A site walkover to assess site accessibility and surface conditions, identify relevant

site features and nominate borehole locations;

Drilling of four boreholes, identified as BH1 and BH4 inclusive, using Han-Jin 8D

type drilling rig;

Performing of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) within soils to determine strength

of the materials encountered;

Geotechnical logging of rocks and soils retrieved from boreholes by an experienced

Geotechnical Engineer;

Collection of soil and rock samples during drilling;

Reinstatement of site with soil cuttings from boreholes;

Page 8 of 23



Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) Test on selected rock core samples;

Laboratory test undertaken by a NATA accredited laboratory, including Salinity

classification (Electrical Conductivity), aggressivity test (pH, Sulfate and Chloride),

and Exposure Classification.

The approximate locations of boreholes completed are shown on a site location plan as

included in Appendix A of this report.

Selected site photographs recorded during site investigation are provided in Appendix B.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located within Blacktown City Council area, approximately 35km to the

northwest of Sydney CBD, approximately 3.1km to the northeast of Schofields Railway

Station and Blacktown-Richmond Railway Line, 600m to the west of Rouse Hill Regional

Park, and approximately 320m to the north of an unnamed tributary of the First Ponds

Creek.

The site is a rectangular-shaped land identified as Lot 80 in Development Plan (DP)

208203, with an approximate area of 2.023 hectares.

The existing building consists of a two-storey brick house. During site investigation, no

information was available on the foundation type of the existing building at the subject site.

However, based on our observations, it is inferred the existing building is likely to be

supported by shallow type foundations.

Based on the survey plan referenced in Section 1.1, the site the highest ground being at an

elevation of RL70.0m within middle portion of the site where the existing building is

located. Ground slopes slightly towards the southwest and the east. The ground elevations

vary approximately between RL60.50m and RL61.78m along the site western boundary, to

approximately between RL59.60m and RL62.0m along the site eastern boundary.

The information provided and our site observation, a 30.48m wide existing electricity

transmission easement (Overhead Power Lines) is present within the front portion of the

site and runs in a northwest-southeast direction.

Selected site photographs recorded during site investigation are provided in Appendix B.

Page 9 of 23



3. LOCAL GEOLOGY

Reference to the Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 (Edition 1), dated 1991,

by the Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Minerals and Energy,

indicates the site is located within an area underlain by Triassic Age Bingelly Shale (Rwb)

of the Wianamatta Group. The Bringelly Shale is described as “Shale, carbonaceous

claystone, claystone, laminate, fine to medium-grained lithic sandstone, rare coal and tuff”.

Results of the investigation provided in Section 5.2 confirmed the published geology.

4. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION

4.1 Pre-fieldwork

Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, a site Safety Work Method Statement (SWMS)

was prepared, which identifies potential hazards associated with Occupational Health,

Safety and Environment aspects of the fieldwork and various control measures to be

implemented to mitigate the hazards, which are likely to encounter on site during execution

of fieldwork.

A „Dial Before You Dig‟ (DBYD) underground services search, which forms a part of the

SWMS, was also conducted with plans reviewed prior to the mobilisation.

4.2 Borehole Drilling

A total of four(4) boreholes were completed during site investigation. Boreholes BH1, BH2,

BH3 and BH4 were drilled to an approximate final depth of 4.6m, 5.0m, 7.0m and 9.0m

respectively below the existing ground level (BGL) using Tungsten Carbide (TC) Bit

technique and followed by rock coring using NMLC technique. To protect the hole from

collapse during rock coring using drilling water in boreholes BH3 and BH4, casings were

therefore installed to the bottom of augered holes.

The borehole locations are shown in Appendix A. Engineering logs of boreholes processed

using Bentley gINT software together with borehole explanatory notes are presented in

Appendix C. The rock core photographs are attached in Appendix D of this report.

Page 10 of 23



4.3 Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) Test

Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) Tests are used to obtain the estimates of rock strength

and may be related to Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) by an appropriate

correlation. The tests were conducted in both axial and diametrical directions.

A total of six (6) core samples were selected for PLSI tests. The test results are shown on

borehole logs and provided in Appendix E of this report.

4.4 Laboratory Test

Soil samples was also taken within a depth between 2.0m and 3.0m BGL in borehole BH3

during drilling. The soil samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for

undertaking the following tests:

Electrical Conductivity (Salinity);

Aggressivity test (pH, Sulfate and Chloride); and

Exposure classification.

The results of laboratory test are attached in Appendix F of this report.

5. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

5.1 Surface Conditions

During site investigation, apart from existing building, a concrete tank, a gravel driveway

and an overhead transmission line easement, the remainder of the site was covered with

grass and shrubs. A number of young and mature trees were present within the site.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes BH1 to BH4 are shown on the

Engineering Borehole Logs in Appendix C. Based on borehole information, the subsurface

conditions encountered at testing locations consisted of the following:

Residual Soils (Unit 1): Silty CLAY, low to medium plasticity, brown and red

mottled brown, dry to moist, stiff to very stiff, with a 0.2m - 0.3m thick topsoil,

extending approximately to 2.3m, 1.6m, 1.5m and 3.0m BGL; overlying

Page 11 of 23



Class V Shale (Unit 2): brown, extremely weathered, extremely low and low

strength, extending to TC-bit refusal at approximate depth of approximately 4.6m,

5.0m, 3.0m and 6.1m BGL in boreholes BH1 and BH4 inclusive; overlying

Class IV Shale (Unit 3): light grey, moderately weathered, medium strength,

extending approximately to between 3.4m and 7.0m BGL at boreholes BH3 and

BH4 respectively; overlying

Class III Siltstone and Shale (Unit 4): light grey, slightly weathered, medium to

high strength, based on results of laboratory test and rock cores recovered from

boreholes BH3 & BH4.

Classification of the rock was carried out in accordance with the guidelines provided by

Pells et al (Reference 7).

The subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes BH1 to BH4 during site investigation

are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Geotechnical Unit and Description Depth and RL at Top of Unit

BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

ID Unit Description Depth

(m, BGL)

RL

(m, AHD)

Depth

(m, BGL)

RL

(m, AHD)

Depth

(m, BGL)

RL

(m, AHD)

Depth

(m, BGL)

RL

(m, AHD)

Unit 1

Residual Soils: silty

CLAY, stiff to very

stiff

0 62.2 0 63.1 0 69.1 0 66.7

Unit 2 Class V SHALE, EW,

EL- L 2.3 59.9 1.6 61.5 1.5 67.6 3.0 63.7

Unit 3 Class IV SHALE, MW,

M 4.6 57.6 5.0 58.1 3.0 66.1 6.1 60.6

Unit 4 Class III SILTSTONE

& SHALE, SW, M-H Unconfirmed Unconfirmed 3.4 65.7 7.0 59.7

Notes: RL – Reduced Level; EW – Extremely weathered; MW – Moderately weathered; SW – Slightly weathered; EL – Extremely low strength; L – Low strength; M – Medium strength, H – High strength.

5.3 Groundwater

(a) General

Based on Fact Sheet 1: Groundwater and the Sydney Coastal Region (Reference 10),

groundwater is the water contained within rocks and sediments below the ground surface in

the saturated zone. Groundwater sources are divided into four broad hydrogeological types:

Alluvium: unconsolidated sediments

Page 12 of 23



Coastal sand: unconsolidated sediments, such as Botany sand.

Porous rock: Hawkesbury Sandstone Formation and Narrabeen Group sandstone

Fractured rock: Wianamatta Group shale: Ashfield Shale & Bringelly Shale.

We assessed that the groundwater within the site is likely to be phreatic water sourced from

fractured rock in Bringelly Shale, which relies on the conditions and interconnectivity of

fractures/defects within rock formation.

(b) Groundwater conditions

No groundwater was encountered in boreholes during drilling using augering technique up

to 4.6m, 5.0m, 3.0m and 6.1m BGL respectively in borehole BH1 and BH4 inclusive,

where dry drilled material was recovered from bottom of holes prior to rock coring.

Measurement of seepage or water levels during core drilling below depths achieved by

augering was not possible due to the introduction of water required for rock coring.

It is inferred that natural groundwater level or phreatic surface may be deeper at this site

and likely present within fractures/defects in the rock, including apertures, joints or other

natural defects within the underlying siltstone and shale.

During basement excavation, minor seepage or water inflow may occur within interface of

soils and rocks and fractures/defects of rock if it encounters an intense and prolonged

rainfall event.

5.4 Laboratory Test

During the investigation, the soil samples were obtained from borehole BH3. The samples

were tested for determination of salinity and aggressivity parameters by a NATA

accredited laboratory. The laboratory test report is attached in Appendix F and results of

test are summarised in Table 2 overleaf.

Page 13 of 23



Table 2: Results of Laboratory Test on Soil Samples

Borehole BH3 (GW1) pH Chloride

(mg/kg)

Sulphate as SO4

(mg/kg)

Electrical

Conductivity

EC* (dS/m)

BH3-1 4.9 540 110 0.46

Exposure Classification1 Mildly aggressive -

Salinity - No-saline2

Note: 1 – “Soil condition B – low permeability soils (e.g. silts and clays) or all soils above groundwater”

adopted for this site in accordance with AS2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation; 2 - Classification of soil salinity based on Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 1994 &

Dryland Salinity: Productive Use of Saline Land and Water as below:

Class Salinity Class ECe* (dS/m) Comments

No-saline 0 <2 Possible waterlogging

Slightly saline 1 2 – 4 Some salt tolerant species (e.g. sea barley

grass) but no bare patches

Moderately saline 2 4 – 8 Small bare patches

Very saline 3 8 – 16 Large bare areas

Highly saline 4 >16

*ECe calculated from EC by applying a multiplication factor between 7 to 17.

6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS

The main geotechnical aspects associated with the proposed development are assessed to

include the following:

Site classifications;

Excavation conditions;

Stability of basement excavation and shoring/support;

Earth retaining structures;

Foundations;

Earthworks and material reuse;

Salinity assessment;

Groundwater management; and

Preliminary comments on pavement design.

The assessment of the geotechnical aspects on the above and recommendations for the

proposed development are presented in the following sections.

Page 14 of 23



6.1 Site Characterisation and Classifications

(a) Site characterisation

In accordance with AS2159-2009 (Reference 3), the results of soil aggressivity test

presented in Table 2 indicate that the exposure classifications of tested soil samples may be

classified as “Mildly-aggressive” to concrete and steel elements.

(b) Site reactivity classification

Based on the site soil profile, proposed development and the criteria specified in AS2870 –

2011 (Reference 2), the site can be assessed as Class M – Moderately reactive clay or silt

sites, which may experience moderate ground movement from moisture changes. However,

during basement excavation, residual soils (Unit 1) and Class V Shale (Unit 2) will be

excavated and the footing systems at basement floor level will be founded predominately

within Class IV or better rock and protected from becoming extremely wet. Therefore, it

can be classified as Class A or Class S and may be treated as “non-reactive” site for the

proposed development.

(c) Site earthquake classification

The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of residual cohesive soils,

underlain by Class V Shale or better rock. In accordance with Australian Standard

AS1170.4-2007(Reference 5), the site sub-soil may be classified as a “Rock Site” (Class

Be) for design of foundations and retaining walls. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Rouse Hill in

accordance with AS1170.4 is considered to be 0.08.

6.2 Excavation Conditions

It is anticipated that construction excavation will include excavation of basement, driveway

ramp, proposed roads, footing areas and lift shafts, and trenches for underground pipelines.

Based on information provided in Section 1.1, excavation depths within proposed basement

area are expected to vary between 3.0m and 7.0m BGL approximately within footprints of

proposed basement and/or lower ground levels. The results of the geotechnical site

investigation indicate basement excavation for proposed buildings will likely be within

Residual Soils (Unit 1), Class V Shale (Unit 2), Class IV Shale (Unit 3) and minor Class III

Siltstone & Shale (Unit 4). Medium and high strength siltstone and shale is likely to be

Page 15 of 23



encountered during excavation of basement level in vicinity of borehole BH3, which is

located within middle portion of the site.

Excavation of residual soils and Class V Shale will be typically feasible using conventional

earthmoving equipment. Excavation of low strength Class IV Shale may be feasible with

conventional earthmoving equipment and ripping equipment. Medium strength and less

fractured Class IV Shale & medium to high strength Class III Siltstone & Shale would

require heavy ripping and rock breaking equipment or vibratory rock breaking equipment.

6.3 Excavation Support / Stability of Basement Excavation

(a) Shallow Excavation (i.e. <1.5 m in Depth)

The excavations should be benched in accordance with the „NSW WorkCover: Code of

Practice – Excavation‟ March 2000.

Temporary excavations through the underlying residual soils to a maximum depth of 1.5m,

may be excavated near vertical provided that:

They are barricaded when not in use;

They are not left open for more than 24 hours;

No surcharge loading is applied within 1.5m of the edge of the excavation;

No groundwater flows are encountered; and

They are not used for access by a worker.

Where access is required for workers, the temporary excavation batters should be re-graded

to no steeper than 2 Horizontal (H) to 1 Vertical (V) for the fill above the natural

groundwater level, or supported by suitable temporary shoring measures. Any permanent

excavation (or filling) greater than 0.5m in height should be retained by a permanent

retaining wall to be designed based on the recommendation provided in Section 6.4 of this

report.

(b) Deep Excavations (i.e. >1.5 m in Depth)

If required, any excavation batters in soils and/or rocks greater than 1.5 m in depth, the

temporary safe batters for excavated slopes in Table 3 overleaf can be adopted under dry

conditions:

Page 16 of 23



Table 3: Recommended Safe Excavation Batters1

Geotechnical Unit3

Maximum Batter Angle

Temporary Permanent

Residual Soils (Unit 1) 1.5H:1V 2H:1V

Class V Shale (Unit 2) 1H:2.5V to Sub-vertical

2

with shotcrete2

1H:2.5V to Sub-vertical2

with rock bolts combined with reinforced shotcrete

Class IV Shale (Unit 3) Vertical with shotcrete Vertical with shotcrete2

Class III Siltstone & Shale (Unit 4) Vertical, self-supporting Vertical, self-supporting2

Notes: 1 - Typical temporary batters of excavated slopes (Hoerner, 1990). Assume no surcharge on top of

cutting batter and no major adjoining structures. Excavation using benching technique can be adopted. 2 – Reinforced shotcrete and/or rock bolts may be required for vertical or sub-vertical cut slope in this

unit subject to assessment by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer during excavation. 3 – Approximate RLs at top of unit and rock classification refers to Table 1.

Based on proposed setbacks and approximate excavation depths provided in Section 1.2,

we assessed basement excavation using safe batters recommended in Table 3 would be

feasible for the proposed development.

However, due to some reasons, if excavation using batter slopes are not practical or

possible, other options to shore and support the excavation and control lateral ground

movement may be considered subject to assessment by the project Structural Engineer in

consultation with the project Geotechnical Engineer include the following:

Soil nail wall system; or

Soldier pile wall shoring system.

Earth retention structures can be designed using the recommended parameters provided in

Section 6.4.

During basement excavation, observations and recording on conditions of exposed faces

should be carried out by the project Geotechnical Engineer, so that loose materials or weak

rock within the excavated rock face can be identified and treated as appropriate.

Inspections of the excavation faces/shoring measures by a Geotechnical Engineer during

construction will be required.

6.4 Earth Retaining Structures

If an earth retaining structure is adopted, it should be designed to withstand the applied

lateral pressures of the subsurface layers, the surcharges in their zone of influence,

Page 17 of 23



including loading from existing structures, construction machinery, traffic and construction

related activities. The design of retaining structures should also take into consideration

hydrostatic pressures and lateral earthquake loads as appropriate.

The recommended preliminary parameters for the design of retaining structures are

presented in Tables 4 and 5 below. The coefficients provided are based on drained

conditions.

Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls

Geotechnical Unit

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Effective

Cohesion

c (kPa)

Angle of

Effective

Internal Friction

(degree)

Modulus of

Elasticity

Es (h) (MPa)

Poisson’s

Ratio ()

Residual Soils (Unit 1) 18 5 27 20 0.35

Class V Shale (Unit 2) 22 40 28 100 0.35

Class IV Shale (Unit 3) 24 80 28 250 0.30

Class III Siltstone & Shale

(Unit 4) 24 150 32 400 0.20

Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Geotechnical Unit

Coefficient of

Active Lateral

Earth Pressure

(Ka)

Coefficient of

Lateral Earth

Pressure at Rest

(Ko)

Coefficient of

Passive Lateral

Earth Pressure

(Kp)

Residual Soils (Unit 1) 0.38 0.55 2.7

Class V Shale (Unit 2) 0.36 0.53 2.8

Class IV Shale (Unit 3) 0.36 0.53 2.8

Class III Siltstone & Shale (Unit 4) 0.31 0.47 3.3

The coefficients of lateral earth pressure should be verified by the project Structural

Engineer prior to use in the design of retaining walls. Simplified calculations of lateral

active (or at rest) and passive earth pressures can be carried out using Rankine‟s equation

shown below:

√ For calculation of Lateral Active or At Rest Earth Pressure

√ For calculation of Passive Earth Pressure

Where:

Pa = Active (or at rest) Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

Page 18 of 23



= Bulk density (kN/m3)

K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)

Kp = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure

H = Retained height (m)

c = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)

For design of soils nails or temporary ground anchors, the allowable bond stress of 20kPa,

40kPa, 120kPa and 200kPa can be adopted within Residual Soils (Unit 1), Class V Shale

(Unit 2), Class IV Shale (Unit 3), and Class III Shale (Unit 4) respectively. The following

is recommended for the anchor design:

Anchor bond length of at least 3m behind the “active” zone of the excavation;

Overall stability of anchor system and interaction is satisfactory; and

The anchors are proof loaded to at least 1.3 times the design working load before

locking off at working load.

6.5 Foundations

Based on proposed elevation of basement and ground profile encountered in the boreholes,

basement floor slabs are likely to be founded predominantly in Class IV Shale (Unit 3) or

better rock.

We assessed that a foundation system consisting of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete shallow

foundations, such as pad or strip footings under columns and walls, would be applicable for

the proposed development at this site.

Installation of piles is expected to be required in case of large axial loads on columns and

walls and exceeding the bearing pressure of the bearing stratum. Other cases where piles

may be required include the need to increase the stiffness of the founding rock, or increase

the resistance against lateral seismic loads. Piles are expected to be socketed into

underlying Class III Siltstone & Shale or better rock. Bored piles would be applicable for

this site.

Preliminary geotechnical capacities and parameters recommended for design of shallow

and piled foundations are provided in Table 6 overleaf.

Page 19 of 23



Table 6: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities and Parameters

Geotechnical Unit Allowable End Bearing

Pressure (kPa1)

Allowable Shaft

Adhesion

Compression2 (kPa)

Modulus of

Elasticity,

Es,v (MPa)

Residual Soils (Unit 1) 150 (Shallow footing) 40 20

Class V Shale (Unit 2) 500 (shallow footing)

700 (piles) 50 150

Class IV Shale (Unit 3) 1000 (shallow footing)

1500 (piles) 150 300

Class III Siltstone & Shale

(Unit 4)

3000 (shallow footing)

3500 (piles) 300 500

1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for piled foundations and 0.3m for shallow foundations. 2 Shaft Adhesion applicable to piles only. 3 N/A, Not Applicable or not recommended for the proposed development. 4 The actual depth of underlying Class V Shale to Class III Shale should be confirmed during construction.

Design of shallow and pile foundations should be carried out in accordance with Australian

Standards AS2870-2011 (Reference 2) and AS2159-2009 (Reference 3) respectively.

To minimise the potential effects of differential settlement under the buildings loads, it is

recommended all foundations of the proposed building should be founded on consistent

materials of similar properties or rock of similar class.

Excavations of shallow foundation may need to be dewatered if seepages or surface runoff

are present within excavated pits/trenches, in particular when intense and prolonged

rainfall occurs. Any loose debris and wet material should be removed from excavations.

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should be engaged to inspect footing excavations

and construction to ensure foundation bases have suitable materials with adequate bearing

capacity, and to check the adequacy of footing embedment depth or pile socket length.

Verification of embedment depth/socket length, founding material and bearing capacity of

foundation material by inspections would be required and inspections should constitute as

“Hold Points”.

6.6 Salinity Assessment

Based on results of laboratory tests, the electrical conductivity (EC) of water sample may

be classified as “No-saline” in accordance with Dryland Salinity (1993).

In accordance with Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice (Reference 11), a site which

is located within an area of “No-saline” may seem to have negligible or very low potential

to create a salinity problem on the site.

Page 20 of 23



6.7 Groundwater Management

The observations summarised in Section 5.3(b) indicate no groundwater during drilling up

to a depth of 6.1m BGL. We assessed that during basement excavation the potential to

occur large amount of inflow/seepage through soils, interface of soils and rocks, and

through joints within siltstone/shale is very minor.

Nevertheless, it would be prudent at this stage of the design to allow for precautionary

drainage measures in the design and construction of the proposed development. Such

measures would include the following:

Strip drains or drainage materials should be installed behind the shoring/retaining

walls.

Collection trenches or pipes and pits connected to the building stormwater system.

A stormwater storage tank and pump system may be required.

The basement walls and floor maybe designed and constructed with water-tight

construction joints.

The basement walls and slabs should be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures

taking into consideration the potential for seepage.

Seepage or subsurface runoff inside the excavated foundation pits or pile holes

should be removed prior to pouring of concrete.

During intense and prolonged rainfall period, basement excavations would typically require

a temporary sump pit within the site to collect and remove any surface water or seepage

that may occur.

With the recommended procedures and precautionary mitigation measures described

above, the potential impacts of the proposed development on surrounding properties and

road are expected to be negligible.

6.8 Earthworks and Material Reuse

Based on the information provided on the proposed development, it is anticipated that

earthworks may involve the following:

Excavation within basement areas and driveway ramps;

Excavation within structural footings areas and lift shafts;

Cut/fill for proposed roads;

Page 21 of 23



Excavation and backfilling during installation of underground pipes; and

Subgrade preparation for footpath and pavement areas.

The excavated materials from excavation are assessed to be generally suitable for

landscaping provided they are free of any contaminants.

The suitability of the excavated materials for engineering fill should be subject to satisfying

the following criteria:

The materials should be clean (i.e. free of contaminants, deleterious or organic

material), free of inclusions of >75mm in size, high plasticity material be removed

and suitably conditioned to meet the design assumptions where fill material is

proposed to be used.

The materials should satisfy the Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on

Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments (Reference 4).

The final surface levels of all excavation and filling areas should be compacted in order to

achieve an adequate strength for subgrade.

For the fill construction, the recommended compaction targets should be the following:

Moisture content of ±2% of OMC (Optimal Moisture Content);

Minimum density ratio of 100% of MDD (Maximum Dry Density) for filling

within building/structural foundation areas;

Minimum density ratio of 98% of MDD for backfilling surrounding the pipes

within trenches;

The loose thickness of layer should not exceed 150mm for cohesive soils and

250mm for cohesionless soils; and

For the footpath and pavement areas, minimum density ratio of 95% of MDD for

general fill and 98% for the subgrade to 0.5m depth.

Design and construction of earthworks should be carried out in accordance with Australian

Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 4).

6.9 Preliminary Comments on Pavement Subgrade

It is recommended that pavement can be designed on a CBR value of 5% on stiff residual

soils or medium dense granular subgrade.

Page 22 of 23



Any loose or soft materials that may be present during construction, as confirmed by a site

inspection and in-situ testing, should be either removed or improved by compaction in

order to increase the strength of the material. The final levels of subgrade should be

tested/proof rolled and inspected by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer.

Pavement design should be carried out in accordance with “Pavement Design – A Guide to

the Structural Design of Road Pavements” (Reference 8) and should be complemented by

the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage.

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the geotechnical investigation and assessment for this site indicate the

ground conditions are suitable for the proposed development. A foundation system

consisting of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete shallow foundations, such as pad or strip

footings, would be applicable for the proposed development at this site. Piles are expected

to be required in case of large axial loads on columns and walls and exceeding the bearing

pressure of the bearing stratum or other cases as discussed in Section 6.5. Bored piles

would be suitable for this site.

Based on results of laboratory tests, the site may be classified as “No-saline” and “Mildly

aggressive” to concrete and steel elements in terms of exposure classification.

The construction excavation, excavation safe batters/shoring/support, and drainage works

should be implemented in accordance with the recommendations provided in Sections 6.2,

6.3, 6.4 and 6.7 of this report.

It is recommended that an experienced Geotechnical Engineer should be engaged to inspect

foundation excavations to ensure the foundation base have been taken to suitable materials

of appropriate bearing capacity and adequate embedment depth/socket length.

We assessed that the proposed development will have negligible impacts arising from

salinity issue.

It is recommended the final civil and structural design drawings for the proposed

development should be provided to us for further assessment and confirmation of suitable

mitigation measures, foundation system, bearing capacity of founding material and

embedment depth, retaining walls and drainage systems.

Page 23 of 23



8. LIMITATIONS

This report should be read in conjunction with the “Limitations of Geotechnical

Investigation Statement” attached as Appendix G, which provides important information

regarding geotechnical investigation, assessment and reporting. If the actual subsurface

conditions exposed during construction vary significantly from those discussed in this

report, this report should be reviewed and further consultation and advices from

ESWNMAN are necessary.

For and on behalf of

ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

Jiameng Li

BE (Civil), MEngSc (Geotechnical), MIEAust, CPEng, NER Principal Geotechnical Engineer

ESWNMAN PTY LTD PO Box 6, Ashfield NSW 1800 M: +61 421 678 797 E: [email protected] http://www.eswnman.com.au

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX A

___________________________________

SITE LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT: 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW DRAWN BY: J.L.

CLIENT: Weyand Pty Ltd

PROJECT NO: ESWN-PR-2017-118 DATE: 26th June 2017

TITLE:

Site Location Plan Figure 1

SITE BOUNDARY

No. 7-9

N

No. 1

No. 32

No. 2-4

No. 6

Lot 81 in DP 208203

BH1

BH2

No. 105

Cudgegong Road

No. 3

No. 5

No. 36

No. 18

No. 8

BH1(GW1)

LEGEND Approximate Location of Borehole (BH) Image Source: Architectural drawings titled “Residential Development, 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill” prepared by Dreamscapes Architects, referenced Project No. 17003, drawing no. A101,and dated 6th June 2017

No. 95

Cudgegong Road

BH3

Proposed Development

BH4

BH2

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX B

___________________________________

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

26th

June 2017

Ref: ESWN-PR-2017-118 No.105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW 2155

Geotechnical Investigation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

© ESWNMAN PTY LTD

Photograph 1 Front entry to No. 105 Cudgegong Road facing southwest

Photograph 2 Drilling at location of borehole BH1

Photograph 3 No indication of groundwater from drilling spoils

when augering to 4.6m depth

Photograph 4 View of existing building facing northwest

Photograph 5 Drilling at location of borehole BH3 (rock coring)

Photograph 6 Drilling at location of borehole BH4 showing no indication of

groundwater up to 6.1m depth

Appendix B Site Photographs

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX C

___________________________________

ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS

AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

AS

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

SPT6, 40/120mm

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE

TC refusal at 4.6m depth

CL Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red mottled brown, moist, stiff to very stiff. Topsoil at0-0.2m depth.

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low strength.

Borehole BH1 terminated at 4.6m

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests

RemarksAdditional Observations

BOREHOLE NUMBER BH1PAGE 1 OF 1

COMPLETED 29/5/17DATE STARTED 29/5/17

DRILLING CONTRACTOR BG Drilling Pty Ltd

LOGGED BY J.L. CHECKED BY J.L.

NOTES RL top of borehole is approximate

HOLE LOCATION Refer to Figure 1EQUIPMENT Han-Jin 8D

HOLE SIZE 110mm Diameter

R.L. SURFACE 62.2 DATUM m AHD

SLOPE 90° BEARING ---

CLIENT Weyand Pty Ltd

PROJECT NUMBER ESWN-PR-2017-118

PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation

PROJECT LOCATION 105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW

BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1

7ESWNMAN PTY LTDPO Box 6Ashfield NSW 1800Telephone: 0279015582

RL(m)

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l Material Description

Gra

phic

Log

AS

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

SPT7, 15, 22/100mm

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE


CL Silty CLAY, low plasticity, brown, dry to moist, trace gravel, stiff to very stiff. Topsoil at0-0.15m depth.

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low to low strength.

Borehole BH2 terminated at 5m

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests















BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1


RL(m)

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo


Gra

phic

Log

AS

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

SPT4, 18, 13/40mm

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE


CL Silty CLAY, low plasticity, brown, dry, trace shale gravel, stiff to very stiff.


- Casing installed to 3.0m depth during NMLC coring.Borehole BH3 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests















BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1


RL(m)

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo


Gra

phic

Log

HW

MWSW

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

- CORE LOSS

- DB

- DB- J, P, S, 0°- B, P, S, 0°

- B, P, S, 0°- J, Ir, R, 15-20°

- J, P, S, 0°

- J, P, S, 10°- J, P, R, 5°

- J, Ir, R, 5°- J, P, S, 0°, iron stain

- J, P, R, 0-5°

- DB- J, Ir, R, 0-5°

- J,P, R, 5°, iron stain

- 2xJ, P, S, 0°

NM

LC

A1.61

A0.85

A1.48

D3.41

D1

D1.52

088

CORE LOSS

SILTSTONE, light grey

SHALE, grey.

SILTSTONE, light grey

SHALE, greySILTSTONE, light grey

SHALE, grey

Continued from non-cored borehole

BH3 terminated at 7m

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1


Material Description

RL(m)

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gra

phic

Log

AS

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE


CL Silty CLAY, low plasticity, brown, dry to moist, trace gravel, stiff to very stiff. Topsoil at0-0.3m depth.


- sandstone band at 3.3m depth

- Casing installed to 6.0m depth during NMLC coring.Borehole BH4 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests















BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1


RL(m)

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo


Gra

phic

Log

HW

MW

SW

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

- CORE LOSS

- J, Ir, R, 5-10°- DB

- B, P, S, 0°- 2xJ, P, S, 0°- J, P, S, 15-20°

- B, P, S, 0°

- J, P, S, 0-5°

- 2xB, P, S, 0°

- B, P, S, 0°- J, P, R, 0°- B, P, S, 0°- B, P, S, 0°

- DB

NM

LC

A0.55

A1.51

A0.78

D0.08

D1.53

D0.66

075

CORE LOSS

SILTSTONE, light grey - shale band at 6.5m-6.6m

- shale band at 6.82m - shale bands at 6.94-6.96m

SHALE, grey

Continued from non-cored borehole

BH4 terminated at 9m

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

ES

WN

-PR

-201

7-11

8.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AU

ST

RA

LIA

.GD

T 6

/6/1


Material Description

RL(m)

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gra

phic

Log

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd 1

Explanatory Notes – Description for Soil In engineering terms soil includes every type of uncemented or partially cemented inorganic material found in the ground. In practice, if the material can be remoulded by

hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a soil. The dominant soil constituent is given in capital letters, with secondary textures in lower case. The dominant

feature is assessed from the Unified Soil Classification system and a soil symbol is used to define a soil layer .

METHOD

Method Description

AS Auger Screwing

BH Backhoe

CT Cable Tool Rig

EE Existing Excavation/Cutting

EX Excavator

HA Hand Auger

HQ Diamond Core-63mm

JET Jetting

NMLC Diamond Core –52mm

NQ Diamond Core –47mm

PT Push Tube

RAB Rotary Air Blast

RB Rotary Blade

RT Rotary Tricone Bit

TC Auger TC Bit

V Auger V Bit

WB Washbore

DT Diatube

WATER

Water level at date shown Partial water loss

Water inflow Complete water loss

NFGWO: The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible

due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.

NFGWE: The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. Inflow may have

been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.

SAMPLING

Sample Description

B Bulk Disturbed Sample

D Disturbed Sample

Jar Jar Sample

SPT Standard Penetration Test

U50 Undisturbed Sample –50mm

U75 Undisturbed Sample –75mm

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The appropriate symbols are selected on the result of visual examination, field tests

and available laboratory tests, such as, sieve analysis, liquid limit and plasticity

index.

USC Symbol Description

GW Well graded gravel

GP Poorly graded gravel

GM Silty gravel

GC Clayey gravel

SW Well graded sand

SP Poorly graded sand

SM Silty sand

SC Clayey sand

ML Silt of low plasticity

CL Clay of low plasticity

OL Organic soil of low plasticity

MH Silt of high plasticity

CH Clay of high plasticity

OH Organic soil of high plasticity

Pt Peaty Soil

MOISTURE CONDITION

Dry - Cohesive soils are friable or powdery

Cohesionless soil grains are free-running

Moist - Soil feels cool, darkened in colour

Cohesive soils can be moulded

Cohesionless soil grains tend to adhere

Wet - Cohesive soils usually weakened

Free water forms on hands when handling

For cohesive soils the following codes may also be used:

MC>PL Moisture Content greater than the Plastic Limit.

MC~PL Moisture Content near the Plastic Limit.

MC<PL Moisture Content less than the Plastic Limit.

PLASTICITY

The potential for soil to undergo change in volume with moisture change is assessed

from its degree of plasticity. The classification of the degree of plasticity in terms of

the Liquid Limit (LL) is as follows:

Description of Plasticity LL (%)

Low <35

Medium 35 to 50

High >50

COHESIVE SOILS - CONSISTENCY

The consistency of a cohesive soil is defined by descriptive terminology such as very

soft, soft, firm, stiff, very stiff and hard. These terms are assessed by the shear

strength of the soil as observed visually, by hand penetrometer values and by

resistance to deformation to hand moulding.

A Hand Penetrometer may be used in the field or the laboratory to provide an

approximate assessment of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of cohesive

soils. The undrained shear strength of cohesive soils is approximately half the UCS.

The values are recorded in kPa as follows:

Strength Symbol Undrained Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)

Very Soft VS < 12

Soft S 12 to 25

Firm F 25 to 50

Stiff St 50 to 100

Very Stiff VSt 100 to 200

Hard H > 200

COHESIONLESS SOILS - RELATIVE DENSITY

Relative density terms such as very loose, loose, medium, dense and very dense are

used to describe silty and sandy material, and these are usually based on resistance to

drilling penetration or the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) „N‟ values. Other

condition terms, such as friable, powdery or crumbly may also be used.

Term Symbol Density Index N Value

(blows/0.3 m)

Very Loose VL 0 to 15 0 to 4

Loose L 15 to 35 4 to 10

Medium Dense MD 35 to 65 10 to 30

Dense D 65 to 85 30 to 50

Very Dense VD >85 >50

COHESIONLESS SOILS PARTICLE SIZE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

Name Subdivision Size

Boulders

Cobbles

>200 mm

63 mm to 200 mm

Gravel coarse

medium

fine

20 mm to 63 mm

6 mm to 20 mm

2.36 mm to 6 mm

Sand coarse

medium

fine

600 m to 2.36 mm

200 m to 600 m

75 m to 200 m


Description for Rock The rock is described with strength and weathering symbols as shown below. Other features such as bedding and dip angle are given.

METHOD

Refer soil description sheet

WATER

Refer soil description sheet

ROCK QUALITY

The fracture spacing is shown where applicable and the Rock Quality Designation

(RQD) or Total Core Recovery (TCR) is given where:

TCR (%) = length of core recovered

length of core run

RQD (%) = Sum of Axial lengths of core > 100mm long

length of core run

ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING

Rock weathering is described using the abbreviations and definitions used in

AS1726. AS1726 suggests the term “Distinctly Weathered” (DW) to cover the

range of substance weathering conditions between (but not including) XW and SW.

For projects where it is not practical to delineate between HW and MW or it is

deemed that there is no advantage in making such a distinction, DW may be used

with the definition given in AS1726.

Symbol Term Definition

RS Residual Soil Soil definition on extremely weathered rock;

the mass structure and substance are no

longer evident; there is a large change in

volume but the soil has not been

significantly transported

XW Extremely

Weathered

Rock is weathered to such an extent that it

has „soil‟ properties, ie. It either

disintegrates or can be remoulded in water

HW

DW

Highly

Weathered

Distinctly

Weathered (see

AS1726

Definition

below)

The rock substance is affected by

weathering to the extent that limonite

staining or bleaching affects the whole rock

substance and other signs of chemical or

physical decomposition are evident.

Porosity and strength is usually decreased

compared to the fresh rock. The colour and

strength of the fresh rock is no longer

recognisable.

MW Moderately

Weathered

The whole of the rock substance is

discoloured, usually by iron staining or

bleaching, to the extent that the colour of the

fresh rock is no longer recognisable

SW Slightly

Weathered

Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little

or no change of strength from fresh rock

FR Fresh Rock shows no sign of decomposition or

staining

“Distinctly Weathered: Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock

may be highly discoloured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by

leaching, or may be decreased due to the deposition of weathering products in

pores.” (AS1726)

ROCK STRENGTH

Rock strength is described using AS1726 and ISRM - Commission on

Standardisation of Laboratory and Field Tests, "Suggested method of determining

the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock materials and the Point Load Index", as

follows:

Term Symbol Point Load Index

Is(50) (MPa)

Extremely Low EL <0.03

Very Low VL 0.03 to 0.1

Low L 0.1 to 0.3

Medium M 0.3 to 1

High H 1 to 3

Very High VH 3 to 10

Extremely High EH >10

Diametral Point Load Index test

Axial Point Load Index test

DEFECT SPACING/BEDDING THICKNESS

Measured at right angles to defects of same set or bedding.

Term Defect Spacing Bedding

Extremely closely spaced <6 mm

6 to 20 mm

Thinly Laminated

Laminated

Very closely spaced 20 to 60 mm Very Thin

Closely spaced 0.06 to 0.2 m Thin

Moderately widely spaced 0.2 to 0.6 m Medium

Widely spaced 0.6 to 2 m Thick

Very widely spaced >2 m Very Thick

DEFECT DESCRIPTION

Type: Definition:

B Bedding

BP Bedding Parting

F Fault

C Cleavage

J Joint

SZ Shear Zone

CZ Crushed Zone

DB Drill Break

Planarity: Roughness:

P – Planar R – Rough

Ir – Irregular S – Smooth

St – Stepped Sl – Slickensides

U – Undulating Po – Polished

Coating or Infill: Description

Clean No visible coating or infilling

Stain No visible coating or infilling but surfaces are

discoloured by mineral staining

Veneer A visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral

substance but usually unable to be measured (<1mm).

If discontinuous over the plane, patchy veneer

Coating A visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral

substance, >1mm thick. Describe composition and

thickness

The inclinations of defects are measured from perpendicular to the core axis.


Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock Graphic symbols used on borehole and test pit reports for soil and rock are as follows. Combinations of these symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as

clayey sand.


Engineering classification of shales and sandstones in the Sydney

Region - A summary guide

The Sydney Rock Class classification system is based on rock strength, defect spacing and allowable seams as set out below. All three factors

must be satisfied.

CLASSIFICATION FOR SANDSTONE

Class Uniaxial Compressive

Strength (MPa)

Defect Spacing

(mm)

Allowable Seams

(%)

I >24 >600 <1.5

II >12 >600 <3

III >7 >200 <5

IV >2 >60 <10

V >1 N.A. N.A.

CLASSIFICATION FOR SHALE

Class Uniaxial Compressive

Strength (MPa)

Defect Spacing

(mm)

Allowable Seams

(%)

I >16 >600 <2

II >7 >200 <4

III >2 >60 <8

IV >1 >20 <25

V >1 N.A. N.A.

1. ROCK STRENGTH

For expedience in field/construction situations the uniaxial (unconfined) compressive strength of the rock is often inferred, or assessed using the

point load strength index (Is50) test (AS 4133.4.1 - 1993). For Sydney Basin sedimentary rocks the uniaxial compressive strength is typically

about 20 x (Is50) but the multiplier may range from about 10 to 30 depending on the rock type and characteristics. In the absence of UCS tes ts,

the assigned Sydney Rock Class classification may therefore include rock strengths outside the nominated UCS range.

2. DEFECT SPACING

The terms relate to spacing of natural fractures in NMLC, NQ and HQ diamond drill cores and have the following definitions:

Defect Spacing (mm) Terms Used to Describe Defect Spacing1

>2000 Very widely spaced

600 – 2000 Widely spaced

200 – 600 Moderately spaced

60 – 200 Closely spaced

20 – 60 Very closely spaced

<20 Extremely closely spaced

1After ISO/CD14689 and ISRM.

3. ALLOWABLE SEAMS

Seams include clay, fragmented, highly weathered or similar zones, usually sub-parallel to the loaded surface. The limits suggested in the

tables relate to a defined zone of influence. For pad footings, the zone of influence is defined as 1.5 times the least foot ing dimension. For

socketed footings, the zone includes the length of the socket plus a further depth equal to the width of the footing. For tunnel or excavation

assessment purposes the defects are assessed over a length of core of similar characteristics.

Source: Based on Pells, P.J.N, Mostyn, G. and Walker, B.F. (1998) – Foundations on sandstone and shale in the Sydney region. Australian

Geomechanics Journal, No 33 Part 3

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX D

___________________________________

CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

Sheet 1 of 1

Prepared: J.L.

Date: 26/06/2017

Weyand Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Investigation

105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse

Hill, NSW 2155

Ref No: ESWN-PR-2017-118

BH3: 3.0m to 7.0m

BH4: 6.1m to 9.0m

CORING STARTS AT 3.0m

Core Box Photographs

END OF HOLE AT 7.0m

3

4

6

7

CORING STARTS AT 6.1m

END OF HOLE AT 9.0m

8

5

6

CORE LOSS

CORE LOSS

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX E

___________________________________

RESULTS OF POINT LOAD

STRENGTH INDEX(IS50)

Note 1: To utilise this spreadsheet, insert values obtained from the point load test into the highlighted columns

No. BH No.Depth

(m)D (mm)

Pindicated

(kN)

Pactual

(kN)

De2

(mm2)

De

(mm)Is F Is(50)

W

(mm)L (mm)

Pindicated

(kN)

Pactual

(kN)

De2

(mm2)

De

(mm)Is F Is(50) Strength

Qu

(by 20)

MPa

1 BH3 3.80 50 8.52 8.53 2500 50 3.410 1.000 3.41 50 80 6.88 6.88 5093 71.36 1.35 1.19 1.61 32

2 4.25 50 2.51 2.50 2500 50 1.001 1.000 1.00 50 80 3.62 3.62 5093 71.36 0.71 1.19 0.85 16

3 6.35 50 3.80 3.80 2500 50 1.518 1.000 1.52 50 80 6.30 6.30 5093 71.36 1.24 1.19 1.48 29

4 BH4 6.55 50 0.22 0.21 2500 50 0.083 1.000 0.08 50 80 2.37 2.36 5093 71.36 0.46 1.19 0.55 11

5 7.25 50 3.83 3.83 2500 50 1.530 1.000 1.53 50 80 6.44 6.44 5093 71.36 1.26 1.19 1.51 30

6 8.20 50 1.66 1.65 2500 50 0.661 1.000 0.66 50 80 3.33 3.32 5093 71.36 0.65 1.19 0.78 15

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Diametral

Job No.

Job Description:

Location:

ESWN-PR-2017-118

105 Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, NSW 2155

Axial

Date 6/06/2017

Site Test:

POINT LOAD TEST

Tested by:

Checked by:

Y.N.

J.L.Geotechnical Investigation

Lab

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX F

___________________________________

RESULTS OF LABORATORY TEST

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

2

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

(Not specified)

DDE-105

[email protected]

(Not specified)

(Not specified)

Unit 5, 15 Aero Rd

Ingleburn

BUXTON NSW 2565

DIRT DOCTORS GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES PTY LTD

MITCHELL TOFLER

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

8/6/2017

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE166156 R2

Date Received 2/6/2017

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

This report cancels and supersedes the report No .SE166156R1. dated 5/6/17 issued by SGS Environment, Health and Safety due to spliting of

report.

Dong Liang

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader

Ly Kim Ha

Organic Section Head

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 68/06/2017

SE166156 R2ANALYTICAL RESULTS

pH in soil (1:5) [AN101] Tested: 5/6/2017

E2

SOIL

-

30/5/2017

SE166156.002

pH pH Units - 4.9

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 68/06/2017


Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil [AN106] Tested: 5/6/2017

E2

SOIL

-

30/5/2017

SE166156.002

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) µS/cm 1 460

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 68/06/2017


Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography [AN245] Tested: 5/6/2017

E2

SOIL

-

30/5/2017

SE166156.002

Chloride mg/kg 0.25 540

Sulphate mg/kg 5 110

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 68/06/2017


Moisture Content [AN002] Tested: 5/6/2017

E2

SOIL

-

30/5/2017

SE166156.002

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 7.7

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 68/06/2017

SE166156 R2METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating

basin. After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode and is

calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, sediments and sludges, an extract with water (or

0.01M CaCl2) is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA

4500-H+.

AN101

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is

calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos /cm or

µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on

the extract, or calculated back to the as-received sample. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a

conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2510 B.

AN106

Anions by Ion Chromatography: A water sample is injected into an eluent stream that passes through the ion

chromatographic system where the anions of interest ie Br, Cl, NO2, NO3 and SO4 are separated on their relative

affinities for the active sites on the column packing material. Changes to the conductivity and the UV -visible

absorbance of the eluent enable identification and quantitation of the anions based on their retention time and

peak height or area. APHA 4110 B

AN245

FOOTNOTES

*

**

NATA accreditation does not cover

the performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding

time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :

http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.

Raised/lowered Limit of

Reporting.

Page 6 of 68/06/2017

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX G

___________________________________

LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION


Limitations of Geotechnical Investigation

1 | P a g e

General

In making an assessment of a site from a limited number of boreholes or test pits there is the

possibility that variations may occur between testing locations. Site exploration identifies specific

subsurface conditions only at those points from which samples have been taken. The risk that

variations will not be detected can be reduced by increasing the frequency of testing locations. The

investigation program undertaken is a professional estimate of the scope of investigation required

to provide a general profile of the subsurface conditions. The data derived from the site

investigation program and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated across the site to form an

inferred geological model and an engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface

conditions and their likely behaviour with regard to the proposed development. Despite

investigation the actual conditions at the site might differ from those inferred to exist, since no

subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all subsurface details and anomalies.

The borehole/test pit logs are the subjective interpretation of subsurface conditions at a particular

location, made by trained personnel. The interpretation may be limited by the method of investigation, and cannot always be definitive.

Subsurface conditions

Subsurface conditions may be modified by changing natural forces or man-made influences. A geotechnical report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration.

Construction operations at or adjacent to the site, and natural events such as rainfall events, floods,

or groundwater fluctuations, may also affect subsurface conditions, and thus the continuing

adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept appraised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.

Assessment and interpretation

A geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design professionals

explaining relevant geotechnical findings and in reviewing the adequacy of their drawings/plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues.

Information and documentations

Final logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation of field

description and laboratory results of field samples. Customarily, only the final logs are included in

geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for

inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. To minimise the likelihood of bore/profile log

misinterpretation, contractors should be given access to the complete geotechnical engineering

report prepared or authorised for their use. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems.

Construction phase service (CPS)

During construction, excavation is frequently undertaken which exposes the actual subsurface

conditions. For this reason geotechnical consultants should be retained through the construction

stage, to identify variations if they are exposed and to conduct additional tests which may be

required and to deal quickly with geotechnical problems if they arise.


Limitations of Geotechnical Investigation

2 | P a g e

Report

The report has been prepared for the benefit of the client and no other parties. ESWNMAN PTY

LTD assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to any other person or organisation for or in

relation to any matter dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report, or for any loss or damage

suffered by any other person or organisation arising from matters dealt with or conclusions

expressed in the report (including without limitation matters arising from any negligent act or

omission of ESWNMAN PTY LTD or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying

upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report). Other parties should not rely

upon the report or the accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should make their own enquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to such matters.

Other limitations

ESWNMAN PTY LTD will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any

events or emergent circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.