No. 9 11 Alice Street Seven Hills, NSW Mineow Pty Ltd...No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70 Geotechnical Investigation Report th 6 January 2017 indicates

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

No. 9 – 11 Alice Street

Seven Hills, NSW

Prepared for

Mineow Pty Ltd

Reference No. ESWN-PR-2016-70

6th

January 2017

Geotechnical Engineering Services

- Geotechnical investigation

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

- Footing inspections - Slope stability analysis - Landslide risk assessment

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 25

No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70

Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

Revision Details Date Amended By

00 Original 06/01/2017

©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: 06/01/2017 ......................................................

Page 3 of 25



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 ............................................................................................................. 8

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

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

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

4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test .................................................................................... 9

4.4 Piezometer Installation and Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................... 9

4.5 Point Load Strength Index Test ................................................................................................. 10

4.6 Water Chemical Tests ................................................................................................................ 10

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

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

5.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................... 11

5.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 12

5.4 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................... 13

6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 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 ........................................................................................................ 17

6.5 Foundations ................................................................................................................................ 19

6.6 Salinity Assessment and Groundwater Management ................................................................ 20

6.7 Earthworks and Material Reuse ................................................................................................ 21

6.8 Vibration Controls ..................................................................................................................... 22

6.8 Preliminary Comments on Pavement Subgrade........................................................................ 23

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 24

8. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 24

Page 4 of 25



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of Subsurface Conditions 11

Table 2 - Results of Water Chemical Analysis 13

Table 3 - Recommended Temporary Safe Excavation Batters 16

Table 4 - Preliminary Soil and Rock Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 17

Table 5 - Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 18

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 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS

APPENDIX F RESULTS OF POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX (IS50)

APPENDIX G RESULTS OF WATER CHEMICAL TESTS

APPENDIX H LIMITATIONS OF GEOETCHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Page 5 of 25



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

Coastal Region.

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

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

Page 6 of 25



1. INTRODUCTION

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

geotechnical investigation at No. 9–11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW in a Professional

Services Agreement referenced ESWN-PP-2016-92 Rev A and dated 21st November 2016.

The site investigation was carried out on the 1st and 2

nd of December 2016.

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, 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:

Preliminary architectural drawings titled “No‟s 9, 9A, 11, 11A Alice Street, Seven

Hills, Lot: 62 & 63 DP: 14294” prepared by McNeil Architects, referenced project

No. 1614, Issue 1 and dated 16th December 2016, including drawing nos. A01 to

A23 inclusive; and

A survey plan titled “Detail Survey Over Lots 62 & 63 in DP 14294, Known as

No‟s 9, 9A, 11 & 11A Alice Street, Seven Hills” prepared by Advance Land

Surveyors Pty Ltd, referenced Job No. 075 and dated 3rd

June 2016.

1.2 Proposed Development

The design drawings provided indicated that the proposed development includes the

demolition of existing buildings within 9-11 Alice Street and construction of a six storey

residential building with two levels of basement for underground car parking areas.

The site is bounded by the following properties and infrastructure:

Northwest: Carriageway and road reserve of Alice Street;

Northeast: Adjoining property at No. 7 Alice Street;

Southeast: Adjoining properties at No. 8-10 George Street; and

Southwest: Adjoining property at No. 13-15 Alice Street.

Page 7 of 25



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

(FFL) of RL36.16m & RL38.2m for Level 1 Basement or Lower Basement Level, the

excavation of basement area by approximately 4.6m to 8.0m below the existing ground

level (BGL) may be required. An approximate further 1.5m deep excavation below

basement floor level will be required for lift shaft within middle portion of the site.

The following approximate setbacks were proposed from the basement wall:

4.0m to 9.0m from site north-western boundary;

0.35m to 0.8m from site north-eastern boundary;

0.35m from site south-eastern boundary; and

0.5m from site south-western boundary.

1.3 Scope of Work

The geotechnical investigation involved machine drilling of three boreholes 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;

On-site underground service scanning by a professional service locator;

Drilling of three boreholes identified as BH1 to BH3 using Han-Jin 8D drilling rig;

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

of the materials encountered;

Conducting of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test, identified as DCP1, at

location of borehole BH1 to assess the strength of soils and rock profile.

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

Geotechnical Engineer;

Collection of soil and rock samples during drilling;

Installation of standpipe piezometer (identified as GW1) in borehole BH3;

Reinstatement of site with soil cuttings from boreholes;

Point Load Strength Index Test on selected rock core samples

Page 8 of 25



Water sampling from groundwater monitoring well GW1;

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

Chloride) and exposure classification on water samples; and

Subsequent site visits to measure water level.

The approximate locations of boreholes completed during the site investigation 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 the Blacktown City Council area, approximately 27.2km to the

northwest of Sydney CBD, approximately 260m to the southwest of Seven Hills Railway

Station and Main Western Railway Line, and 390m to the south of Blacktown Creek.

The site consists of the amalgamation of four adjoining properties being nos. 9, 9A, 11 and

11A Alice Street. The site is a parallelogram-shaped land identified as Lots 62 & 63 in

Development Plan (DP) 14294, with an approximate total area of 1624m2.

The existing buildings consist of four single storey weatherboard houses at nos. 9, 9A, 11

& 11A Alice Street. At time of site investigation, it was a vacant land within adjoining

property No. 7 Alice Street.

During site investigation, no information was available on the foundation type of the

existing buildings at the subject site. However, based on our observations, it is inferred the

buildings are likely to be supported by shallow type foundations.

Based on the survey plan referenced in Section 1.1, the site is sloping slightly towards

northwest. The ground elevations vary approximately between RL45.88m and RL46.81m

along the site south-eastern boundary, to approximately between RL42.77m and RL44.24m

along the site north-western boundary.

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

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 Mineral Resources,

Page 9 of 25



indicates the site is located within an area underlain by Triassic Age Ashfield Shale (Rwa)

of the Wianamatta Group. The Ashfield Shale is described as “black to dark grey shale and

laminate”.

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.

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

SWMS, was also conducted by a professional service locator prior to the mobilisation.

4.2 Borehole Drilling

Three boreholes were completed during site investigation. Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3

were drilled to an approximate final depth of 8.2m, 10.0m, and 11.2m BGL respectively

using Tungsten Carbide (TC) Bit technique and followed by rock coring using NMLC

technique. To protect the hole from collapse during rock coring, casing was 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.

4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test

One DCP test identified as DCP 1 was completed during site investigation. The DCP test

reached refusal depth where bounce of DCP hammer occurred at 1.9m BGL approximately.

The locations of DCP tests are shown on the site location plan attached in Appendix A. The

record of DCP test results is presented in Appendix E.

4.4 Piezometer Installation and Groundwater Monitoring

During the site investigation, borehole BH3 was developed into a groundwater monitoring

well identified as GW1 after completion of the drilling.

Page 10 of 25



The monitoring well was extended into approximate depth of 8m BGL. The monitoring

well was installed using threaded, flush-jointed polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and screen

with a minimum outside diameter of 50 mm. PVC plugs were used to cap the bottom and

top of each well during installation to keep out debris.

A gravel and sand pack was installed in the annulus between the bore and the well screen.

Bentonite seal was placed above the screen slots. The annulus was then filled with concrete

from the bentonite seal to the surface.

The residual drilling water in the well was completely bailed out after installation of the

monitoring well as indicated on Photograph 7 in Appendix B. Subsequently, water level

was measured in monitoring well GW1 on 15th

and 20th of December 2016.

4.5 Point Load Strength Index 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 nine core samples were selected for PLSI tests. The test results are shown in

borehole logs and summarised in Appendix F of this report.

4.6 Water Chemical Tests

Water sampling at approximate depth of 5.0m BGL in groundwater monitoring well (GW1)

was undertaken by our staff on 20th

December 2016 during second site visit. The water

samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for undertaking the following tests:

Electrical Conductivity;

Aggressivity test (pH, Sulfate and Chloride); and

Exposure classification.

The results of laboratory tests are provided in Appendix G of this report.

5. INVESTIGATION RESULTS

5.1 Surface Conditions

During site investigation, apart from existing buildings, concrete driveway and footpath,

the remainder of the site was covered with grass and vegetation. Several young trees were

present within front portion of the site.

Page 11 of 25



5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3 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:

Fill (Unit 1): Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel, trace

brick material, extending to approx. 0.3m to 0.4m BGL; overlying

Residual Soils (Unit 2): Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown and red mottled

brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, extending approx. to 1.8m to 1.9m BGL; overlying

Class V Shale (Unit 3): brown - grey, extremely weathered, extremely low and low

strength, extending approx. to 6.5m, 4.0m, and 6.0m BGL in boreholes BH1, BH2

and BH3 respectively; overlying

Class IV Shale (Unit 4): light grey, moderately weathered, low strength, extending

approx. to 7.0m, 5.8m BGL in boreholes BH1 & BH2 respectively, and absent in

borehole BH3; overlying

Class III Shale or better rock (Unit 5): grey, slightly weathered, medium strength.

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 BH3 during site investigation

are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 - Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Geotechnical Unit

Depth to Top

of Unit

(m bgl)

Thickness

(m)

RL Top of

Unit (m)

SPT(N) or

RQD (%)

UCS

(MPa)

Fill (Unit 1): Silty CLAY,

stiff 0 0.3 – 0.4 43.5 – 45.2 DCP>5 NT

Residual Soils (Unit 2): Silty

CLAY, Stiff to very stiff 0.3 – 0.4 1.4 – 1.5 43.1 – 44.9 SPT: N=9, 14 NT

Class V Shale (Unit 3): XW-

HW, XL-L 1.8 – 1.9 2.1 – 4.7 41.7 – 43.4 N/A NT

Class IV Shale (Unit 4):

MW, L 4 – 6.5 0 – 1.8 37.0 – 40.1

RQD:

70% 13

Class III Shale or better rock

(Unit 5), SW, M 5.8 – 7.0 Unconfirmed 36.5 – 39.2

RQD:

85 - 100% 11– 24

All depths, thicknesses and Reduced Levels (RL) are approximate. XW – Extremely weathered; HW – Highly weathered; MW – Moderately weathered; SW – Slightly weathered; FR – Fresh; XL – Extremely low strength; VL – Very low strength; L – Low strength M – Medium strength; H – High strength

NT = Not Tested; NA=Not Applicable SPT=Standard Penetration Test

RQD= Rock Quality Designation UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength

Page 12 of 25



5.3 Groundwater

(a) General

Based on Fact Sheet 1: Groundwater and the Sydney Coastal Region (Reference 9),

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

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 Ashfield 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 6.5m in BH1 and 6.0m BGL in BH3 as indicated on photograph 5 in Appendix B, 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 interface of soils and rocks, fractures/defects in the rock,

including apertures, joints or other natural defects within the underlying shale.

During basement excavation, minor seepage may occur within interface of soils and rocks

and fractures/defects of rock if it encounters an intense and prolonged rainfall.

(c) Water level monitoring

A standpipe piezometer (GW1) was installed in borehole BH3 at the day of drilling and the

water in the well was completely bailed out. The first water level was measured 2.3m BGL

on 14th December 2016 and the water inside the well was bailed out after the measurement

was made. Water level measured on 20th

December 2016 in piezometer GW1 was at

approximately 3.3m BGL. It should be noted that natural groundwater may be deeper than

Page 13 of 25



this since effects of drilling water has not been completely eliminated over such a short

period of time.

5.4 Laboratory Testing

During the investigation, the water samples were obtained from groundwater monitoring

well (GW1). The samples were tested for determination of Salinity and Aggressivity

parameters by the NATA accredited laboratory. The laboratory test report is provided in

Appendix G and results of tests are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Results of Water Chemical Analysis

Borehole BH3 (GW1) pH Chloride

(ppm or mg/L)

Sulphate as S04

(ppm or mg/L)

Electrical

Conductivity

EC (dS/m)

WS1 5.8 1600 390 5.4

Exposure Classification1 Non-aggressive -

Salinity - Moderately

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 - Since no groundwater occurred during drilling as mentioned in Section 5.3(b), the results of water

chemical tests may indicate salinity of surrounding soils and rocks to some extents. 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

6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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;

Vibration controls;

Page 14 of 25



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.

6.1 Site Characterisation and Classifications

(a) Site characterisation

In accordance with AS2159-2009 (Reference 2), the soil aggressivity test results presented

in Table 2 indicates that the exposure classifications of tested water samples may be

classified as “Non-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, Fill (Unit 1), residual soils (Unit 2) and Class V Shale (Unit 3)

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

predominately within Class V 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.

(a) Site earthquake classification

The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of fill and cohesive soils,

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

AS1170.4-2007, 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 Seven Hills in accordance

with AS1170.4-2007 (Reference 5) is considered to be 0.08.

6.2 Excavation Conditions

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

ramp, footing areas and lift shaft, and trench for underground pipelines.

Page 15 of 25



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

area are expected to vary between 4.6m and 8.0m BGL approximately. The results of the

geotechnical site investigation indicate basement excavation for proposed building will

likely be within Fill (Unit1), Residual Soils (Unit 2), Class V Shale (Unit 3) and minor

Class IV Shale (Unit 4). Medium strength shale bands maybe encountered during

excavation of lower basement level.

Excavation of the fill, 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 strength Class III 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 fill and 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.

(a) 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

Page 16 of 25



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

Table 3: Recommended Temporary Safe Excavation Batters1

Geotechnical Unit Maximum Batter Angle

Topsoil/Fill (Unit 1) 2.5H:1V

Residual Soils (Unit 2) 1.5H:1V

Class V Shale (Unit 3)3 1H:2.5V to Sub-vertical

2 with shotcrete

Class IV Shale (Unit 4)3 Vertical with shotcrete

Class III Shale or better (Unit 5)3 Vertical, self-supporting

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 of rock classification refers to Table 1.

Based on excavation depths and proposed setbacks as mentioned in Section 1.2, excavation

using batter slope and/or shotcreting is likely feasible for basement wall along site north-

western boundary and part of driveway ramp, and may not be feasible for those basement

walls along other site boundaries. Other options to support the excavation and control

lateral ground movement would be necessary. These options include the following:

Contiguous or semi-contiguous cast in-situ reinforced concrete piles embedded into

underlying Class III Shale or better rock, and gaps between the piles should be

covered with reinforced shotcrete or reinforced concrete panels; or

Soldier pile wall shoring system; or

Soil nail wall system.

If the magnitude of movement is assessed by analysis to be excessive, temporary

anchorage or other temporary tie-back system may be required to be installed prior to

excavation to reduce the potential effects of ground movement on adjoining properties.

Typically, anchors are to be installed at regular intervals along the shoring wall. However,

installation of anchors beyond the property boundaries will be subject to approval by

owners of adjoining properties. If installation of temporary anchors is not feasible, it is

necessary to consider other options to control lateral ground movement. These options

include the following:

Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged

excavation; or

Page 17 of 25



Staged excavations and creating temporary partial berms in front of walls.

Other alternative shoring options may be considered subject to assessment by the project

Structural Engineer in consultation with the project Geotechnical Engineer.

With the recommended shoring/support options above, construction of the proposed

basement in the short and long terms is expected to have low effects on the adjoining

buildings and road infrastructure. Earth retention structures can be designed using the

recommended parameters provided in Section 6.4.

We recommend that monitoring of ground movement (settlement and deflection) should be

carried out during excavation.

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 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,

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. The coefficients provided are based on drained conditions.

Table 4: Preliminary Soil and Rock 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

Ratio

Fill (Unit 1) 17 0 26 8 0.35

Residual Soils (Unit 2) 18 5 27 20 0.35

Class V Shale (Unit 3) 22 50 28 100 0.35

Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 24 60 28 300 0.30

Class III Shale (Unit 5) 24 200 30 800 0.25

Page 18 of 25



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)

Fill (Unit 1) 0.39 0.56 2.6

Residual Soils (Unit 2) 0.38 0.55 2.7

Class V Shale (Unit 3) 0.36 0.53 2.8

Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 0.36 0.53 2.8

Class III Shale (Unit 5) 0.33 0.50 3.0

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)

= 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)

To reduce excavation induced movements along site boundaries, the shoring system would

need to be tied back by rock anchors or supported by earth berms or internal props/struts as

excavation progresses. Attentions should be made that any rock anchors will not clash with

adjoining basement or footings, services, pipe easements. Approval from owners from

adjoining properties will be required prior to installation of anchors into their properties.

For design of soils nails or temporary ground anchors, the allowable bond stress of 30kPa,

50kPa, 150kPa and 250kPa can be adopted within Residual Soils (Unit 2), Class V Shale

(Unit 3), Class IV Shale (Unit 4), and Class III Shale (Unit 5) respectively. The following

is recommended for the anchor design:

Page 19 of 25



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 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.

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)

Fill (Unit 1) N/A3 N/A3 N/A3

Residual Soils (Unit 2) N/A3 40 20

Class V Shale (Unit 3) 500 (shallow footing)

700 (piles) 50 150

Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 1000 (shallow footing)

1500 (piles) 150 300

Class III Shale (Unit 5) 2500 (shallow footing)

3000 (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.

Page 20 of 25



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.

Shaft adhesion may be applied to socketed piles adopted for foundations if socket shaft

lengths conform to appropriate classes of shale and accepted levels of shaft sidewall

cleanliness and roughness. The rock socket sidewalls should be free of soil and/or crushed

rock to the extent that natural rock is exposed over at least 80% of the socket sidewall.

Shaft adhesion should be reduced or ignored within socket lengths that are smeared and fail

to satisfy cleanliness requirements. Additional attention to cleanliness of socket sidewalls

may be required where presence of clay seams and weathered shale bands is evident over

socket lengths.

Excavations of shallow foundation should be dewatered if seepages or surface runoff is

encountered during excavations, in particular when a rainfall event 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 and Groundwater Management

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

be classified as “Moderately Saline” in accordance with Dryland Salinity (1993).

In accordance with Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice (Reference 10), a site which

is in an area of moderate salinity potential may seem to have little potential to create a

salinity problem on the site. Mitigation measures are still required to limit water use on the

site (if any), therefore limiting its contribution to changes in the local and regional water

balance.

Page 21 of 25



The observations summarised in Section 5.3 indicate no groundwater during drilling up to

a depth of 6.0m to 6.5m 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 shale is 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:

The basement walls and floor should be constructed with water-tight construction

joints.

Potential seepage/inflow areas associated with fractured rock should be sealed and

treated with shotcrete.

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 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 (including salinity issue) of the proposed development on

surrounding properties and road are expected to be negligible.

6.7 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 area and driveway ramp;

Excavation within structural footings areas and lift shaft;

Page 22 of 25



Excavation and backfilling during installation of underground pipelines; 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; 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).

6.8 Vibration Controls

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

Particle Velocity (PPV) of 10mm/sec for brick or unreinforced structures in good

Page 23 of 25



condition, 5mm/sec for residential and low rise buildings or 2mm/sec for historical or

structures in sensitive conditions.

To ensure vibration levels remain within acceptable levels and minimise the potential

effects of vibration, excavation into Class IV Shale and Class III Shale should be

complemented with saw cutting or other appropriate methods prior to excavation. Rock

saw cutting should be carried out using an excavator mounted rock saw, or the like, so as to

minimise transmission of vibrations to any adjoining properties. Hammering is not

recommended and should be avoided. However, if necessary, hammering should be carried

out horizontally along bedding planes of (pre-cut) broken rock blocks or boulders where

possible with noise levels restricted to acceptable to comfortable limits to adjacent

residents.

As vibrations are considered possible during the use of heavy ripping and rock hammers, it

is recommended that a dilapidation survey of the adjoining structures be undertaken prior

to project excavation commencement.

If vibrations in adjacent structures exceed the values recommended above or appear

excessive during construction, excavation should cease and the project Geotechnical

Engineer should be contacted immediately for appropriate reviews so that counter-

measures/actions can be taken.

6.8 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.

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.

Page 24 of 25



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 “Moderately Saline” and

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

The construction excavation, shoring and drainage works should be implemented in

accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6 of this report.

It is recommended that excavation batter, shoring/support system, and excavation

technique adopted should be inspected by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer during

basement excavation.

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 if mitigation measures and our recommendations in Section 6.6 are taken into

the consideration appropriately during design and construction.

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.

8. LIMITATIONS

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

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

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

Page 25 of 25



conditions exposed during construction vary significantly from those discussed in this

report, this report should be reviewed and seek further advices from ESWNMAN.

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: 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW DRAWN BY: J.L.

CLIENT: Mineow Pty Ltd

PROJECT NO: ESWN-PR-2016-70 DATE: 5th December 2016

TITLE:

Site Location Plan Figure 1

SITE BOUNDARY

No. 7-9

N

No. 1

No. 32

No. 2-4

No. 6

No. 7

No. 13

BH1/DCP1

BH2

No. 11 Alice Street

No. 3

No. 5

No. 36

No. 18

No. 8

BH1(GW1)

LEGEND Approximate Location of Boreholes Image Source: A plan titled “Detail Survey Over Lots 62 & 63 in DP

14294, Known as No’s 9, 9A, 11 & 11A Alice Street, Seven Hills”

prepared by Advance Land Surveyors Pty Ltd, referenced Job No.

075 and dated 3rd June 2016.

No. 9 Alice Street

BH2

Location of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test

BH3 (GW1)

No. 11A

No. 9A

Proposed Development

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX B

___________________________________

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

5th December 2016

Ref: ESWN-PR-2016-70 No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147

Geotechnical Investigation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

© ESWNMAN PTY LTD

Photograph 1 Front view of property at No. 9 Alice Street

facing north

Photograph 2 Front view of property at No. 11 Alice Street

facing north

Photograph 3 Drilling in progress at location of borehole BH1 within

front yard of No.9 Alice Street

Photograph 4 NMLC rock coring at location of borehole BH2

within front yard of No. 11

Photograph 5 Augering to 6.0m depth at borehole BH3 using TC-bit

（showing dry spoils with no indication of water）

Photograph 6 NMLC coring from 6.0m depth

at location of borehole BH3

Photograph 7 Borehole BH3 developed as groundwater monitoring

well (GW1). Drilling water inside the well was bailed

out after piezometer was installed

Photograph 8 Drilling site was reinstated and piezometer (GW1)

was capped for subsequent water sampling

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

FILL

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE

CL

CL

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel.

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red mottled brown, moist, stiff.

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

Borehole BH1 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests

RemarksAdditional Observations

BOREHOLE NUMBER BH1PAGE 1 OF 2

COMPLETED 1/12/16DATE STARTED 1/12/16

DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

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

NOTES RL top of borehole is approximate

HOLE LOCATION Refer to Figure 1EQUIPMENT AD-50

HOLE SIZE 110mm Diameter

R.L. SURFACE 43.5 DATUM m AHD

SLOPE 90° BEARING ---

CLIENT Mineow Pty Ltd

PROJECT NUMBER ESWN-PR-2016-70

PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation

PROJECT LOCATION 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW

BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1

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

RL(m)

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l Material Description

Gra

phic

Log

HW/MW

SW

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

- CZ?

- J, P, S, 0°- J, U, R, 0-5°, clean- B, P, S, 0°- B, P, S, 0°- DB- B, P, S, 0°

NM

LC

A0.54

D0.44

065

100

CORE LOSS

SHALE, grey, with laminations.

Continued from non-cored borehole

BH1 terminated at 8.2m

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 %



DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESWNMAN Pty Ltd



HOLE LOCATION Refer to Figure 1EQUIPMENT AD-50








CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

ES

WN

-PR

-201

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1


Material Description

RL(m)

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

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

SPT1, 4, 5N=9

FILL

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE

CL

CL

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel, brick material.


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

- becoming red mottled brown, medium strength sandstone bands at 2.6m depth. - Casing installed to 2.6m depth during NMLC coring.Borehole BH2 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er

SamplesTests




DRILLING CONTRACTOR BG Drilling Pty Ltd



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








BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

ES

WN

-PR

-201

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

30/

12/


RL(m)

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

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

- J, Ir, R, 5°

- J, Ir, R, 10°

- 3xDB

- B, P, S, 0°

- 3xJ, Ir, R, 10°- J, P, R, 0°- DB

- 3xB, P, S, 0°- J, Ir, R, 5°- J, P, S, 0°- CZ

- J, P, R, 10°- B, P, S, 0°- J, P, S, 0-10°- B, P, S, 0°- DBLaminations- 3xB, P, S, 0°

- J, P, S, 0°- J, U, R, 5°

- J, P, S, 30°

- 2xB, P, S, 0°

- DB

- DB- J, P, S, 0°- J, U, R, 80°

- DB

- J, P, S, 0°

NM

LC

A0.68

A0.72

A0.41

D0.41

D0.4

D0.18

D1.2

6773

96SHALE, grey, with laminations.

Continued from non-cored borehole

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

ES

WN

-PR

-201

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1



RL(m)

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

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

SPT2, 5, 9N=14

FILL

RESIDAUL SOILS

SHALE

CL

CL

Silty CLAY, low plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel, fine grained.


SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low to low strength. - extremely weathred shale encountered in SPT sampler at 1.5m to 1.95m depth.

- sandstone gravel encountered at 3.0m depth.

- sandstone bands at 5.0m depth.

- Casing installed to 6.0m 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

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1


RL(m)

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo


Gra

phic

Log

SW

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

- J,P, R, 0-5°

- DB

- DB

- B, P, S, 0°- DB

- 2XJ, U, R, 20-25°- B, P, S, 0°, laminations- J, P, S, 0°- 2xB, P, S, 0°

- J, Ir, R, 5°

- DB

- DB

- J, P, S, 45°- 3XB, P, S, 0°, laminations- 2xB, P, S, 0°- J,P, R, 0°

NM

LC

A0.83

A0.57

D0.91

D0.38

8592

SHALE, grey, with laminations.Continued from non-cored borehole

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

ES

WN

-PR

-201

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1



RL(m)

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gra

phic

Log

SW

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED - DB

- DB

- 2xB, P, S, 0°

- DB

- DB

- DB

NM

LC

A0.73

A0.58

D0.62

D0.22

92

SHALE, grey, with laminations. (continued)

BH3 terminated at 11.2mW

eath

erin

g

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

6-70

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

7/1

2/1



RL(m)

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

Depth(m)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

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: 06/12/2016

Mineow Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Investigation

9 – 11 Alice St, Seven Hills

NSW 2147

Ref No: ESWN-PR-2016-70

BH1: 6.5m to 8.2m

BH3: 6.0m to 11.2m

BH2: 2.6m to 10.0m

CORING STARTS AT 6.5m

Core Box Photographs

END OF HOLE AT 8.2m

7

8

3

4

5

CORING STARTS AT 2.6m

END OF HOLE AT 10.0m

6

9

8

7

END OF HOLE AT 11.2m 11

10

9

8

7

6

© ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX E

___________________________________

RESULTS OF DYNAMIC CONE

PENETROMETER TESTS

RESULTS OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

Tested By: J.L.

Ref No: ESWN-PR-2016-70

Date: 1/12/2016

Mineow Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Inspection

No 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW

Client:

Project:

Location:

DCP No.

84

500-600 500-600

5 6 71 2 3

1000-1100

0-100 0-100

Depths

(mm)

DCP No.Depths

(mm)

600-700 600-700

100-200 100-200

200-300 200-300

300-400 300-400

400-500 400-500

700-800 700-800

1300-1400 1300-14005

7

1200-1300 1200-1300

1100-1200

6

1000-1100

1400-1500 1400-1500

800-900 800-900

900-1000 900-1000

1100-1200

1500-1600 1500-160020

131600-1700 1600-1700

1800-1900 1800-1900

1700-1800 1700-180013

22/70mm

1900-2000 1900-2000Bounce

2000-2100 2000-2100

2100-2200 2100-2200

2200-2300 2200-2300

2300-2400 2300-2400

2400-2500 2400-2500

2500-2600 2500-2600

2600-2700 2600-2700

2700-2800 2700-2800

3100-3200

3200-3300

3300-3400

3400-3500

3500-3600

3000-3100

3100-3200

3200-3300

3300-3400

3400-3500

3500-3600

2800-2900 2800-2900

3000-3100

2900-3000 2900-3000

4600-4700 3700-3800

4500-4600 3600-3700

4400-4500 3900-4000

4900-5000 3900-4000

4800-4900 3900-4000

4700-4800 3800-3900

3900-4000

3700-3800

3800-3900

3600-3700

3800-3900

3900-4000

16

11

11

12

14

22

17

17

12

4100-4200 3600-3700

4300-4400 3800-3900

4200-4300 3700-3800

4000-4100 3500-3600

11

7

5

3700-3800

3600-3700

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX F

___________________________________

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 BH1 8.00 50 1.10 1.09 2500 50 0.436 1.000 0.44 50 80 2.30 2.29 5093 71.36 0.45 1.19 0.54 10

2 BH2 5.40 50 1.04 1.03 2500 50 0.412 1.000 0.41 50 80 2.90 2.89 5093 71.36 0.57 1.19 0.68 13

3 6.40 50 1.01 1.00 2500 50 0.400 1.000 0.40 50 80 3.07 3.06 5093 71.36 0.60 1.19 0.72 14

4 8.10 50 0.45 0.44 2500 50 0.176 1.000 0.18 50 80 1.77 1.76 5093 71.36 0.35 1.19 0.41 8

5 9.00 50 N/A 50 80 5.14 5.14 5093 71.36 1.01 1.19 1.21 24

6 BH3 6.10 50 2.28 2.27 2500 50 0.909 1.000 0.91 50 80 3.56 3.56 5093 71.36 0.70 1.19 0.83 16

7 7.50 50 0.96 0.95 2500 50 0.380 1.000 0.38 50 80 2.43 2.42 5093 71.36 0.48 1.19 0.57 11

8 10.10 50 1.56 1.55 2500 50 0.620 1.000 0.62 50 80 3.10 3.09 5093 71.36 0.61 1.19 0.73 14

9 11.10 50 0.55 0.54 2500 50 0.216 1.000 0.22 50 80 2.50 2.49 5093 71.36 0.49 1.19 0.58 11

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

POINT LOAD TEST

Tested by:

Checked by:

Y.N.

J.L.Geotechnical Investigation

J.L.

Diametral

Job No.

Job Description:

Location:

ESWN-PR-2016-70

9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147

Axial

Date 7/12/2016

Site Test:

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX G

___________________________________

RESULTS OF WATER CHEMICAL

TEST

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]

1

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

DE159_1

DE159_1 - Alice St Seven Hills

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 46531286

PO BOX 115

COBBITTY NSW 2570

DOWN TO EARTH GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PTY LTD

Nathan Smith

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

22 Dec 2016

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE160574 R0

21 Dec 2016Date Received

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

COMMENTS

Shane McDermott

Senior Laboratory Technician

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 522-December-2016

SE160574 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE160574.001

Water

21 Dec 2016

WS1

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

pH in water Method: AN101 Tested: 22/12/2016

pH** pH Units - 5.8

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: AN106 Tested: 22/12/2016

Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 5400

Resistivity* ohm m - 2

Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: AN245 Tested: 22/12/2016

Chloride mg/L 1 1600

Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 390


SE160574 R0QC SUMMARY

MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting

LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.

DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided

by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.

Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Chloride LB116519 mg/L 1 <1.0 1% 95%

Sulphate, SO4 LB116519 mg/L 1 <1.0 1% 98%

LORUnits Parameter QC

Reference

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106

MB LCS

%Recovery

Conductivity @ 25 C LB116540 µS/cm 2 <2 NA

Resistivity* LB116540 ohm m - NA


Reference

pH in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

pH** LB116540 pH Units - 6.8 0% 101%


Reference


SE160574 R0

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

METHOD SUMMARY

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

reference electrode) and is calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, an extract with water 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. Total Dissolved Salts can be estimated from conductivity

using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. SGS use 0.6. 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


SE160574 R0

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 calcuated by summing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

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

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

11929.

The QC 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, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at

http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues

defined therein.

Any other 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 and this document does not exonerate parties to

a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

IS

LNR

*

**

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

NATA accreditation does not cover the

performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.

FOOTNOTES

LOR

↑↓

QFH

QFL

-

NVL

Limit of Reporting

Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting

QC result is above the upper tolerance

QC result is below the lower tolerance

The sample was not analysed for this analyte

Not Validated


SE160574 R0

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]

1

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

DE159_1

DE159_1 - Alice St Seven Hills

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 46531286

PO BOX 115

COBBITTY NSW 2570

DOWN TO EARTH GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PTY LTD

Nathan Smith

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

22 Dec 2016

STATEMENT OF QA/QC

PERFORMANCE

SE160574 R0

COMMENTS

21 Dec 2016Date Received

All the laboratory data for each environmental matrix was compared to SGS' stated Data Quality Objectives (DQO). Comments

arising from the comparison were made and are reported below.

The data relating to sampling was taken from the Chain of Custody document and was supplied by the Client.

This QA/QC Statement must be read in conjunction with the referenced Analytical Report.

The Statement and the Analytical Report must not be reproduced except in full.

All Data Quality Objectives were met (within the SGS Alexandria Environmental laboratory).

Sample counts by matrix 1 Water Type of documentation received COCDate documentation received 21/12/2016 Samples received in good order YesSamples received without headspace Yes Sample temperature upon receipt 7.2°CSample container provider SGS Turnaround time requested Next DaySamples received in correct containers Yes Sufficient sample for analysis YesSample cooling method Ice Bricks Samples clearly labelled YesComplete documentation received Yes

SAMPLE SUMMARY

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 922/12/2016

SE160574 R0

SGS holding time criteria are drawn from current regulations and are highly dependent on sample container preservation as specified in the SGS “Field Sampling Guide for

Containers and Holding Time” (ref: GU-(AU)-ENV.001). Soil samples guidelines are derived from NEPM "Schedule B(3) Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially

Contaminated Soils". Water sample guidelines are derived from "AS/NZS 5667.1 : 1998 Water Quality - sampling part 1" and APHA "Standard Methods for the Examination

of Water and Wastewater" 21st edition 2005.

Extraction and analysis holding time due dates listed are calculated from the date sampled, although holding times may be extended after laboratory extraction for some

analytes. The due dates are the suggested dates that samples may be held before extraction or analysis and still be considered valid.

Extraction and analysis dates are shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria. If the sampled

date is not supplied then compliance with criteria cannot be determined. If the received date is after one or both due dates then holding time will fail by default.

HOLDING TIME SUMMARY

Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water

Sample No.Sample Name QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed

WS1 SE160574.001 LB116519 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016

Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water


WS1 SE160574.001 LB116540 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016

Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101pH in water


WS1 SE160574.001 LB116540 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016

22/12/2016 Page 2 of 9

SE160574 R0

Surrogate results are evaluated against upper and lower limit criteria established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). At least two of three routine level soil

sample surrogate spike recoveries for BTEX/VOC are to be within 70-130% where control charts have not been developed and within the established control limits for charted

surrogates. Matrix effects may void this as an acceptance criterion. Water sample surrogate spike recoveries are to be within 40-130%. The presence of emulsions,

surfactants and particulates may void this as an acceptance criterion.

Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end

of this report for failure reasons.

SURROGATES

No surrogates were required for this job.

22/12/2016 Page 3 of 9

SE160574 R0

Blank results are evaluated against the limit of reporting (LOR), for the chosen method and its associated instrumentation, typically 2.5 times the statistically determined

method detection limit (MDL).

Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.

METHOD BLANKS


Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result

LB116519.001 Chloride mg/L 1 <1.0

Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 <1.0


Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result

LB116540.001 Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 <2

22/12/2016 Page 4 of 9

SE160574 R0

Duplicates are calculated as Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean

The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit

(SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR

Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.

RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of

this report for failure reasons.

DUPLICATES


UnitsParameterOriginal LORDuplicate Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %

SE160574.001 LB116519.016 Chloride mg/L 1 1600 1600 15 1

Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 390 390 15 1


UnitsParameterOriginal LORDuplicate Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %

SE160587.001 LB116540.006 pH** pH Units - 9.13 9.142 16 0

22/12/2016 Page 5 of 9

SE160574 R0

Laboratory Control Standard (LCS) results are evaluated against an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into the control during the sample

preparation stage, producing a percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For

more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.

Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES


LORUnitsParameterSample Number Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %

LB116519.002 Chloride mg/L 1 19 20 80 - 120 95

Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 20 20 80 - 120 98



LB116540.002 Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 290 303 90 - 110 95



LB116540.003 pH** pH Units - 7.5 7.415 98 - 102 101

22/12/2016 Page 6 of 9

SE160574 R0

Matrix Spike (MS) results are evaluated as the percentage recovery of an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into a field sub -sample during the

sample preparation stage. The original sample 's result is subtracted from the sub-sample result before determining the percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the

percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA/QC plan (ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.

Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the

end of this report for failure reasons.

MATRIX SPIKES

QC Sample Parameter Units LORSample Number

22/12/2016 Page 7 of 9

SE160574 R0

Matrix spike duplicates are calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean

The original result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike. The Duplicate result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike duplicate.

The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit (SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR

Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.

RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of this report for failure reasons.

MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES

No matrix spike duplicates were required for this job.

22/12/2016 Page 8 of 9

SE160574 R0FOOTNOTES

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

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

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

① At least 2 of 3 surrogates are within acceptance criteria.

② RPD failed acceptance criteria due to sample heterogeneity.

③ Results less than 5 times LOR preclude acceptance criteria for RPD.

④ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to matrix interference.

⑤ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to the presence of significant concentration of analyte (i.e. the

concentration of analyte exceeds the spike level).

⑥ LOR was raised due to sample matrix interference.

⑦ LOR was raised due to dilution of significantly high concentration of analyte in sample.

⑧ Reanalysis of sample in duplicate confirmed sample heterogeneity and inconsistency of results.

⑨ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to sample heterogeneity.

⑩ LOR was raised due to high conductivity of the sample (required dilution).

† Refer to Analytical Report comments for further information.

*

-

IS

LNR

LOR

QFH

QFL

NATA accreditation does not cover tthe performance of this service .

Sample not analysed for this analyte.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Limit of reporting.

QC result is above the upper tolerance.

QC result is below the lower tolerance.

This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service, available on request and accessible at

http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined

therein.

Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained herein 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 and this document does not exonerate parties to a

transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.

This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full.

22/12/2016 Page 9 of 9

_________________________________________________________________________ © ESWNMAN Pty Ltd

APPENDIX H

___________________________________

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.