REPORT TO ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR … · This report presents the results of a...

JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

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

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

REPORT

TO

GAZCORP PTY LTD

ON

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

AT

27-35 PUNCHBOWL ROAD, BELFIELD, NSW

25 January 2016

Ref: 28982ZHrpt

28982ZHrpt Page ii

Date: 25 January 2016 Report No: 28982ZHrpt Revision No: 0

Report prepared by: Adrian Hulskamp Senior Associate | Geotechnical Engineer

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

JK GEOTECHNICS

PO Box 976

NORTH RYDE BC NSW 1670

Document Copyright of JK Geotechnics.

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

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

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

c) the terms of contract between JK and the Client, including terms limiting the liability of JK.

If the Client, or any person, provides a copy of this Report to any third party, such third party must not rely on this Report, except with the express written consent of JK which, if given, will be deemed to be upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as apply by virtue of (a), (b), and (c) above. Any third party who seeks to rely on this Report without the express written consent of JK does so entirely at their own risk and to the fullest extent permitted by law, JK accepts no liability whatsoever, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any such third party.

28982ZHrpt Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE 2

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 3

3.1 Site Description 3

3.2 Subsurface Conditions 4

3.3 Laboratory Test Results 6

3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results 7

3.4.1 BH1 7

3.4.2 BH3 7

3.4.3 BH5 7

3.4.4 General Comments 8

4 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8

4.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation 8

4.2 Geotechnical Issues 8

4.3 Excavation 9

4.3.1 Dilapidation Survey 9

4.3.2 Excavation Methods 10

4.3.3 Seepage 11

4.4 Excavation Support 12

4.4.1 Support System 12

4.4.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters 12

4.5 Footings 15

4.6 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab 15

4.7 Hydrogeological Issues 15

4.8 Soil Aggression 16

4.9 Further Geotechnical Input 16

5 GENERAL COMMENTS 17

STS TABLE A: MOISTURE CONTENT TEST REPORT

STS TABLE B: POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX TEST REPORT

TABLE C: SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS

BOREHOLE LOGS 1 TO 5 INCLUSIVE WITH COLOUR ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

FIGURE 1: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2: GRAPHICAL BOREHOLE SUMMARY

FIGURE 3: BH1 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE VERSUS TIME PLOT

28982ZHrpt Page iv



REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

ENVIROLAB SERVICES REPORT NO: 139609

28982ZHrpt Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed use

development at 27-35 Punchbowl Road, Belfield, NSW. The investigation was commissioned by

Mr Michael De Zilva of Gazcorp Pty Ltd by signed ‘Acceptance of Proposal’ form, dated

3 December 2015. The commission was on the basis of our proposal, Ref: 'P41620ZN' dated

1 December 2015.

We have been supplied with the following information:

1. A survey plan (Reference: 150342, dated 21 April 2015) prepared by Linker Surveying.

2. Architectural drawings (Project No. 1510, Dwg Nos. DA-000, 010, 110, 120, 150, 200 to

209, 2B1, 2B2, 301, 303, 304, 401, 402, 501, 701, 702, 801, 810, 811 and 850, all Issue

D, dated 17 November 2015) prepared by olasson & associate architects Pty Ltd.

Based on the supplied information, we understand that the proposed development will comprise

construction of two, five or seven storey, buildings over two and three common basement levels.

The basement will generally extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, but will be set back

approximately 10m from Punchbowl Road. The proposed lowest basement level will have a

finished floor at reduced level (RL) 8.0m. To achieve this level, excavation to depths between

about 6.0m and 11.5m below existing grade will be required.

We have not been provided with any structural loads, however, we assume that the loads would

be in the moderate to high range.

The purpose of the investigation was to obtain geotechnical information on subsurface conditions

as a basis for comments and recommendations on excavation conditions and support, retaining

walls, footings, the lowest basement on-grade floor slab, hydrogeology and soil aggression.

We were also commissioned to carry out a Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment. This work

was carried out by Environmental Investigation Services (EIS), the environmental section of the

JK Group, who prepared a report, Ref: E28982Krpt. This geotechnical report must be read in

conjunction with the EIS report.

28982ZHrpt Page 2

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

Prior to the commencement of the fieldwork, the borehole locations were electromagnetically

scanned by a specialist sub-contractor for buried services.

The fieldwork was carried out on 16 & 17 December 2015 and comprised the auger drilling of five

boreholes using our track mounted JK308 drill rig to depths between 6.59m (BH5) and 9.04m

(BH1) below existing grade. The borehole locations were dictated by access constraints. Three

boreholes (BH1, BH3 and BH5) were extended by diamond core drilling using NMLC coring

techniques to final depths of 12.04m (BH1), 15.17m (BH3) and 9.70m (BH5) below existing

grade.

The borehole locations were set out by tape measurements off existing surface features and are

shown on the attached Figure 1. The surface RLs shown on the attached borehole logs were

estimated by interpolation between ground contour lines and spot levels shown on the supplied

survey plan and are therefore only approximate. The survey datum is the Australian Height

Datum (AHD). Figure 1 is based on the supplied survey plan.

The nature and composition of the subsurface soil and rock horizons were assessed by logging

the materials recovered during drilling. The strength of the subsoil profile was assessed from the

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values, augmented by hand penetrometer readings on

samples obtained in the SPT split spoon sampler and by tactile examination. In the augered

portion of the boreholes, the strength of the upper weathered bedrock profile was assessed by

observation of auger penetration resistance when using a tungsten carbide (TC) bit, together with

examination of the recovered rock cuttings and correlation with subsequent moisture content

tests. We note that rock strengths assessed in this way are approximate and variances in one

order of rock strength should not be unexpected. The strength of the cored bedrock was

assessed by examination of the recovered rock cores, together with correlations with subsequent

laboratory Point Load Strength Index (IS(50)) tests. Groundwater observations were made in the

boreholes. Further details of the methods and procedures employed in the investigation are

presented in the attached Report Explanation Notes.

Within BH1, BH3 and BH5, 50mm diameter, Class 18, uPVC standpipes were installed for

groundwater level monitoring purposes. The standpipe installation details are shown on the

respective borehole logs.

28982ZHrpt Page 3

Our geotechnical engineer (Tristan Piat) was present on a full-time basis during the fieldwork to

set out the borehole locations, direct the electromagnetic scanning, nominate the testing and

sampling, direct the standpipe installations and prepare the attached borehole logs. The Report

Explanation Notes define the logging terms and symbols used.

Selected soil and rock cutting samples were returned to NATA registered laboratories (Envirolab

Services Pty Ltd and Soil Test Services Pty Ltd [STS]) for moisture content and soil pH, chloride,

sulphate and resistivity testing. The test results are summarised in the attached Tables A and C.

The Envirolab Services Pty Ltd ‘Certificate of Analysis’ is attached to this report.

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

testing. The photographs are enclosed with the relevant cored borehole log. The Point Load

Strength Index test results are plotted on the borehole logs and are also summarised in the

attached STS Table B. The unconfined compressive strengths (UCS), as estimated from the

Point Load Strength Index test results, are also summarised in STS Table B.

On 7 January 2016, our geotechnical engineer returned to site to measure groundwater levels

within each standpipe and carry out rising head infiltration tests, also known as pump-out tests,

within each standpipe. A water level data logger was installed into each standpipe to measure

the groundwater recharge rate. The groundwater RL recharge versus time plots for BH1, BH3

and BH5 are presented as Figures 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Using established seepage formulae

(and their assumptions), an approximate insitu permeability coefficient for the subsurface profile

was calculated. The pump-out test results are discussed in Section 3.4 below.

3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Site Description

The site is located within gently undulating topography on an east facing hillside, which grades at

about 4° down to the east. The Cooks River is located approximately 450m to the north-east of

the site. Punchbowl Road bounds the site to the south.

At the time of the fieldwork, the site was mostly occupied by a one, two and three storey brick

warehouse building, which appeared to be in generally good external condition, based on a

cursory inspection from within the site. The lower ground floor level of the building appeared to

be a maximum of about 2m below surrounding ground levels. A concrete loading dock and ramp

structure was located on the eastern side of the building. The warehouse was surrounded by

28982ZHrpt Page 4

concrete driveways and parking areas, which were generally in fair condition, with some cracking.

However, at the south-eastern corner of the site, the pavement was in poor condition, with

significant cracking observed. A grassed area was located at the southern end of the site.

A concrete block retaining wall ran along the western site boundary and supported the

neighbouring properties to the west to heights between about 0.9m (southern end) and 2.0m

(northern end). The wall returned along the western end of the northern site boundary and

supported the neighbouring property to the north to a height of about 0.9m.

Ground surface levels across the majority of the northern site boundary, with exception of the

western end as noted above, the southern end of the eastern site boundary and the southern site

boundary were similar. Ground surface levels across the majority of the eastern site boundary

appeared to be similar, however, as the structures on site abutted the common boundary and

restricted access to the boundary, we were not able to confirm the relative levels across much of

the eastern boundary. It also appeared that the area just to the north of BH1 had been raised

above the neighbouring property to the north by up to about 2m to 3m, but how observations were

limited due to the presence of a fence and dense vegetation along the boundary.

The neighbouring properties to the east, north and west were occupied by one and two storey

fibro and brick houses, which were set back between about 0.5m and 10m from the common site

boundaries. It was difficult to observe the condition of all the structures, but where visible the

structures were in good condition.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The 1:100,000 geological map of Sydney indicates the site is underlain by the Ashfield Shale of

the Wianamatta Group.

The boreholes have disclosed a generalised subsurface profile comprising pavements overlying

fill then residual silty clay grading into weathered shale bedrock at depth. A graphical borehole

summary is presented as Figure 2, which also shows the proposed basement level. Reference

should be made to the attached borehole logs for specific details at each location. A summary of

the pertinent subsurface characteristics is presented below.

28982ZHrpt Page 5

Pavements

Concrete pavements were encountered at the surface of each borehole and were between 70mm

(BH1) and 230mm (BH2) thick. With the exception of BH4, the pavements were reinforced. A

granular road base layer, 270mm thick, was encountered below the concrete pavement in BH2.

Fill

Fill comprising silty clay was encountered below the pavements in BH1 and BH3 and extended

down to depths of 0.7m (BH1) and 0.4m (BH3). Inclusions of ironstone gravel were present within

the fill.

Residual Silty Clay

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

in BH1 and BH3 and below the concrete pavements in BH4 and BH5.

Weathered Shale Bedrock

Weathered shale bedrock was encountered below the residual silty clay in each borehole at

depths between 3.4m (BH5) and 5.2m (BH3) and extended down to the borehole termination

depths.

The upper weathered shale bedrock profile from first contact was extremely weathered and of

extremely low strength and improved in quality with depth to generally slightly weathered shale of

medium strength. The upper shale bedrock profile often contained iron indurated bands.

The diamond cored portions of the boreholes encountered defects including extremely weathered

seams, bedding partings, clay seams and inclined joints.

An indicative engineering classification of the shale bedrock (in accordance with Pells et al. 1998)

has been carried out and is tabulated below:

Borehole Approx. Surface RL (m)

Indicative Engineering Classification of Shale Bedrock Depths (m)

Class V Class IV Class III Class II Class I

1 16.6 3.6 – 7.5* 7.5 – 8.2* 8.2 – 12.04* - -

2 18.0 4.1 – 8.0* - 8.0 – 9.0* - -

3 19.3 5.2 – 8.8* - 8.8 – 15.17* - -

4 16.2 4.0 – 6.0* 6.0 – 7.8* 7.8 – 9.0* - -

5 13.7 3.4 – 4.5*

4.5 – 6.3*. 8.1 – 9.7*

- 6.3 – 8.1 -

* based (wholly or in part) on the augered portion of the borehole

28982ZHrpt Page 6

Groundwater

The following table summarises the groundwater measurements from the geotechnical

investigation.

Borehole Date Depth to Groundwater

Seepage (m) Depth to Groundwater (m)

1

17/12/15 6.0 5.5m on completion of augering

17/12/15 - 0.2m after 4 hours from completion of

augering

17/12/15 - 3.0m on completion of coring

7/1/16 - 1.41m

2 16/12/15 8.0 6.2m on completion of augering

3

16/12/15 Not recorded 8.1m on completion of augering


17/12/15 - 1.7m after 24 hours from completion of

coring

7/1/16 - 1.23m

4 16/12/15 7.5m 3.2m on completion of augering

5

17/12/15 Not recorded 4.0m on completion of augering


7/1/16 - 0.96m

As tabulated above, on completion of coring, groundwater was measured in at depths of 3.0m

(BH1), 3.0m (BH3) and 4.0m (BH5). As water is introduced into the borehole during the coring

process, these groundwater levels are almost certainly influenced by the drill flush water.

The measured groundwater levels on 7 January 2016 were all shallow. Further discussions on

groundwater levels are presented in Section 3.4 below. No other long term groundwater

monitoring has been carried out.

3.3 Laboratory Test Results

The results of the moisture content and Point Load Strength Index tests carried out on recovered

rock cutting and rock core samples correlated reasonably well with our field assessment of

bedrock strength. The estimated UCSs ranged between 6MPa and 16MPa.

The soil pH test results were between 4.4 and 5.9, which show the samples tested to be acidic.

The soil sulphate and chloride test results were less than or equal to 230mg/kg, which indicate

low sulphate and chloride contents. The resistivity test results were relatively high.

28982ZHrpt Page 7

3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results

3.4.1 BH1

On arrival to site on 7 January 2016, the measured groundwater level in the standpipe was 1.41m

depth (RL15.19m). The groundwater level was pumped out down to a depth of 7.16m (RL9.44).

The groundwater level initially rose to 2.3m depth (RL14.3m) after approximately 8½ minutes,

then more slowly and then stabilised at approximately 1.6m depth (RL15.0m) after a period of

approximately 3¾ hours.

The result of the borehole pump-out (rising head) test indicates a high permeability for the shale

bedrock. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the calculated coefficient of

permeability (k) for the rising head test carried out in the BH1 standpipe was approximately

2.7 x 10-5 m/sec.

3.4.2 BH3


depth (RL18.07m). The groundwater level was pumped out down to a depth of 9.56m (RL9.74m).

The groundwater level then rose to 2.7m depth (RL16.6m) after approximately 42 minutes. The

groundwater level appeared to stabilise at approximately 1.71m depth (RL17.59m) after a period

of approximately 2½ hours.




1.7 x 10-5 m/sec.

3.4.3 BH5


depth (RL12.74m). The groundwater level was pumped out down to a depth of 2.51m

(RL11.19m). The groundwater level then rose to 1.5m depth (RL12.2m) after approximately 6½

minutes. The groundwater level appeared to stabilise at approximately 1.26m depth (RL12.44m)

after a period of approximately 16 minutes.



28982ZHrpt Page 8


3.4 x 10-5 m/sec.

3.4.4 General Comments

The slotted portions of the standpipes were within the bedrock profile. The groundwater appears

to be confined to within defects present in the shale bedrock profile.

The calculated coefficient of permeability’s are higher than expected for shale bedrock, where

more typical ‘k’ values are in the range of 10-6 m/sec to 10-9 m/sec. We infer the higher ‘k’ values

to be attributed to groundwater which is probably under pressure within the bedrock profile.

4 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation

Following demolition of the existing building on site, we recommend that an additional two cored

boreholes be drilled below proposed bulk excavation level to further assess the depth to, and

quality of, the underlying shale bedrock. One of the boreholes should be located at the

north-eastern corner of the site, with the other borehole located mid-length along the eastern site

boundary. We would be please to prepare a fee proposal for the additional investigation, if

requested.

4.2 Geotechnical Issues

Based on the investigation results, we consider the following items to be the primary geotechnical

issues associated with the proposed residential development:

The excavation cuts, which will extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, will require

support by shoring walls, that will need to be installed prior to the commencement of bulk

excavation;

Excavation for the proposed basement will need to be carried out carefully due to the

presence of structures that are located on, or near to, the site boundaries. Care must be

taken during excavation so as to not damage, undermine or remove lateral support from the

boundary retaining walls and neighbouring structures;

Groundwater seepage into the bulk excavation will need to be controlled;

28982ZHrpt Page 9

If hydraulic impact rock hammers are used during excavation, then vibrations will need to be

controlled; and

The presence of medium strength shale bedrock, which will present ‘hard’ rock excavation

and piling conditions, will require careful consideration as to the type of plant and equipment

that can be used.

The above geotechnical issues are addressed in detail in the following sections of this report.

4.3 Excavation

All excavation recommendations should be complemented by reference to Safe Work Australia’s

‘Excavation Work Code of Practice’, dated July 2015 and AS3798-2007 ‘Guidelines on

Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments’.

The site is bound by Punchbowl Road to the south, which may be a Roads and Maritime Services

(RMS) asset. If so, the RMS may request completion of retaining wall analyses of the proposed

excavation and shoring to assess the potential impact of the proposed works on Punchbowl

Road. The RMS may also require the installation and subsequent monitoring of borehole

inclinometers, the requirements of which are set out in their Technical Direction document,

Reference: GTD20012/001, dated 27 April 2012. We can prepare a proposal to assist with the

above, if requested.

4.3.1 Dilapidation Survey

Prior to the commencement of excavation, we recommend that dilapidation surveys be completed

on all neighbouring structures to the west, north and east of the site, including any boundary

retaining walls which are to remain.

The dilapidation surveys should include detailed internal and external inspections of the

neighbouring structures and any surrounding pavements, where all defects, including defect

location, type, length and width are rigorously described and photographed.

The respective property owners should be asked to confirm that the dilapidation survey reports

present a fair record of existing conditions. The dilapidation survey reports may then be used as

a benchmark against which to assess possible future claims for damage arising from the works.

We could prepare a proposal for the dilapidation survey reports, if requested.

28982ZHrpt Page 10

4.3.2 Excavation Methods

Prior to the commencement of excavation, demolition of existing structures and pavements within

the footprint of the proposed development, as well as removal of vegetation on site, will be

required. Any deleterious or contaminated fill should be stripped and disposed appropriately

off-site. Reference should be made to the EIS report for the guidance on the off-site disposal of

soil.

We note the presence of the adjoining structures and boundary retaining walls which are located

in close proximity to the proposed excavation. Demolition of existing structures and subsequent

excavation will need to be carried out with care, so as to not destabilise, undermine or remove

lateral support from the nearby structures and boundary retaining walls. All demolition and

excavation work will need to be carried out by suitably experienced and insured contractors.

Based on the investigation results, the excavation for the proposed basement to a maximum

depth of about 11.5m, will extend through the soil and weathered shale bedrock profiles.

Excavation of the soils may be readily completed using buckets fitted to hydraulic excavators. It

will be possible to excavate the Class V and IV shale bedrock using a ‘digging’ bucket fitted to a

large excavator, but with some assistance with a ripping tyne fitted to a large excavator. Ripping

of Class III shale bedrock will be possible with a Caterpillar D8 dozer or equivalent, or

alternatively, hydraulic rock hammers could be used. Rock hammers would be required though

for trimming rock excavation side slopes and for detailed rock excavations such as for footings,

trenches, lift pits etc.

Rock excavation using hydraulic rock hammers will need to be strictly controlled as there will

probably be direct transmission of ground vibrations to nearby structures and buried services.

We recommend that quantitative vibration monitoring be carried out whenever hydraulic rock

hammers are used during rock excavation on this site, as a safeguard against possible vibration

induced damage. By referencing the relevant German Standard DIN4150-3:1999-02, the

vibrations on the neighbouring buildings should be limited to a peak particle velocity of 5mm/s,

subject to review of the dilapidation survey reports. If this vibration limit is exceeded, the

vibrations should be assessed against the attached Vibration Emission Design Goals sheet, as

higher vibrations may be acceptable depending on the vibration frequency. If it is confirmed that

transmitted vibrations are excessive, then it would be necessary to change to a smaller rock

hammer. Alternatively, geotechnical advice could be sought with respect to alternative

excavation options.

28982ZHrpt Page 11

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

Rock saw the perimeter faces. This will effectively reduce ground borne vibrations provided

the base of the rock saw slot is maintained at a lower level than the adjacent excavation

level at all times. Rock sawing would also improve the aesthetics of the completed rock cut

faces.

Maintain rock hammer orientation towards the face and enlarge the excavation by breaking

small wedges off the face.

Operate the rock hammer in short bursts only, to reduce amplification of vibrations.

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

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

and public liability insurances.

We recommend that a copy of this report be provided to the excavation contractor so that they

can make their own assessment of excavation conditions.

4.3.3 Seepage

Groundwater inflows into the excavation are expected as seepage flows through joints and

bedding partings within the bedrock profile. However, seepage may also occur within the fill, at

the fill/residual soil interface and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy rain.

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

pump methods. Notwithstanding, groundwater seepage monitoring must be carried out during

excavation so that any unexpected conditions can be addressed.

A toe drain should be provided at the base of all rock cuttings to collect groundwater seepage and

lead it to a sump for pumping to the stormwater system.

We note that the results of the pump-out tests may be used to assist with seepage analyses to

assess possible groundwater inflow rates into the basement excavation, if required.

28982ZHrpt Page 12

4.4 Excavation Support

4.4.1 Support System

The proposed excavation will extend to, or relatively close to the site boundaries, and therefore

we recommend that the proposed vertical cuts through the soil and weathered shale bedrock

profiles be supported by an engineered retention system.

The shoring system must be installed prior to the commencement of excavation and will need to

be anchored and/or braced internally, as excavation proceeds. Careful control of the construction

sequence will be required to reduce potential movements.

Based on the investigation results, a suitable retention system includes an anchored soldier pile

retaining wall with reinforced shotcrete infill panels. Conventional bored piles will be a suitable

pile type, provided the piles are tremie poured shortly after drilling, due to potential strong

groundwater inflows into the open pile holes.

Due to the variability in the depth to the underlying Class III or better quality shale bedrock, we

recommend that the shoring piles be founded with sufficient embedment below bulk excavation

level to satisfy stability and founding considerations. We recommend that the shoring piles

terminate at a depth of not less than 0.3m below bulk excavation level, including an allowance for

footings, services and other localised excavations below bulk excavation level. A greater depth of

embedment may be required for stability of the shoring wall. The piles can also be used as load

bearing piles for the proposed new building, if founded in the appropriate Class of bedrock.

Due to the presence of medium strength bedrock, only high torque drilling rigs equipped with rock

augers and coring buckets should be brought to this site. We strongly recommend that a full copy

of this report be provided to the prospective piling contractors.

We assume that permanent support of the shoring system will be provided by bracing from the

proposed structure.

4.4.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters

The major consideration in the selection of earth pressures for the design of the retaining walls is

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

pressure coefficients and subsoil parameters may be adopted for a static design for temporary

and permanent retention systems.

28982ZHrpt Page 13

All shoring piles must be uniformly founded in the underlying shale bedrock. For allowable

bearing pressure recommendations, refer to Section 4.4 below.

For a free-standing cantilever wall which is retaining areas where movement is of little

concern (eg. a landscape wall), a triangular lateral earth pressure distribution may be

adopted with an ‘active’ earth pressure coefficient, Ka, of 0.35 for the soil profile, assuming

a horizontal retained surface.

For a free-standing cantilever wall which is retaining areas where movements are to be

reduced, a triangular lateral earth pressure distribution may be adopted with an ‘at rest’

earth pressure coefficient, Ko, of 0.55 for the soil profile, assuming a horizontal retained

surface.

A bulk unit weight of 20kN/m3 should be adopted for the soil and weathered shale

bedrock.

For anchored or propped walls, where minor movements can be tolerated eg where there

are no movement sensitive structures or buried services within 2H of the excavation, we

recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 6H (kPa) for the soil and

Class IV/V bedrock, where H is the retained height in metres. These pressures should be

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

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

(kPa) can be adopted for the soil and Class IV/V bedrock.

For anchored or propped walls, supporting areas sensitive to lateral movement eg where

there are movement sensitive structures or buried service present within 2H of the

excavation, a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 8H (kPa) should be adopted for the

soil profile and Class IV/V bedrock, where H is the retained height in metres. These

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

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

earth pressure of 6H (kPa) can be adopted for the soil and Class IV/V bedrock.

Any surcharge affecting the walls (eg. traffic, construction loads, adjacent footings,

inclined backfill surface, etc.) should be allowed in the design using the appropriate earth

pressure coefficient from above.

A 10kPa lateral pressure should be adopted for the Class III or better quality shale

bedrock to account for small-scale wedges of rock which could be isolated by inclined

joints and horizontal bedding planes.

The retaining walls should be designed as drained and measures taken to induce

complete and permanent drainage of the ground behind the wall. Strip drains

incorporating a non-woven geofabric to act as a filter against subsoil erosion are

appropriate for soldier pile retaining walls with reinforced shotcrete infill panels.

28982ZHrpt Page 14

For piles embedded into the underlying shale bedrock below bulk excavation level an

allowable lateral toe resistance of 150kPa may be adopted. If the embedment is within

Class III or better quality shale bedrock, then allowable lateral toe resistance may be

increased to 350kPa. These values assume excavation is not carried out within the zone

of influence of the wall toe. The upper 0.3m depth of the socket below bulk excavation

level should not be taken into account in the lateral resistance calculations to allow for

tolerance and disturbance effects during excavation.

Temporary anchors should have a free length of not less than 4m and should be bonded

at least 3m into shale bedrock, with the bond length being fully beyond a line drawn up at

45° from bulk excavation level. Temporary anchors may be designed on the basis of a

maximum allowable bond stress of 150kPa within the shale bedrock profile.

All anchors must be proof tested to 1.3 times the working load under the direction of an

experienced engineer independent of the anchor contractor, with anchors ‘locked off’ at

85% of the design working load. The testing may allow an upgrading of the above bond

stress. We recommend only experienced contractors be considered for the anchor

installation.

If temporary anchors extend below a neighbouring property, then permission from the respective

property owner must be obtained, prior to installation. We recommend that requests for

permission commence early in the construction process as our experience has shown that it can

take significant time for such permission to be granted. If permission is not forthcoming, then the

alternative is to provide lateral support by internal bracing or propping.

The following material properties may be used for retaining wall design where computer analysis,

using programs such as Wallap or Plaxis, is proposed:

Material Description Bulk

Density (kN/m3)

Angle of

Friction, ’ (degrees)

Cohesion c’ (kPa)

Poisson’s Ratio

Elastic Modulus

(MPa)

Fill 18 25 0 0.3 15

Silty Clay – Very Stiff 20 26 2 0.3 30

Silty Clay – Hard 20 26 5 0.3 40

Class V/VI Shale 20 32 10 0.25 100

Class III (or better) Shale 24 40 50 0.2 1,000

Regardless of whether a static or computer based analysis is carried out, the wall designer must

check their design for an ultimate case, assuming there is a planar defect inclined at 45° through

the shale bedrock which extends up behind the retaining wall from bulk excavation level, based

on an effective friction angle along the defect of 26°.

28982ZHrpt Page 15

4.5 Footings

Based on the investigation results, Class III or better quality shale bedrock is expected at, or at a

short depth below, bulk excavation level. Therefore, pad/strip footings will be appropriate.

Pad/strip footings, as well as any shoring piles, founded within at least Class III shale bedrock

may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500kPa, provided each

footing/pile excavation is inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to pouring.

The provided bearing pressure above is based upon serviceability criteria of deflections at the

footing base of less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension/pile diameter.

All footings/piles should be excavated/drilled, cleaned out, inspected and poured with minimal

delay. All pile holes should be cleaned out using a cleaning bucket for effective removal of sludge

and loose material. Due to expected groundwater seepage, the shoring piles should be tremie

poured.

4.6 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab

Based on the investigation results, the proposed lowest basement level on-grade floor slab will

directly overlie shale bedrock.

We therefore recommend that underfloor drainage be provided. The underfloor drainage should

comprise a strong, durable, single-sized washed aggregate such as ‘blue metal’ gravel. The

underfloor drainage should connect with the perimeter drains and lead groundwater seepage to a

sump for pumped disposal to the stormwater system.

Joints in the concrete basement level on-grade floor slabs should be designed to accommodate

shear forces but not bending moments by using dowelled or keyed joints.

4.7 Hydrogeological Issues

Based on the investigation results, we expect groundwater seepage is occurring through the

shale bedrock profile. Local seepage flows may also occur through the fill, gravel bands or relic

joints/fissures within the residual silty clay and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy

rainfall. Based on the calculated high permeability characteristics of the shale bedrock, we

expect that initially inflow rates may be relatively high in some parts of the excavation, but with

28982ZHrpt Page 16

seepage volumes expected to reduce with time, once the immediate surrounding area has been

drained, as a result of the excavation being carried out.

A build-up of the groundwater level behind the basement retaining walls to the extent that it will

adversely affect neighbouring properties, is considered unlikely, as drainage will be provided

behind the basement retaining walls.

The underfloor drainage must include a sump and pump dewatering system. The retaining wall

drains must be connected into the underfloor drainage system. Groundwater monitoring of

seepage volumes must be carried out during basement excavation prior to finalising the design of

the pump out facility. The sump(s) must have an automatic level control pump to avoid flooding of

proposed basement. Outlets into the stormwater system will require Council approval.

Further to considering the inflows into the basement, the drawdown of groundwater outside the

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

immediately adjacent to the basement, however, as the lowering of the groundwater will occur

within the shale bedrock profile, this will have no adverse effects on surrounding properties, as

the shale bedrock is relatively ‘incompressible’ with respect to dewatering induced settlements.

4.8 Soil Aggression

In accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) of AS2159-2009 (‘Piling – Design and Installation’), the

exposure classification to concrete piles is ‘moderate’. In accordance with Table 6.5.2(C) of

AS2159-2009, the exposure classification to steel piles is ‘non-aggressive’.

4.9 Further Geotechnical Input

We summarise below the recommended additional geotechnical input that needs to be carried

out:

Additional geotechnical investigation, including the drilling of two cored boreholes.

Dilapidation surveys on the neighbouring buildings.

Quantitative vibration monitoring when using rock hammers during excavation.

Groundwater monitoring of seepage volumes into the excavation.

Proof testing of anchors.

Footing/pile inspections.

28982ZHrpt Page 17

5 GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

tested, inspected and documented.

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

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

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

exist, we recommend that you immediately contact this office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

been correctly implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference No: 28982ZN

Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development

Borehole Sample Depth Sample Description pH Restivity Sulphate Chloride

Number (m) Units (ohm. cm) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

BH1 1.5 - 1.95 Residual Silty Clay 4.4 5,100 <10 230

BH1 2.7 - 3.15 Residual Silty Clay 4.8 5,700 34 190



TABLE C

SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS

SOIL pH, RESISTIVITY, SULPHATE AND CHLORIDE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AFTER4 HRS

ON7/1/16

ONCOMPLET-

ION OFAUGER

ING.

N = 113,3,8

N = 166,7,9

N = 319,13,18

N > 2017,20/120mm

REFUSAL

-

CH

-

CONCRETE: 70mm.tFILL: Silty clay, high plasticity, brown,orange brown and red brown, trace ofash and root fibres, trace of ironstonegravel.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, orangebrown and red brown, with ironstonegravel.

as above,but red brown and light grey.

SHALE: light grey, with iron induratedbands.

SHALE: dark grey.

MC>PL

MC>PL

MC<PL

XW

DW

H

VSt

(H)

EL

VL

420570

260370390

7mm DIA.REINFORCEMENT,25mm TOP COVER

RESIDUAL

TOO FRIABLE FORHP TESTING

VERY LOW'TC' BITRESISTANCE

VERY LOW TO LOWRESISTANCE

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.

11/3

Client: GAZCORP PTY LTD

Project: PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

Location: 27-35 PUNCHBOWL ROAD, BELFIELD, NSW

Job No. 28982ZN Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK308

R.L. Surface: » 16.6m

Date: 17-12-15 Datum: AHD

Logged/Checked by: T.P./N.E.S.

Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

SHALE: dark grey.

REFER TO CORED BOREHOLELOG

DW

SW

VL

L

M


LOW RESISTANCE

MODERATERESISTANCE



12/3








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

FULLRET-URN

START CORING AT 9.04m

SHALE: grey and dark grey,bedded at 0-2°.

END OF BOREHOLE AT 12.04m

SW M

- XWS, 0°, 2mm.t

- J, 80°, Un, R

- J, 75°, P, S

- XWS, 0°, 1mm.t

- J, 60°, Un, R- J, 60°, Un, R- CS, 0°, 5mm.t

- XWS, 0°, 4mm.t- J, 90°, P, RCLASS 18 50mm DIA. PVC STANDPIPEINSTALLED TO 12.0m DEPTH. SLOTTED FROM12.0m TO 6.0m, CASING FROM 6.0m TOSURFACE, 2mm SAND FILTER PACK FROM12.0m TO 5.0m, BENTONITE SEAL FROM 5.0mTO 4.0m DEPTH, BACKFILLED WITH SPOILFROM 4.0m TO 0.15m. CAST IRON GATICCOVER CONCRETED AT SURFACE.


CORED BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.

13/3




Job No. 28982ZN Core Size: NMLC R.L. Surface: » 16.6m

Date: 17-12-15 Inclination: VERTICAL Datum: AHD

Drill Type: JK308 Bearing: - Logged/Checked by: T.P./N.E.S.

Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l Lift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Rock Type, grain character-istics, colour, structure,

minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10

DESCRIPTIONType, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating.

Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ONCOMPLET-

ION

N = 75,3,4

N = 247,9,15

N = 238,11,12

N = SPT16/150mmREFUSAL

-

CH

-

CONCRETE: 230mm.t

FILL: Sandy gravel, fine to coarsegrained, brown, fine to coarse grainedsand.SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, redbrown and orange brown, withironstone gravel.

as abovebut red brown and light grey.


as above,but dark grey.

M

MC>PL

MC<PL

XW

XW-DW

DW

VSt

H

EL

EL-VL

VL

350220270

590>600>600

460600

>600

7mm DIA.REINFORCEMENT.65mm TOP COVER

RESIDUAL


VERY LOW TO LOW'TC' BITRESISTANCE

LOW RESISTANCE



21/2








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

SHALE: dark grey, with iron induratedbands.


DW

SW

VL

M MODERATERESISTANCE



22/2








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ON7/1/16

AFTER24 HRS

N = 113,5,6

N = 206,10,10

N = 245,12,12

N = 298,12,17

N = SPT17/150mmREFUSAL

-

CH

-

CONCRETE: 130mm.tFILL: Silty clay, medium plasticity,brown and orange brown, trace ofironstone gravel and root fibres.SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, redbrown mottled brown, with ironstonegravel.

as above,but red brown and grey.


as above, but dark grey.

MC>PL

MC>PL

MC<PL

XW

DW

VSt

EL

VL

360400270

380380300

380380360

290250270


RESIDUAL




31/3








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

ONCOMPLET-

ION OFAUGER-

ING

SHALE: dark grey, with iron induratedbands.


DW VL

M

LOW RESISTANCE

MODERATERESISTANCE



32/3








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

FULLRET-URN


SHALE: grey, with dark grey,bedded at 0-2°.

CORE LOSS 0.16m

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


SW

SW

M

M

- XWS, 0°, 2mm.t

- CS, 0°, 15mm.t

- Be, 0°, 10mm.t, Un, R

- J, 60°, Un, R- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t

- J, 80°, P, R

- J, 60°, Un, R- XWS, 0°, 2mm.t- J, 90°, P, R

- CS, 0°, 10mm.t

- J, 90°, Un, R

- J, 85°, Un, R

- J, 85°, P, HEALED

CLASS 18 50mm DIA. PVC STANDPIPEINSTALLED TO 15.0m DEPTH. SLOTTED FROM15.0m TO 6.0m, 2mm SAND FILTER PACKFROM 15.0m TO 1.0m, BENTONITE SEALFROM 1m TO 0.5m DEPTH AND BACKFILLEDWITH SPOIL FROM 0.5m TO 0.15m. CAST IRONGATIC COVER CONCRETED AT SURFACE.



33/3







Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l Lift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10



Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ONCOMPLET-

ION. .

N = 115,5,6

N = 103,5,5

N = 3010,13,17

N > 2212,22/130mm

REFUSAL

CH

-

CONCRETE: 140mm.tSILTY CLAY: high plasticity, redbrown and orange brown, withironstone gravel.as above,but red brown and light grey.

as above,but light grey and orange brown.


as above,but dark grey.

SHALE: dark grey.

MC>PL

MC<PL

XW

DW

SW

H

VSt

H

EL

VL

L

510550540

330320320

>600>600>600

NO OBSERVEDREINFORCEMENT

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE


LOW RESISTANCE



41/2








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

SHALE: dark grey.


SW L

L-M LOW TO MODERATERESISTANCE



42/2








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ON7/1/16

ONCOMPLET-

ION OFAUGER-

ING

N = 184,7,11

N = 165,7,9

N > 2510,16,

9/50mmREFUSAL

CH

-

CONCRETE: 120mm.tSILTY CLAY: high plasticity, light greyand red brown, with ironstone gravel.

as above,but light grey and orange brown.


SHALE: dark grey.


MC>PL

XW

DW

VSt

H

EL

VL-L

L

M

360220270

370440540

390>600>600


RESIDUAL

VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE


LOW RESISTANCE

MODERATERESISTANCE



51/2








Gro

undw

ate

rR

ecord

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

Depth

(m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Unifie

dC

lassific

ation

DESCRIPTION

Mois

ture

Conditio

n/

Weath

eri

ng

Str

ength

/R

el. D

ensity

Hand

Penetr

om

ete

rR

eadin

gs (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

FULLRET-URN


SHALE: dark grey and grey,bedded at 0-2°.

CORE LOSS 0.16m

SHALE: dark grey and grey,bedded at 0-2°.


SW

SW

M

M

- XWS, 0°, 5mm.t

- J, 60°, P, S- J, 90°, P, S- CS 0°, 15mm.t- J, 70°, St, S

- J, 45°, Un, S

- J, 90°, P, R

- XWS, 0°, 3mm.t- J, 35°, P, S- J, 35°, P, S

CLASS 18 50mm DIA. PVC STANDPIPEINSTALLED TO 9.7m DEPTH. SLOTTED FROM9.7m TO 3.7m, CASING FROM 3.7m TO 0.1m,2mm SAND FILTER PACK FROM 9.7m TO 2m,BENTONITE SEAL FROM 2m TO 1.5m DEPTHAND BACKFILLED WITH SPOIL FROM 1.5m TO0.15m. CAST IRON GATIC COVER CONCRETEDAT SURFACE



52/2







Wa

ter

Lo

ss/L

eve

l

Ba

rre

l Lift

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


minor components.

CORE DESCRIPTIONW

ea

the

rin

g

Str

en

gth

POINTLOAD

STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)

EL VL

L M

H VH EH

DEFECT DETAILS

DEFECTSPACING

(mm)

500

300

100

50

30

10



Specific General

CO

PY

RIG

HT

COPYRIGHT

1

2

3

APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OFPROPOSED BASEMENT 2

MAGNETIC NORTH

SITE NORTH

45

PU

NC

HB

OW

L R

OA

D

5N =18

N =16

N =>25

5

4N =11

N =10

N =30

N =>22

1N =11

N =16

N =31

N =>20

12

N =7

N =24

N =23

N =SPT

3N =11

N =20

N =24

N =29

N =SPT

320

16

12

8

4

0

-4

R.L

. (m

)

20

16

12

8

4

0

-4

R.L

. (m)

GRAPHICAL BOREHOLE SUMMARY

Concrete

Silty Clay

Shale

Core Loss/Empty

Fill

Observedwaterlevel

Groundwaterseepagelevel

N SPT "N"VALUE

Nc SOLID CONEBLOWCOUNTSPER 150mm

Scale: 1 : 200 (vert) ; NTS (horiz)

JK Geotechnics

NOTE: REFER TO BOREHOLE LOGS Job No.: 28982ZN Figure No.: 2

CO

PYR

IGH

T

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Grou

ndw

ater

RL

(mAH

D)

Time (s)

BH1 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE -V- TIME PLOT

Groundwater RL (mAHD)

CO

PYR

IGH

T

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Grou

ndw

ater

RL

(mAH

D)

Time (s)

BH3 PUMP-OUT TESTGROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE -V- TIME PLOT


COPYRIGHT

11

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12

12.2

12.4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Gro

un

dw

ate

r R

L (m

AH

D)

Time (s)

BH5 PUMP-OUT TESTGROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE -V- TIME PLOT


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

JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 1 of 4

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

INTRODUCTION

These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnicalreport in regard to classification methods, field proceduresand certain matters relating to the Comments andRecommendations section. Not all notes are necessarilyrelevant to all reports.

The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety ofcharacteristics and properties which vary from place to placeand can change with time. Geotechnical engineeringinvolves gathering and assimilating limited facts about thesecharacteristics and properties in order to understand orpredict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site undercertain conditions. This report may contain such factsobtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling,testing or other means of investigation. If so, they aredirectly relevant only to the ground at the place where andtime when the investigation was carried out.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS

The methods of description and classification of soils androcks used in this report are based on Australian Standard1726, the SAA Site Investigation Code. In general,descriptions cover the following properties – soil or rock type,colour, structure, strength or density, and inclusions.Identification and classification of soil and rock involvesjudgement and the Company infers accuracy only to theextent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

Soil types are described according to the predominatingparticle size and behaviour as set out in the attached UnifiedSoil Classification Table qualified by the grading of otherparticles present (e.g. sandy clay) as set out below:

Soil Classification Particle Size

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel

less than 0.002mm

0.002 to 0.075mm

0.075 to 2mm

2 to 60mm

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relativedensity, generally from the results of Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) as below:

Relative DensitySPT ‘N’ Value(blows/300mm)

Very loose

Loose

Medium dense

Dense

Very Dense

less than 4

4 – 10

10 – 30

30 – 50

greater than 50

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

ClassificationUnconfined CompressiveStrength kPa

Very Soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

Friable

less than 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 200

200 – 400

Greater than 400

Strength not attainable

– soil crumbles

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

SAMPLING

Sampling is carried out during drilling or from otherexcavations to allow engineering examination (andlaboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide informationon plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minorconstituents and, depending upon the degree of disturbance,some information on strength and structure. Bulk samplesare similar but of greater volume required for some testprocedures.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walledsample tube, usually 50mm diameter (known as a U50), intothe soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soilcontained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samplesyield information on structure and strength, and arenecessary for laboratory determination of shear strengthand compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generallyeffective only in cohesive soils.

Details of the type and method of sampling used are givenon the attached logs.

INVESTIGATION METHODS

The following is a brief summary of investigation methodscurrently adopted by the Company and some comments ontheir use and application. All except test pits, hand augerdrilling and portable dynamic cone penetrometers requirethe use of a mechanical drilling rig which is commonlymounted on a truck chassis.

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS


Test Pits: These are normally excavated with a backhoe ora tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitusoils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth ofpenetration is limited to about 3m for a backhoe and up to6m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are the problemsassociated with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatementand the consequent effects on close-by structures. Caremust be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pitlocations to either properly recompact the backfill duringconstruction or to design and construct the structure so asnot to be adversely affected by poorly compacted backfill atthe test pit location.

Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of 50mm to 100mmdiameter is advanced by manually operated equipment.Premature refusal of the hand augers can occur on a varietyof materials such as hard clay, gravel or ironstone, and doesnot necessarily indicate rock level.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers: The borehole isadvanced using 75mm to 115mm diameter continuousspiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allowsampling and insitu testing. This is a relatively economicalmeans of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table.Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may becollected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they canbe very disturbed and layers may become mixed.Information from the auger sampling (as distinct fromspecific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is ofrelatively lower reliability due to mixing or softening ofsamples by groundwater, or uncertainties as to the originaldepth of the samples. Augering below the groundwatertable is of even lesser reliability than augering above thewater table.

Rock Augering: Use can be made of a Tungsten Carbide(TC) bit for auger drilling into rock to indicate rock qualityand continuity by variation in drilling resistance and fromexamination of recovered rock fragments. This method ofinvestigation is quick and relatively inexpensive but providesonly an indication of the likely rock strength and predictedvalues may be in error by a strength order. Where rockstrengths may have a significant impact on constructionfeasibility or costs, then further investigation by means ofcored boreholes may be warranted.

Wash Boring: The borehole is usually advanced by arotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods andreturned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings.Only major changes in stratification can be determined fromthe cuttings, together with some information from “feel” andrate of penetration.

Mud Stabilised Drilling: Either Wash Boring orContinuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as acirculating fluid to stabilise the borehole. The term ‘mud’encompasses a range of products ranging from bentonite topolymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to maskthe cuttings and reliable identification is only possible fromintermittent intact sampling (eg from SPT and U50 samples)or from rock coring, etc.

Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core sample isobtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Provided fullcore recovery is achieved (which is not always possible invery low strength rocks and granular soils), this techniqueprovides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method ofinvestigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel,which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually usedwith water flush. The length of core recovered is comparedto the length drilled and any length not recovered is shownas CORE LOSS. The location of losses are determined onsite by the supervising engineer; where the location isuncertain, the loss is placed at the top end of the drill run.

Standard Penetration Tests: Standard Penetration Tests(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can alsobe used in cohesive soils as a means of indicating density orstrength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbedsample. The test procedure is described in AustralianStandard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for EngineeringPurposes” – Test F3.1.

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

The test results are reported in the following form:

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

N = 134, 6, 7

In a case where the test is discontinued short of fullpenetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and30 blows for the next 40mm, as

N>3015, 30/40mm

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

Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mmdiameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In suchcircumstances, the test results are shown on the boreholelogs in brackets.

A modification to the SPT test is where the same drivingsystem is used with a solid 60 tipped steel cone of thesame diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid conecan be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays orloose sands, or may be used where damage wouldotherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid ConePenetration Test (SCPT) are shown as "N c” on the boreholelogs, together with the number of blows per 150mmpenetration.


Static Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation:Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as aDutch Cone) described in this report has been carried outusing an Electronic Friction Cone Penetrometer (EFCP).The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test F5.1.

In the tests, a 35mm diameter rod with a conical tip ispushed continuously into the soil, the reaction beingprovided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fittedwith an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made ofthe end bearing resistance on the cone and the frictionalresistance on a separate 134mm long sleeve, immediatelybehind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly areelectrically connected by wires passing through the centre ofthe push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted onthe control truck.

As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm persecond) the information is output as incremental digitalrecords every 10mm. The results given in this report havebeen plotted from the digital data.

The information provided on the charts comprise:

Cone resistance – the actual end bearing force dividedby the cross sectional area of the cone – expressed inMPa.

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

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

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistancewill vary with the type of soil encountered, with higherrelative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands andoccasionally very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiffclays and peats. Soil descriptions based on coneresistance and friction ratios are only inferred and mustnot be considered as exact.

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

Interpretation of EFCP values can be made to empiricallyderive modulus or compressibility values to allow calculationof foundation settlements.

Stratification can be inferred from the cone and frictiontraces and from experience and information from nearbyboreholes etc. Where shown, this information is presentedfor general guidance, but must be regarded as interpretive.The test method provides a continuous profile ofengineering properties but, where precise information on soilclassification is required, direct drilling and sampling may bepreferable.

Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers: PortableDynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out bydriving a rod into the ground with a sliding hammer andcounting the blows for successive 100mm increments ofpenetration.

Two relatively similar tests are used:

Cone penetrometer (commonly known as the ScalaPenetrometer) – a 16mm rod with a 20mm diametercone end is driven with a 9kg hammer dropping 510mm(AS1289, Test F3.2). The test was developed initiallyfor pavement subgrade investigations, and correlationsof the test results with California Bearing Ratio havebeen published by various Road Authorities.

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

LOGS

The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are anengineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions, and their reliability will depend to someextent on the frequency of sampling and the method ofdrilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbedsampling or core drilling will enable the most reliableassessment, but is not always practicable or possible tojustify on economic grounds. In any case, the boreholes ortest pits represent only a very small sample of the totalsubsurface conditions.

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

Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and itsapplication to design and construction, should therefore takeinto account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, themethod of drilling or excavation, the frequency of samplingand testing and the possibility of other than “straight line”variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurfaceconditions between boreholes or test pits may varysignificantly from conditions encountered at the borehole ortest pit locations.

GROUNDWATER

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

Although groundwater may be present, in lowpermeability soils it may enter the hole slowly or perhapsnot at all during the time it is left open.

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

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

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


More reliable measurements can be made by installingstandpipes which are read after stabilising at intervalsranging from several days to perhaps weeks for lowpermeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particularstratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or wherethere may be interference from perched water tables orsurface water.

FILL

The presence of fill materials can often be determined onlyby the inclusion of foreign objects (eg bricks, steel etc) or bydistinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification ofthe extent of fill materials will also depend on investigationmethods and frequency. Where natural soils similar tothose at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult withlimited testing and sampling to reliably determine the extentof the fill.

The presence of fill materials is usually regarded withcaution as the possible variation in density, strength andmaterial type is much greater than with natural soil deposits.Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverseengineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume andquality of fill is of importance to a project, then frequent testpit excavations are preferable to boreholes.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance withAustralian Standard 1289 ‘Methods of Testing Soil forEngineering Purposes’. Details of the test procedure usedare given on the individual report forms.

ENGINEERING REPORTS

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

Every care is taken with the report as it relates tointerpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion ofgeotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestionsfor design and construction. However, the Company cannotalways anticipate or assume responsibility for:

Unexpected variations in ground conditions – thepotential for this will be partially dependent on boreholespacing and sampling frequency as well as investigationtechnique.

Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutoryauthorities.

The actions of persons or contractors responding tocommercial pressures.

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

SITE ANOMALIES

In the event that conditions encountered on site duringconstruction appear to vary from those which were expectedfrom the information contained in the report, the companyrequests that it immediately be notified. Most problems aremuch more readily resolved when conditions are exposedthat at some later stage, well after the event.

REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FORCONTRACTUAL PURPOSES

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

Copyright in all documents (such as drawings, borehole ortest pit logs, reports and specifications) provided by theCompany shall remain the property of Jeffery andKatauskas Pty Ltd. Subject to the payment of all fees due,the Client alone shall have a licence to use the documentsprovided for the sole purpose of completing the project towhich they relate. License to use the documents may berevoked without notice if the Client is in breach of anyobjection to make a payment to us.

REVIEW OF DESIGN

Where major civil or structural developments are proposedor where only a limited investigation has been completed orwhere the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quitecomplex, it is prudent to have a joint design review whichinvolves a senior geotechnical engineer.

SITE INSPECTION

The company will always be pleased to provide engineeringinspection services for geotechnical aspects of work towhich this report is related.

Requirements could range from:

i) a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are noworse than those interpreted, to

ii) a visit to assist the contractor or other site personnel inidentifying various soil/rock types such as appropriatefooting or pier founding depths, or

iii) full time engineering presence on site.

JKG Graph

GEOTEC

hic Log Symbols fo

HNICAL & ENVI

or Soils and Rock

GRAPHI

RONMENTAL E

s Rev1 July12

IC LOG SY

NGINEERS

MBOLS FOOR SOILS AAND ROCKSKS

Pag

ge 1 of 1

JK GEOTECHN

Note:

GeotecNICAL & ENVIRONMEN

1 Soils possessing2 Soils with liquid

chnics NTAL ENGINEERS

g characteristics of twolimits of the order of 3

UNIF

o groups are designat35 to 50 may be visual

FIED SOIL

ted by combinations olly classified as being

CLASSIFIC

of group symbols (eg. Gof medium plasticity.

CATION TA

GW-GC, well graded g

ABLE

gravel-sand mixture wwith clay fines).

JKG Log S

LOG

Groundw

Samples

Field Te

Moisture(Cohesiv (Cohesio

Strength(ConsistCohesiv

Density Relative(Cohesio

Hand PeReading

Remarks

GEOTEC

ymbols Rev1 Jun

G COLUMN

water Record

s

ests

e Condition ve Soils)

onless Soils)

h tency)

ve Soils

Index/ e Density onless Soils)

enetrometer gs

s

CHNICAL & ENV

e12

SYMBOL

ES U50 DB DS

ASB ASS SAL

N = 17 4, 7, 10

Nc = 5

7

3R

VNS = 25

PID = 100

MC>PL MC≈PL MC<PL

D M W

VS S F St

VSt H

( )

VL L

MD D

VD ( )

300 250

‘V’ bit

‘TC’ bit

60

VIRONMENTAL

C

4

Standing wa

Extent of bo

Groundwate

Soil sample Undisturbed Bulk disturbeSmall disturbSoil sample Soil sample Soil sample

Standard Peshow blows

Solid Cone Pfigures show ‘R’ refers to

R

Vane shear

Photoionisat

Moisture conMoisture conMoisture conDRY –MOIST –WET –

VERY SOFTSOFTFIRMSTIFFVERY STIFFHARDBracketed sy

Density IndVery LooseLooseMedium DenDenseVery DenseBracketed sy

Numbers indnoted otherwise.

Hardened st

Tungsten caPenetration rotation of au

ENGINEERS

LOG SYM

ater level. Time d

rehole collapse s

er seepage into b

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

enetration Test (Sper 150mm pen

Penetration Testw blows per 150mo apparent hamm

reading in kPa o

tion detector rea

ntent estimated tntent estimated tntent estimated t

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

T – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin

F – Unconfin -– Unconfin

ymbol indicates

ex (ID) Range (%<1515-35

nse 35-6565-85>85

ymbol indicates

dicate individual

teel ‘V’ shaped b

arbide wing bit. of auger string inugers.

MBOLS

D

delay following c

shortly after drilli

borehole or exca

h indicated, for er tube sample ta

n over depth indictaken over dept

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

SPT) performed etration. ‘R’ as n

t (SCPT) performmm penetration fmer refusal within

of Undrained She

ding in ppm (So

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

ned compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressiveestimated consis

%)

estimated densit

test results in kP

bit.

n mm under stat

EFINITION

completion of dril

ng.

vation noted dur

environmental anken over depth incated. h indicated.

asbestos screeniacid sulfate soil asalinity analysis.

between depthsnoted below.

med between depfor 60 degree son the correspond

ear Strength.

il sample headsp

n plastic limit. tely equal to plas

plastic limit.

ee water visible oface.

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

SPT ‘N

ty based on ease

Pa on representa

ic load of rig app

lling may be sho

ring drilling or ex

nalysis. ndicated.

ing. analysis.

s indicated by lin

pths indicated byolid cone driven bing 150mm dept

pace test).

stic limit.

on soil surface.

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

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

e of drilling or ot

ative undisturbed

plied by drill head

Pag

own.

xcavation.

es. Individual fig

y lines. Individuaby SPT hammer.th increment.

tion or other test

(Blows/300mm)

0 0

her tests.

d material unless

d hydraulics with

ge 1 of 2

gures

al .

ts.

)

s

hout

JKG Log Symbols Rev

ROCK M

Residual

Extremel

Distinctly

Slightly w

Fresh roc

ROCK SRock strenbedding. Abstract V

TE

Extremel

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

Very Low

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

Low:

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

Medium

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

High:

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

Very Hig

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

Extremel

ABBRE

ABBR

v1 June12

MATERIAL W

TERM

l Soil

ly weathered roc

y weathered rock

weathered rock

ck

STRENGTH ngth is defined bThe test proc

Volume 22, No 2,

ERM SY

ly Low:

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

w:

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

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

Strength:

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

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

h:

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

ly High:

----

----

----

----

-----

-----

EVIATIONS U

REVIATION

Be CS J P

Un S R IS

XWS Cr 60t

WEATHERIN

SYMBO

RS

ck XW

k DW

SW

FR

by the Point Loacedure is desc 1985.

YMBOL Is (5

EL

-----------

VL

-----------

L

-----------

M

-----------

H

-----------

VH

-----------

EH

USED IN DE

DES

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

LO

NG CLASSIF

OL

Soil develoevident; th

Rock is weremoulded

Rock strenironstainingweathering

Rock is slig

Rock show

d Strength Indexribed by the

50) MPa

0.03

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Eas May A pieknife

A piewith A piescra

A pieone

A pieRing

EFECT DESC

SCRIPTION

Parting

thered Seam

efect in millimetre

OG SYMBOL

FICATION

oped on extremelyhere is a large cha

eathered to such , in water.

ngth usually chang. Porosity mayg products in pore

ghtly discoloured

ws no sign of deco

x (Is 50) and refInternational Jo

ily remoulded by

y be crumbled in t

ece of core 150me. Sharp edges o

ece of core 150m knife.

ece of core 150matched or scored w

ece of core 150mblow. Cannot be

ece of core 150mgs when struck wi

CRIPTION

es

Defec(ie re

LS continue

D

y weathered rockange in volume bu

an extent that it

nged by weathery be increased bes.

but shows little or

omposition or stain

fers to the strengournal of Rock

hand to a materia

he hand. Sandst

mm long x 50mm dof core may be fria

mm long x 50mm d

mm long x 50mm dwith knife; rock ri

mm long x 50mm de scratched with p

mm long x 50mm dith a hammer.

ct orientations melative to horizont

d

DEFINITION

k; the mass strucut the soil has not

has “soil” proper

ring. The rock y leaching, or m

r no change of str

ning.

gth of the rock sk Mechanics, M

FIELD GUIDE

al with soil propert

one is “sugary” an

dia. may be brokeable and break du

dia. can be broken

dia. core cannot bngs under hamme

dia. may be brokeen knife; rock rin

dia. is very difficul

NOT

measured relativetal for vertical ho

cture and substant been significantl

rties, ie it either d

may be highly dmay be decreased

rength from fresh

substance in theMining, Science

E

ties.

nd friable.

en by hand and eauring handling.

n by hand with dif

be broken by hander.

en with hand-held ngs under hamme

lt to break with ha

TES

e to the normal oles)

Page

nce fabric are no y transported.

disintegrates or c

discoloured, usuad due to deposit

rock.

direction normae and Geomec

asily scored with a

fficulty. Readily s

d, can be slightly

pick after more ther.

and-held hammer.

to the long core

2 of 2

longer

can be

ally by tion of

al to the chanics.

a

cored

han

.

e axis

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 139609

Client:

JK Geotechnics

PO Box 976

North Ryde BC

NSW 1670

Attention: T Piat, N Smith

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 28982ZN, Belfield

No. of samples: 4 Soils

Date samples received / completed instructions received 22/12/15 / 22/12/15

Analysis Details:

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

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

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

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 8/01/16 / 30/12/15

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

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

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 6Envirolab Reference: 139609

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: 28982ZN, Belfield

Misc Inorg - Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 139609-1 139609-2 139609-3 139609-4

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1 BH1 BH3 BH4

Depth ------------ 1.5-1.95 2.7-3.15 2.7-3.15 1.5-1.95

Type of sample Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date prepared - 23/12/2015 23/12/2015 23/12/2015 23/12/2015

Date analysed - 23/12/2015 23/12/2015 23/12/2015 23/12/2015

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.9

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 230 190 10 20

Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg <10 34 23 27

Resistivity in soil* ohm m 51 57 290 190


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note

that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition,

4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.

Inorg-002 Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25oC in accordance with APHA 22nd ED 2510

and Rayment & Lyons. Resistivity is calculated from Conductivity.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Misc Inorg - Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 23/12/2

015

139609-1 23/12/2015 || 23/12/2015 LCS-1 23/12/2015

Date analysed - 24/12/2

015

139609-1 23/12/2015 || 23/12/2015 LCS-1 24/12/2015

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 139609-1 4.4 || 4.3 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 101%

Chloride, Cl 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 139609-1 230 || 320 || RPD: 33 LCS-1 90%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 139609-1 <10 || <10 LCS-1 90%

Resistivity in soil* ohm m 1 Inorg-002 <1.0 139609-1 51 || 40 || RPD: 24 [NR] [NR]

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date prepared - [NT] [NT] 139609-2 23/12/2015

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 139609-2 24/12/2015

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] 139609-2 79%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg [NT] [NT] 139609-2 128%

Resistivity in soil* ohm m [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample


Revision No: R 00


Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

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

during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

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

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

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics

and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples

respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),

the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse

within the THT or as soon as practicable.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity

of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.


Revision No: R 00

REPORT TO ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR … · This report presents the results of a...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT TO ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR … · This report presents the results of a...