Diamond Sons Pty LTD: Geotechnical Assessment

DIAMOND SONS PTY LTD
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT
13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW
Report E23360 GA
29 May 2017
Report Distribution
Geotechnical Assessment Report
EI Report No. E23360 GA
Date: 29 May 2017
Copies Recipient
1 Soft Copy (PDF – Secured, issued by email) George Youssef

Diamond Sons Pty Ltd
Suite 4, Level 4, 460 Church Street
PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
1 Original (Saved to Digital Archives) EI Australia

Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street
PYRMONT NSW 2009
Authors: Technical Reviewer:
Shahin Falahati Janak Patel

Geotechnical Engineer Senior Engineering Geologist
Revision Details Date Amended By

Original 29 May 2017
© EI Australia 2017
This report is protected by copyright law and may only be reproduced, in electronic or hard copy format, if it is copied and distributed in full and with
prior written permission by EI.
Geotechnical Assessment
13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW P a g e |i
Report No. E23360 GA, 29 May 2017
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 SCOPE OF WORKS .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.5 ASSESSMENT CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 2
2 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 3
2.2 LOCAL LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................... 4
3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 6
4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 9
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 DILAPIDATION SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.3 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 9
4.4 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 11
4.5 EXCAVATION RETENTION ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.6 FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 15
4.7 BASEMENT FLOOR SLAB .......................................................................................................................... 15
5 FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL INPUTS....................................................................................................... 16
6 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 17
7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 18
8 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 18
TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Site Information ............................................................................................................... 3
Table 2-2 Summary of Local Land Use ............................................................................................................... 4
Table 2-3 Topographic and Geological Information ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3-1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 5
Table 3-4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results .................................................................................................. 7
Table 3-5 Summary of Laboratory Test Results .................................................................................................. 7
Table 4-1 Geotechnical Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 14
13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW P a g e | ii
FIGURES
1 Site Locality Plan
2 Borehole Location Plan
APPENDICES
A Borehole Logs and Explanatory Notes
B Laboratory Certificates
C Vibration Limits
D Important Information
13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW P a g e |1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
At the request of Diamond Sons Pty Ltd (the Client), EI Australia (EI) has carried out a Geotechnical Assessment
(GA) for the proposed development at 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW (the site).
This GA report has been prepared to provide advice and recommendations to assist in the preparation of
preliminary design for the proposed development. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the
agreed scope of works outlined in EI’s proposal referenced P14393.1, dated 22 February 2017, and with the Client’s
written authorisation to proceed, dated 18 April 2017.
1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The following documents, supplied by the Client, were used to assist us with the preparation of this GA report:
• Architectural drawings prepared by Architex – Job No. 2330, Drawing Nos. 03 to 18, Issue A, dated 23 March
2017.
• Site survey plan prepared by C & A Surveyors NSW Pty Ltd, Reference No. 5185-16DET, dated 14
December 2016. The datum is in Australian Height Datum (AHD). All levels referred to in this report are in
reference to AHD;
Based on the above documents, EI understands that the proposed development involves the demolition of the
existing site structures and the construction of six levels residential units overlying two basement levels. The lowest
basement level (B2) is proposed to have a finished floor level (FFL) of RL 52.55m. A Bulk Excavation Level (BEL)
of RL 52.3m is assumed for the construction which includes an allowance of 250mm for a concrete basement slab.
To achieve the BEL, excavation depths between about 6.6m to 7.7m Below Existing Ground Level (BEGL) is
expected.
Locally deeper excavations may be required for footings, service trenches, crane pad, and lift overrun pits.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the GA was to assess site surface and subsurface conditions at four augured boreholes, (BH1 to
BH5) to provide geotechnical advice and recommendations addressing the following:
• Dilapidation Surveys;
• Excavation methodologies and monitoring requirements, including rock excavation;
• Vibration considerations
• Groundwater considerations;
• Excavation support requirements, including geotechnical design parameters;
• Building foundation options, including;
 Design parameters.
 Earthquake loading factor in accordance with AS1170.4:2007.
• The requirement for additional geotechnical works.
1.4 SCOPE OF WORKS
The scope of works for the GA included:
• Preparation of a Work Health and Safety Plan;
• Review of relevant geological maps for the project area;
• Site walkover inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess topographical features and site conditions;
• Electro-magnetic scanning of proposed borehole locations for buried conductive services using a licensed
service locator with reference to Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) plans;
• Auger drilling of four boreholes, BH1, BH2, BH3, BH4 and BH5, by a track-mounted drill rig using solid flight
augers equipped with a ‘Tungsten-Carbide’ (T-C) bit to refusal depths of about 8.3m (or to an RL of about
52.7m), 9.9m (or to an RL of about 50.2m), 6.1m (or to an RL of about 53.2m), 6.6m (or to an RL of about
53.2m), and 4.8m (or to an RL of about 53.9m), respectively.
• The approximate surface levels shown on the borehole logs were approximated from spot levels shown on
the supplied survey plan. Approximate borehole locations are shown on Figure 2;
• Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was carried out during auger drilling of the boreholes to assess soil
strength. These were augmented, where possible, by hand penetrometer readings on cohesive soil samples
collected in the SPT split tube sampler. Soil samples were sent to Macquarie Geotechnical Pty Ltd (Macquarie)
and SGS Sydney Pty Ltd (SGS), which are National Australian Testing Authority (NATA) accredited
laboratories, for testing and storage.
• The strength of the sandstone bedrock in the augered sections of the boreholes was assessed by observation
of the auger penetration resistance using a T-C drill bit, examination of the recovered rock cuttings, and rock
moisture content tests. It should be noted that rock strengths assessed from augered boreholes are
approximate and strength variances can be expected. The test results are presented in Appendix B.
• Measurements of groundwater seepage/levels, where possible, in the augered sections of the boreholes during
and shortly after completion of auger drilling;
• Preparation of this GA report.
An EI Engineering Geologist was present on site to set out the borehole locations, direct the testing and sampling,
log the subsurface conditions and record the groundwater levels.
1.5 ASSESSMENT CONSTRAINTS
The GA was limited by the intent of the assessment and the presence of existing structures at the site. The
discussions and advice presented in this report are intended to assist in the preparation of preliminary design for
the proposed development. Following demolition of existing structures and prior to final design, an additional cored
borehole should be drilled to optimise the foundation conditions.
In addition further geotechnical inspections should be carried out during construction to confirm the subsurface
conditions across the site.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION
The site identification details and associated information are presented in Table 2-1 below while the site locality is
shown on Figure 1.
Table 2-1 Summary of Site Information
Information Detail
Street Address 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW
Lot and Deposited Plan (DP) Lot 2, 3 and 4 in DP 203866

Identification
Local Government Authority Blacktown City Council
Current Zoning R4 – High Density Residential
Brief Site Description At the time of the investigation, the site was occupied by single-storey brick (No. 15 &
17) brick and fibro (No. 13) residential dwellings. Paved driveways were located just in
from the western boundary and provided access to the rear of the respective dwellings
to the shed/car port in the rear yards. Based on a cursory inspection from within the
site:
• Paved surfaces at the site were found to be in a fair condition with some
cracking observed.
• The brick buildings were found to be in a good external condition.
Site Area The site area is approximately 1865 m2 (C&A Surveyors NSW Pty Ltd, Reference No.
5185-16 DET, dated 14 December 2016).
2.2 LOCAL LAND USE

The site is situated within an area of mixed use. Current uses on surrounding land at the time of our presence on
site are described in Table 2-2 below.
Table 2-2 Summary of Local Land Use
Direction Relative to Site Land Use Description
North Four-storey brick residential building with on-ground parking, with a setback of about 5m from
the northern site boundary.
East Four-storey brick residential building with on-ground parking and public park. The four-storey
residential building has a setback of about 4m from the eastern site boundary.
South Five-storey residential building with at least a single-level (possibly two-level) basement with
a setback of about 1m from the southern site boundary.
During our presence on site, EI could not gain access to the basement car park beneath the
residential building south of the site. Therefore, the extent of the basement footprint and total
number of basement levels (i.e. if more than one level) has not been confirmed.
West Oxford street Avenue, a two-lane asphaltic-concrete road, followed by single and two-storey
residential buildings with on ground parking and a five-storey residential building with at least
a single-level (possibly two-level) basement car park. These buildings have a setback of about
23m to 25m from the western site boundary.
During our presence on site, EI could not gain access to the basement car park beneath the
residential building west of the site. Therefore, the extent of the basement footprint and total
number of basement levels (i.e. if more than one level) has not been confirmed.
2.3 REGIONAL SETTING

The site topography and geological information for the locality is summarised in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3 Topographic and Geological Information
Attribute Description
Topography Topography of the site is generally gently sloping, with site levels falling gently downwards from the north-
western corner of the site towards the south-eastern corner of the site at an angle of about 3°. The site
levels fall from an RL of about 61.3m on the north-western corner of the site, to an RL of about 58.6m on
the south-eastern corner of the site.
Regional Based on the Department of Mineral Resources Geological Map Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series
Geology Sheet 9030 (DMR 1991), the site is indicated to be underlain by the Bringelly Shale of the Wianamatta
Group, which typically comprises shale, carbonaceous claystone, claystone, laminite, fine to medium
grained lithic sandstone, rare coal and tuff.
This map profile does not take into account the soil derived from in-situ weathering of the underlying rock
(e.g. filling) that have previously been undertaken at the site and its surrounds.
3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
3.1 STRATIGRAPHY
For the development of a site-specific geotechnical model, the observed stratigraphy during the GA has been
grouped into five geotechnical units. A summary of the subsurface conditions across the site, interpreted from the
assessment results, is presented in Table 3-1 below. More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions at each
borehole location are available on the borehole logs presented in Appendix A. The details of the method of soil
and rock classification, explanatory notes and abbreviations adopted on the borehole logs are also presented in
Appendix A.
Table 3-1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Depth to top of Approximate RL Observed
Material
Unit Material 2 Unit of top of Unit Thickness Comments
Description 2
(m BEGL) 1 (m) 1 (m)
Concrete pavement, 100mm thick
observed at BH2.
Fill comprising low to medium
plasticity clay was observed within
Silty CLAY & the fill in all boreholes except BH2
0.0
1 Fill/ Topsoil 58.7 to 61.0 0.1 to 0.8 Sandy where sandy gravel fill was
(Surface)
GRAVEL encountered.
Based on our observations during
drilling, the fill assessed to be poorly
compacted.
Stiff to hard, high plasticity silty
clays grading into extremely
weathered sandstone.
Residual
2 0.1 to 0.8 58.1 to 60.9 0.8 to 2.5 Silty CLAY SPT N values range from 3 to 40.
Soil
Hand penetrometer readings on the
SPT samples ranged from 140kPa
to >600kPa.
Very Low to Distinctly weathered and very low to
Low low strength sandstone, grading into
3 1.6 to 3.1 59.1 to 55.6 0.9 to 1.7 SANDSTONE
Strength low strength sandstone with depth.
Sandstone
Distinctly weathered and very low to
Low low strength sandstone, grading into
4 Strength 3.0 to 4.1 58.0 to 55.2 0.8 to 3.7 SANDSTONE medium strength sandstone with
Sandstone depth.
Distinctly weathered, medium to
Medium to high strength sandstone. The depth
High -3 and RL to the top of this Unit has
5 4.7 to 6.7 55.0 to 53.4 SANDSTONE been assessed based on the
Strength
Sandstone4 resistance to the auger drilling
together with TC-bit refusal depth.
Notes:
1 Approximate depth and level at the time of our assessment. Depths and levels may vary across the site.
2 For more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions, reference should be made to the borehole logs attached to Appendix A.
3 Observed up to termination depth in all boreholes.
The RLs at which the various Units were assessed in each borehole location are further detailed in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2 Approximate RL of top of Each Unit Assessed in the Boreholes

Assessed RL of the Top of Each Unit (m AHD)
Unit Material
BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5
1 Fill 61.0 60.0 59.3 59.8 58.7
2 Residual Soil 60.9 59.9 59.2 59.2 58.1
3 Very Low to Low Strength Sandstone 59.1 58.4 59.9 56.9 55.6
4 Low Strength Sandstone 58.0 57.1 55.2 55.2 54.7
5 Medium to High Strength Sandstone 55.0 53.4 54.3 54.3 54.0
3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater seepage was observed during auger drilling BH1 only at depths of about 5.7mBEGL (RL of about
55.3m). No groundwater seepage was encountered in BH2 to BH5 during drilling.
The boreholes were left open until the end of the day for monitoring of the groundwater levels. No groundwater
level was observed on completion of until end of the day.
We note that the groundwater levels may not have become stabilised within the limited observation period.
3.3 TEST RESULTS
Four soil and eleven rock chip samples were selected for laboratory testing to assess the following:
• Atterberg Limits. Linear Shrinkage and moisture content;
• Rock Moisture Content; and
• Soil aggressivity (pH, Chloride and Sulfate content and electrical conductivity).
A summary of the test results is provided in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 below. Laboratory test certificates are
presented in Appendix B.
Table 3-3 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

BH1 BH4 BH5 BH4
Test/ Sample ID
0.5-0.95m 0.5-0.8 3.0-3.07 0.5-0.95
Unit 2 2 2 2
Material Description 1 SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY
Liquid Limit (%) - - - 68

Atterberg Limits
Plastic Limit (%) - - - 23
Plasticity Index (%) - - - 45
Linear Shrinkage (%) - - - 15

pH 5.2 6.7 8.1 -
Electrical
Aggressivity
240 32 160 -
Conductivity (μS/cm)
Sulfate SO4 (PPM) 300 10 61 -
Chloride Cl (PPM) 170 5.0 160 -
Moisture Content (%) 19.5 17.4 6.8 28.2
Notes:
1 More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions at each borehole location are available on the borehole logs presented in
Appendix A.
Table 3-4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Unit Material Description 1 Moisture Content
Test/ Sample ID
(%)
BH1_3.0-3.2m 4 SANDSTONE 7.2
BH2_9.8m-9.9 5 SANDSTONE 4.3
Notes:
1 More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions at each borehole location are available on the borehole logs presented in
Appendix A.
The Atterberg Limits results on Unit 2 indicated the silty clays to be of High Plasticity and have a High potential for
shrink/swell movements with changes in moisture content (Class H1).
The assessment indicated low permeability soil was present above and below the groundwater table. In accordance
with Tables 6.4.2(C) and 6.5.2(C) of AS 2159:2009 ‘Piling – Design and Installation’, the results of the pH, chloride
and sulfate content and electrical conductivity of the soil provided the following exposure classifications:
Unit 2 – Residual Soils
• ‘Mild’ to ‘Non-Aggressive’ for buried concrete structural elements; and
• ‘Non-Aggressive’ for buried steel structural elements.
In accordance with Table 4.8.1 of AS3600-2009 ‘Concrete Structures’ these soils would be classified as exposure
classification ‘A2’ for concrete in sulfate soils.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
Based on the results of the assessment, we consider the following to be the main geotechnical issues for the
proposed development:
• Basement excavation and retention to limit lateral deflections and ground loss as a result of excavations,
resulting in damage to nearby structures, in particular the excavations adjacent to the eastern and western
site boundaries;
• Rock excavation;
• Foundation design for building loads;
4.2 DILAPIDATION SURVEYS
Prior to excavation and construction, we recommend that detailed dilapidation surveys be carried out on all
structures and infrastructures surrounding the site that falls within the zone of influence of the excavation. The zone
of influence of the excavation is defined by a distance back from the excavation perimeter of twice the total depth
of the excavation. The reports would provide a record of existing conditions prior to commencement of the work. A
copy of each report should be provided to the adjoining property owner who should be asked to confirm that it
represents a fair assessment of existing conditions. The reports should be carefully reviewed prior to demolition
and construction.
4.3 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY
4.3.1 Excavation Assessment
Prior to any excavation commencing:
• An engineered retention system must be installed prior to excavation commencing; and
• Reference should be made to the WorkCover Excavation Work Code of Practice – July 2015.
Bulk excavation across the site is estimated to depths between 6.6m to 7.7m BEGL or to an RL of about 52.3m:
Based on the borehole logs, the proposed basement excavations will therefore extend through all Units outlined in
Table 3-1 above. A full depth retention system must be installed prior to excavation commencing.
Units 1, 2 and 3 could be excavated using buckets of conventional earthmoving Hydraulic Excavators, particularly
if fitted with ‘Tiger Teeth’ with some moderate to hard ripping.
Excavation of Unit 4 and 5 is expected to present hard or heavy ripping, or “hard rock” excavation conditions.
Ripping of Unit 4 and 5 would require a high capacity and heavy bulldozer of at least D9 or similar for effective
production. The use of a smaller size bulldozer may result in lower productivity, and this should be allowed for. The
presence of defects within the sandstone will help facilitate the excavation, but only marginally. Grid sawing
techniques with ripping or hammering will also facilitate the excavation.
Alternatively, hydraulic rock breakers, rock saws and/ or rotary grinders could be used, though productivity would
be lower and equipment wear increases, and this should be allowed for. Such equipment would also be required
for detailed excavation, such as footings or service trenches, and for trimming of faces. Final trimming of faces may
also be completed using a grinder attachment rather than a rock breaker in order to assist in limiting vibrations. The
use of rotary grinders generally generates dust and this may be supressed by spraying with water.
Excavation using rock hammers should commence away from the adjoining structures and the transmitted
vibrations monitored to assess how close the hammer can operate to the adjoining structures while maintaining
transmitted vibrations within acceptable limits. The vibration measurements can be carried out using either an
attended or an unattended vibration monitoring. An unattended vibration monitoring must be fitted with an alarm in
the form of a strobe light or siren or alerts sent directly to the site supervisor to make the plant operator aware
immediately when the vibration limit is exceeded. The vibration monitor must be set to trigger the alarm when the
13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW P a g e | 10
overall Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) exceeds set limits outlined by a vibration monitoring plan. Reference should
be made to Appendix C for a guide to acceptable limits of transmitted vibrations.
If it were found that transmitted vibrations by the use of rock hammers are unacceptable, then it would be necessary
to change to a smaller excavator with a smaller rock hammer, or to a rotary grinder, rock saws, jackhammers,
ripping hooks, chemical rock splitting and milling machines. Although these are likely to be less productive, they
would reduce or possibly eliminate risks of damage to adjoining properties through vibration effects transmitted via
the ground. Such equipment would also be required for detailed excavation, such as footings or service trenches,
and for trimming of faces. Final trimming of faces may also be completed using a grinder attachment rather than a
rock breaker in order to assist in limiting vibrations. The use of rotary grinders generally generates dust and this
may be supressed by spraying with water. To assist in reducing vibrations and over-break of the sandstone, we
recommend that initial saw cuts through the bedrock may be provided using rock saw attachments fitted to the
excavator. However, the effectiveness of such approach must be confirmed by the results of vibration monitoring.
Vibrations induced by excavations can be reduced by alternative methods such as the following:
• Commence the rock excavation away from potentially sensitive areas;
• Keep rock hammer orientation towards the face and enlarge excavation by breaking small wedges off faces;
• Operate hammers in short bursts only;
• Use smaller equipment (resulting in low productivity); and
• Use line sawing, especially along boundaries, to assist in breaking and trimming.
In addition, we recommend that only excavation contractors with appropriate insurances and experience on similar
projects be used. The contractor should also be provided with a copy of this report to make his own judgement on
the most appropriate excavation equipment.
Groundwater seepage monitoring should be carried out during bulk excavation prior to finalising the design of a
pump out facility. Outlets into the stormwater system will require Council approval.
Furthermore, any existing buried services, which run below the site, will require diversion prior to the
commencement of excavation or alternatively be temporarily supported during excavation, subject to permission or
other instructions from the relevant service authorities. Enquiries should also be made for further information and
details, such as invert levels, on the buried services.
4.3.2 Excavation Monitoring
Consideration should be made to the impact of the proposed development upon neighbouring structures, roadways
and services. Basement excavation retention systems should be designed so as to limit lateral deflections.
Contractors should also consider the following limits associated with carrying out excavation and construction
activities:
• Limit lateral deflection of temporary or permanent retaining structures;
• Limit vertical settlements of ground surface at common property boundaries and services easement.
• Limit Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) from vibrations, caused by construction equipment or excavation,
experienced by any nearby structures and services.
Monitoring of deflections of retaining structures and surface settlements should be carried out by a registered
surveyor at agreed points along the excavation boundaries and along existing building foundations/ services/
pavements and other structures located within or near the zone of influence of the excavation. Owners of existing
services adjacent to the site should be consulted to assess appropriate deflection limits for their infrastructures.
Measurements should be taken:
• Before commencement of retaining structures where appropriate to determine the baseline readings. Two
independent sets of measurements must be taken confirming measurement consistency;
• After construction of the retaining structures, but before commencement of excavation;

• After excavation to the first row of supports or anchors, but prior to installation of these supports or anchors;
• After excavation to any subsequent rows of supports or anchors, but prior to installation of these supports or
anchors;
• After excavation to the base of the excavation;
• After de-stressing and removal of any rows of supports or anchors; and
• One month after completion of the permanent retaining structure or after three consecutive measurements
not less than a week apart showing no further movements, whichever is the latter.
4.4 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS
Groundwater seepage was observed during auger drilling BH1 at depths of about 5.7mBEGL (RL of about 55.3m).
Standing groundwater level was not observed in all borehole on completion and shortly after the completion of
drilling (i.e. at the end of the day).
However, experience shows that due to the expected low permeability of the silty clay and bedrock profile,
groundwater inflows into the excavation should not have an adverse impact on the proposed development or on
the neighbouring sites. We expect that groundwater inflows into the excavation along the soil/rock interface and
through any defects within the sandstone bedrock (such as jointing, and bending planes, etc.) particularly following
a period of heavy rain. The initial flows into the excavation may be locally high, but would be expected to decrease
with time as the bedding seams/joints are drained. We recommend that monitoring of seepage be implemented
during the excavation works to confirm the capacity of the drainage system.
We expect that any seepage that does occur should be able to be controlled by a conventional sump and pump
system. We recommend that a sump-and-pump system be used both during construction and for permanent
groundwater control below the basement floor slab.
In the long term, drainage should be provided behind all basement retaining walls, around the perimeter of the
basement and below the basement slab. The hydraulic engineer should inspect the completed excavation to
confirm that adequate drainage has been allowed for. Drainage should be connected to the sump-and-pump system
and discharging into the stormwater system. The permanent groundwater control system should take into account
any possible soluble substances in the groundwater which may dictate whether or not groundwater can be pumped
into the stormwater system.
The design of drainage and pump systems should take the above issues into account along with careful ongoing
inspections and maintenance programs.
EI recommends that following demolition the inflow rates be confirmed by drilling of an additional borehole with
groundwater monitoring well to confirm groundwater inflow rates.
4.5 EXCAVATION RETENTION
4.5.1 Support Systems
From a geotechnical perspective, it is critical to maintain the stability of the adjacent structures and infrastructures
during demolition, excavation and construction works.
The proposed basement footprint will extends close to the northern, southern and western site boundaries.
Therefore, temporary batter slopes of the soil and weathered rock profile will not be feasible adjacent to these
basement excavation face. However, where space permits, temporary batters of no steeper than 1(V) Vertical: 1(H)
Horizontal, may be feasible, such as excavations adjacent to the eastern site boundary.
Unsupported vertical cuts of Unit 1 fill, Unit 2 soils and Unit 3 rock profile are not recommended for this site as these
carry the risk of potential slump failure especially after a period of wet weather. Slumping of the material may result
in injury to personnel and/or damage to nearby structures/infrastructures and equipment. Internal temporary batters
used within the site during the bulk excavation works, such as the sides of haul ramps should be no steeper than
1V (Vertical): 1H (Horizontal). The above temporary batters should remain stable provided that all surcharge loads,
including construction loads, are kept at a distance of at least H plus 1m (where H is the height of the batter in
metres and additional 1.0m away from the zone of influence) from the crest of the batter. If steeper batters are to
be used, then shotcrete and soil nail system designed by a structural or geotechnical engineer must support these.
The stability of these batters can be assessed using computer slope stability analysis software such as Slope/W.
We can complete such analysis, if commissioned to do so.
Where batters are used, the space between the batters and the permanent retaining walls will need to be carefully
backfilled to reduce future settlement of the backfill. Only light compaction equipment should be used for
compaction behind retaining walls so that excessive lateral pressures are not placed on the walls. This will require
the backfill to be placed in thin layers, say 100mm loose thickness, appropriate to the compaction equipment being
used. The compaction specification for the backfill will depend on whether paving or structures are to be supported
on the fill. If the fill is to support paved areas it should be compacted to a density of at least 98% of Standard
Maximum Dry Density (SMDD) for granular fill materials, but if it is only to support landscaped areas of lower
compaction specification, say 95% of SMDD, may be appropriate, provided the risk of future settlement and
maintenance can be accepted. An alternative for backfill would also be to use a uniform granular material, wrapped
in a geofabric.
Where space does not allow for temporary batters, a suitable retention system, such as anchored/propped soldier
pile walls, with concrete infill panels, will be required for the support of at least Units 1, 2, and 3. The use of a more
closely spaced shoring system is recommended adjacent to neighbouring buildings/infrastructures, so as to reduce
the lateral movements and the risk of potential damage. The piles must be installed to below BEL and socketed
into Unit 5 or better.
Excavations within Unit 4 and 5, low and medium to high strength sandstone or better may be cut vertically without
temporary support. If vertical cuts are adopted, a geotechnical engineer must inspect the excavations at regular
intervals to check for any inclined joints or weak seams that require stabilisation. Such geotechnical inspections
should be carried out at depth intervals of no more than 1.5 m. If adverse defects are encountered, temporary
stabilisation measures may comprise rock bolts, shotcrete and mesh, or dental treatment of thin weak seams using
non-shrink grout, and this should be allowed for. However, anchors or props may be required at the toe of piles (if
adopted) to provide lateral stability, if shoring piles terminated above bulk excavation level.
In the long term any Unit 4 and Unit 5 – low and medium to high strength sandstone will also degrade and spall
and should be protected by reinforced shotcrete infill panels.
Bored piers may be used for this site. However, relatively large capacity piling rigs (e.g. Soilmec SR-30 or larger)
with rock augers and coring buckets will be required for drilling through the sandstone bedrock. The use of
pendulum attachments on excavators are not recommended, as these will have difficulties penetrating the
sandstone and/ or ironstone bands. The use of smaller capacity drill rigs (such as Soilmec SR-20 or equivalent) is
likely to result in lower productivity (probably refusal to further penetration) and equipment wear increase, and this
should be allowed for. We recommend further advice be sought from piling contractors who should be provided
with a copy of this report.
The proposed pile locations should take into account the presence of any buried services. Further advice should
be sought from prospective piling contractors who should be provided with a copy of this report.
4.5.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters

The following parameters may be used for static design of temporary and permanent retaining walls at the subject
site:
• For progressively anchored or propped walls where minor movements can be tolerated (provided there are no
buried movement sensitive services), we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 5H
kPa for soil and Unit 3 sandstone bedrock, where H is the retained height in meters. These pressures should
be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system, tapering to nil at top and bottom;
• For progressively anchored or propped walls which support areas which are highly sensitive to movement
(such as areas where movement sensitive structures, i.e. to the south-west, east, west, or infrastructures or
buried services are located in close proximity), we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure
distribution of 8H kPa for soil and Unit 3 sandstone bedrock, where ‘H’ is the retained height in meters. These
pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system, tapering to nil at top
and bottom;
• All surcharge loading affecting the walls (including from construction equipment, construction loads, adjacent
high level footings that are to remain, etc.) should be adopted in the retaining wall design as an additional
surcharge using an ‘at rest’ earth pressure coefficient, ko, of 0.58;
• The retaining walls should be designed as drained and measures are to be taken to provide complete and
permanent drainage behind the walls. Strip drains protected with a non-woven geotextile fabric (such as Bidim
A34) should be used behind the shotcrete infill panels for soldier pile walls to act as a filter against subsoil
erosion;
• For piles embedded into Unit 4 or better, the allowable lateral toe resistance value outlined in Table 4-1 below
may be adopted. These values assume excavation is not carried out within the zone of influence of the wall
toe and the rock does not contain adverse defects etc. The upper 0.3m depth of the socket should not be taken
into account to allow for tolerance and disturbance effects during excavation;
• If temporary anchors extend beyond the site boundaries, then permission from the neighbouring properties
would need to be obtained prior to installation. Also, the presence of neighbouring basements (if any) or
services and their levels must be confirmed prior to finalising anchor design.
• Anchors should have their bond length within Unit 3 or better. For the design of anchors bonded into Unit 3 or
better, the allowable bond stress value outlined in Table 4-1 below may be used, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Anchor bond lengths of at least 3m behind the ‘active’ zone of the excavation (taken as a 45 degree zone
above the base of the excavation) is provided;
2. Overall stability, including anchor group interaction, is satisfied;
3. All anchors should be proof loaded to at least 1.33 times the design working load before locked off at
working load. Such proof loading is to be witnessed by and engineer independent of the anchoring
contractor. We recommend that only experienced contractors be considered for anchor installation with
appropriate insurances;
4. If permanent anchors are to be used, these must have appropriate corrosion provisions for longevity.
Table 4-1 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
Unit 1 Unit 2 Very to Low Low Strength Medium to
Material 1
Fill Residual Soil Strength Sandstone High Strength
Sandstone Sandstone
RL of Top of Unit (m) 2 Refer to Table 3-2
Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 18 20 23 24 24
Earth At rest, Ko 3 0.58 0.58 0.50 - -
Pressure Active, Ka 3 0.41 0.41 0.33 - -
Coefficients Passive, Kp 3 - - - - -
Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa) -
5
- - - 1000
Allowable -
in Compression - - - 100
Shaft
Adhesion -
in Uplift - - - 50
(kPa) 4, 5
Allowable Pile Toe Resistance -
- - - 100
(kPa)
Allowable Anchor Bond Stress
- - 75 100 150
(kPa)
Ultimate Bearing Pressure (kPa) 5, -
7
- - - 3000
Ultimate Shaft Adhesion (kPa) 4, 5, -

6, 7
- - - 150
Earthquake Site Risk • AS 1170.4:20 07 indicates an earthquake subsoil class of Class Ce.(Shallow Soil)
Classification • AS 1170.4:2007 indicates that the hazard factor (z) for Sydney is 0.08.
Notes:
1 More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions are available on the borehole logs presented in Appendix A.
2 Approximate levels of top of unit at the time of our assessment. Levels may vary across the site.
3 Earth pressures are provided on the assumption that the ground behind the retaining walls is horizontal.
4 Side adhesion values given assume there is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material and should achieve a clean socket roughness category R2 or
better. Design engineer to check both ‘piston pull-out’ and ‘cone liftout’ mechanics in accordance with AS4678-2002 Earth Retaining Structures.
5 To adopt these parameters we have assumed that:
- Footings have a nominal socket of at least 0.3m, into the relevant founding material;
- There is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material (a clean socket roughness category of R2 or better);
- Potential soil and groundwater aggressivity will be considered in the design of piles;
- The pile should be drilled in the presence of a Geotechnical Engineer prior to pile construction to verify that ground conditions meet design assumptions.
Where groundwater ingress is encountered during pile excavation, concrete is to be placed as soon as possible upon completion of pile excavation. Pile
excavations should be pumped dry of water prior to pouring concrete, or alternatively a tremmie system must be used;
- The bases of all pile, pad or strip footing excavations are cleaned of loose and softened material and water is pumped out prior to placement of concrete;
- The concrete is poured on the same day as drilling, inspection and cleaning.
- The allowable bearing pressures given above are based on serviceability criteria of settlements at the footing base/pile toe of less than or equal to 1%
of the minimum footing dimension (or pile diameter).
6 For side shear only sockets (in tension), we recommend a geotechnical reduction factor, Φg, of 0.5 to be used.
7 We recommend a basic geotechnical strength reduction factor, Φgb, of 0.48 calculated from Table 4.3.2 (A, B, and C) of AS2159-2009: Piling Design and Installation, be
adopted.
4.6 FOUNDATIONS
Following bulk excavations, we expect Unit 5 material to be exposed at the bulk excavation level across the site.
Based on the expected low to medium column loads, EI recommends that all footings for the building and retaining
walls be founded within the sandstone bedrock of Unit 5 or better to provide uniform support and reduce the
potential for differential settlements.
Footings founded within Unit 5 may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1000kPa, based on
serviceability. Higher bearing capacity is feasible subject to drilling of additional two cored boreholes following the
demolition of existing structures on site. The structural engineer should make reference to the RLs to top of Units
5 shown in Table 3-2 and compare these RLs to the final bulk excavation levels across the site.
Where piles are required to be socketed into the bedrock, we recommend that relatively large capacity drilling rigs
(such as Soilmec SR-40 or larger) with rock augers and coring buckets be used. The proposed pile locations should
take into account the presence of the neighbouring anchors (if any) and/or the presence of buried services.
A geotechnical engineer should inspect the initial stages of the shoring pile drilling and footing excavations in order
to:
• Ascertain that the required foundation material, socket lengths and design bearing pressure has been reached;
and
• Check foundation conditions and assess possible variations that may occur.
4.7 BASEMENT FLOOR SLAB

Unit 5 sandstone bedrock is expected to be exposed at the BEL. We recommend that the basement slab is uniformly
supported on sandstone bedrock. We therefore recommend that underfloor drainage be provided and should
comprise a strong, durable, single sized washed aggregate such as ‘blue metal gravel’. Joints in the concrete floor
slab should be designed to accommodate shear forces but not bending moments by using dowelled and keyed
joints. The basement floor slab should be isolated from columns. The completed excavation should be inspected
by the hydraulic engineer to confirm the extent of the drainage required
In addition, a system of sub-soil drains comprising a durable single sized aggregate with perforated drains/pipes
leading to sumps should be provided.
Permission may need to be obtained from the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and possibly Council
for any permanent discharge of seepage into the drainage system. Given the subsurface conditions, we expect that
seepage volumes would be low and within the DPI limits. However, if permission for discharge is not obtained, the
basement may need to be designed as a tanked basement.
5 FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL INPUTS

Below is a summary of the recommended additional work that needs to be carried out:
• Additional boreholes to confirm the depth and quality of Unit 5 sandstone bedrock or better across the site;
• Dilapidation surveys;
• Classification of all excavated material transported off site;
• Witnessing installation and proof-testing of anchors;
• Geotechnical inspections of foundations; and
• Ongoing monitoring of groundwater inflows into the bulk excavation;
• Following demolition works:
o Installation of a monitoring well;
o Groundwater inflow rates should be confirmed by pump test into monitoring well to confirm
groundwater inflow rates.
We recommend that a meeting be held after initial structural design has been completed to confirm that our
recommendations have been correctly interpreted. We also recommend a meeting at the commencement of
construction to discuss the primary geotechnical issues and inspection requirements.
6 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Diamond Sons Pty Ltd who is the only intended beneficiary
of EI’s work. The scope of the investigation carried out for the purpose of this report is limited to those agreed with
No other party should rely on the document without the prior written consent of EI, and EI undertakes no duty, or
accepts any responsibility or liability, to any third party who purports to rely upon this document without EI's
approval.
EI has used a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in similar investigations by reputable members of the
geotechnical industry in Australia as at the date of this document. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made
or intended. Each section of this report must be read in conjunction with the whole of this report, including its
appendices and attachments.
The conclusions presented in this report are based on a limited investigation of conditions, with specific sampling
and test locations chosen to be as representative as possible under the given circumstances.
EI's professional opinions are reasonable and based on its professional judgment, experience, training and results
from analytical data. EI may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to
prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified by EI.
EI's professional opinions contained in this document are subject to modification if additional information is
obtained through further investigation, observations, or validation testing and analysis during construction. In
some cases, further testing and analysis may be required, which may result in a further report with different
conclusions.
We draw your attention to the document “Important Information”, which is included in Appendix D of this report.
The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this
report should be. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by EI, but rather to
ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.
Should you have any queries regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact EI.
7 REFERENCES
AS1170.4:2007, Structural Design Actions, Part 4: Earthquake Actions in Australia, Standards Australia.
AS1726:1993, Geotechnical Site Investigations, Standards Australia.
AS2159:2009, Piling – Design and Installation, Standards Australia.
AS3600:2009, Concrete Structures, Standards Australia
Excavation Work Code of Practice – July 2015 – WorkCover NSW,
NSW Department of Finance and Service, Spatial Information Viewer, maps.six.nsw.gov.au.
NSW Department of Mineral Resources (1983) Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Edition 1).
Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources.
8 ABBREVIATIONS
AHD Australian Height Datum
AS Australian Standard
BEL Bulk Excavation Level
BEGL Below Existing Ground Level
BH Borehole
DBYD Dial Before You Dig
DP Deposited Plan
EI EI Australia
GA Geotechnical Assessment
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia
RL Reduced Level
SPT Standard Penetration Test
T-C Tungsten-Carbide
FIGURES
SITE
SITE
Drawn: G.Y. Figure:

Approved:
Date:
J.P.
26-05-17
1
Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, PYRMONT 2009 Not To Site Locality Plan
Scale: Project: E23360 GA
Ph (02) 9516 0722 Fax (02) 9518 5088 Scale
Map Source:C&A SURVEYORS NSW P/L, Reference: 5185-16 DET, Date: 14-12-2016
LEGEND Figure:
Drawn: G.Y. Diamond Sons Pty Ltd
Approximate site boundary
Approximate basement boundary

Approved: J.P.
2
Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, PYRMONT 2009 Date: 26-05-17 Sampling Location Plan Project: E23360 GA
Approximate borehole location Ph (02) 9516 0722 Fax (02) 9518 5088
APPENDIX A
BOREHOLE LOGS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
BOREHOLE: BH1
Project Proposed Residential Development East 306851.6 m
Location 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown North 6261413.3 m MGA94 Zone 56 Sheet 1 OF 1
Position Refer to Figure 2 Surface RL 61.00 m AHD Date Started 4/5/17
Job No. E23360 Contractor Geosense Drilling Pty Ltd Date Completed 4/5/17
Client Diamond Sons Pty Ltd Drill Rig Hanjin DB8 Logged SF Date: 4/5/17
Inclination -90° Checked JP Date: 26/5/17
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
61.00 - TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY; low to medium plasticity, dark brown, - - TOPSOIL
0.20
with some sand and rootlets.
60.80 CH RESIDUAL SOIL
Silty CLAY; high plasticity, red-brown, with pale grey mottling,
trace of rootlets.
SPT 0.50-0.95 m
1,3,3
N=6 M
BH1_0.50-0.95 VSt
(<PL)
1 PP =250-280 kPa
L
1.50
59.50 SPT 1.50-1.85 m From 1.50 m, grading into extremely low strength, extremely M
5,15,6/50mm HB weathered SHALE, with iron stone bands. H
(<PL)
1.85 N > 21
59.15 BH1_1.50-1.95 - SANDSTONE; fine grained, orange-brown and red, very low WEATHERED ROCK
2 PP =500->600 kPa strength, distinctly weathered, with shale and clay bands.
2.30
L 58.70 From 2.30 m, low strength, distinctly weathered.
3
SPT 3.00-3.02 m
3/20mm HB
N=SPT
3.50 BH1_3.00-3.02
57.50 BH1_3.00-3.20 D
L 3.70 From 3.50 m, clay band, 200 mm thick.
57.30 From 3.70 m, pale grey to grey, with pale orange iron staining,
very low strength, distinctly weathered.
4
AD/T
EIA LIB 1.03.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 GA_E23360_REV1.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 26/05/2017 16:38 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: EIA 1.03 2014-07-05 Prj: EIA 1.03 2014-07-05
4.40
56.60 BH1_4.40-4.50 D From 4.40 m, grey to dark grey, with orange iron staining, low
strength.
L-M
5
- -
BH1_5.40-5.50 D
6.00
6
55.00 BH1_6.00-6.10 D From 6.00 m, grey to dark grey, low to medium strength,
slightly weathered.
7
BH1_7.00-7.10 D
M-H
8.30 BH1_8.20-8.30 D
Hole Terminated at 8.30 m
TC-bit refusal on medium to high strength SANDSTONE.
10
This borehole log should be read in conjunction with EI Australia's accompanying standard notes.
BOREHOLE: BH2
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
-
DT
0.10 - CONCRETE; 100mm thick. - - CONCRETE HARDSTAND

0.20 FILL
59.90 CH FILL: Sandy GRAVEL; fine to medium, sub-angular to
angular, grey to dark grey, sand is fine grained. RESIDUAL SOIL
SPT 0.50-0.95 m Silty CLAY; high plasticity, pale brown to pale brown, with
orange mottling, trace of fine to medium- sub angular M
1,2,2 (>PL)
N=4 ironstone gravel.
BH2_0.50-0.95 St -
1 1.10 PP =170-210 kPa VSt
59.00 From 1.10 m, grading into extremely low strength, extremely
weathered SANDSTONE, with iron stone bands. M
(<PL)
L SPT 1.50-1.70 m
1.70 13,6/50mm HB
58.40 N=SPT - SANDSTONE; fine grained, pale grey to pale brown, with WEATHERED ROCK
BH2_1.50-1.70 orange iron staining, very low strength, distinctly weathered,
2 2.10 with shale and clay bands.
58.00 From 2.10 m, clay bands, 300 mm thick.
2.40
57.70 From 2.40 m, very low to low strength, with shale band.
3.00
3
57.10 BH2_3.00-3.10 D From 3.00 m, low strength.
4.00
4
56.10 BH2_4.00-4.10 D
GWNE during or shortly after auguring.
From 4.00 m, grey to dark grey, with orange iron staining.

L-M
AD/T
5
BH2_5.00-5.10 D
5.30
54.80 From 5.30 m, grey to dark grey, low to medium strength,
slightly weathered.
- -
M-H 6
BH2_6.00-6.10 D
6.70
53.40 BH2_6.70-6.80 D From 6.70 m, medium to high strength.
H
7.00
7
53.10 BH2_7.00-7.10 D From 7.00 m, low to medium strength.
8
BH2_8.00-8.10 D
M-H
9.90 BH2_9.80-9.90 D
10
BOREHOLE: BH3
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
59.30 - FILL: Silty CLAY; low to medium plasticity, brown to dark - - FILL
0.20
brown, with some fine to medium, angular to sub angular
59.10 CH RESIDUAL SOIL
brick and concrete gravel
Silty CLAY; high plasticity, red-brown, trace of rootlets.
0.60 SPT 0.50-0.95 m
58.70 1,1,2 From 0.60 m, pale brown to pale grey, with red mottling.
N=3
BH3_0.50-0.95 M St -
1 PP =140-210 kPa (>PL) VSt
L
SPT 1.50-1.95 m
5,7,13
1.80 N=20
57.50 BH3_1.50-1.95 From 1.80 m, grading into extremely low strength, extremely
2 PP >600 kPa weathered shale and sandstone, with iron stone bands.
2.40
56.90 - SANDSTONE; fine grained, pale grey to brown, with orange
iron staining, extremely low strength, extremely weathered,
with very low strength, distinctly weathered shale bands.
M
H
AD/T
3 (<PL)
SPT 3.00-3.45 m
8,22,18
L-M N=40
BH3_3.00-3.45
PP >600 kPa
4 4.10
55.20 BH3_4.10-4.20 D - SANDSTONE; fine grained, grey to dark grey, low strength, WEATHERED ROCK
slightly weathered.
5
M-H BH3_5.00-5.10 D - -
5.30
54.00 From 5.30 m, low to medium strength.
6 6.10 BH3_6.00-6.10 D
10
BOREHOLE: BH4
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
59.80 - FILL: Silty CLAY; low to medium plasticity, orange-brown, with FILL
some fine to medium brick gravel and rootlets.
-
M
SPT 0.50-0.95 m (>PL)
1,2,1
L 0.80 N=3
59.00 BH4_0.50-0.80 CH Silty CLAY; high plasticity, red-brown. St - RESIDUAL SOIL
1.00 VSt
1 BH4_0.80-0.95
58.80 From 1.00 m, grading into extremely low strength, extremely
PP =140-210 kPa
weathered SANDSTONE, with shale bands, and ironstone
bands. M H
(<PL)
1.55
58.25 SPT 1.50-1.55 m - WEATHERED ROCK
5/50mm HB SANDSTONE; fine grained, very low to low strength, pale grey
L-M to brown, with orange ironstone iron stone staining, and shale
1.90 N=SPT
BH4_1.50-1.55 D bands.
2 57.90
PP =140-150 kPa From 1.90 m, extremely low strength, extremely weathered.
BH4_2.00-2.10 D
L
2.90
3 56.90 From 2.90 m, grey to dark grey, with orange iron staining, low
BH4_3.00-3.10 D strength.
AD/T
L-M 4
BH4_4.00-4.10 D - -
5.00
5
54.80 BH4_5.00-5.10 D From 5.00 m, grey to dark grey, low to medium strength,
slightly weathered.
M-H
6
BH4_6.00-6.10 D
H 6.60
7
10
BOREHOLE: BH5
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
STRUCTURE AND
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR
GRAPHIC
METHOD
DENSITY
(metres)
WATER
FIELD TEST
DEPTH
OBSERVATIONS
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0
58.70 - FILL: Silty CLAY; low to medium plasticity, brown to dark FILL
brown, with some brick gravel and roots.
0.60 SPT 0.50-0.95 m

58.10 2,2,4 CH Silty CLAY; high plasticity, red-brown, with pale grey to pale RESIDUAL SOIL
N=6 brown mottling, trace fine to medium sub angular ironstone M
BH5_0.50-0.60 gravel, trace roots fibres. -
1 (>PL)
BH5_0.60-0.95
PP =250-420 kPa
L SPT 1.50-1.95 m
3,5,5
1.80 N=10
56.90 BH5_1.50-1.95 From 1.80 m, grading into extremely low strength, extremely
2 PP =350->600 kPa weathered shale and sandstone, with ironstone bands.
AD/T
M St -
(<PL) VSt
3 3.10 SPT 3.00-3.07 m

55.60 6/70mm HB - SANDSTONE; fine grained, very low to low strength, pale WEATHERED ROCK
3.40 N=SPT grey to brown, distinctly weathered, with shale bands.
BH5_3.00-3.07
55.30 From 3.40 m, low to medium strength, grey to dark grey.
L-M
4 - -
BH5_4.00-4.10 D
4.70
H 4.80
54.00 BH5_4.70-4.80 D From 4.70 m, medium strength.
5 Hole Terminated at 4.80 m
TC-bit refusal on medium strength SANDSTONE.
10
EXPLAINATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
HA Hand Auger RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm

DTC Diatube Coring RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
NDD Non-destructive digging RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
AS* Auger Screwing RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core - 63 mm
AD* Auger Drilling PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
*V V-Bit CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
*T TC-Bit, e.g. AD/T JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
ADH Hollow Auger WB Washbore or Bailer HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
L Low Resistance Rapid penetration/ excavation possible with little effort from equipment used.
M Medium Resistance Penetration/ excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from equipment used.
H High Resistance Penetration/ excavation is possible but at a slow rate and requires significant effort from
equipment used.
R Refusal/Practical Refusal No further progress possible without risk of damage or unacceptable wear to equipment used.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors, including equipment power and weight, condition of excavation or
drilling tools and experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level at date shown Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete Water Loss
GWNE GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED - Observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible
due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave-in of the borehole/ test pit.
GWNO GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED - Borehole/ test pit was dry soon after excavation. However,
groundwater could be present in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/ test pit
been left open for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 seating 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
Sampling
DS Disturbed Sample
BDS Bulk disturbed Sample
GS Gas Sample
WS Water Sample
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
Testing
FP Field Permeability test over section noted
FVS Field Vane Shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv= peak value, sr= residual value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket Penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
WPT Water Pressure tests
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test
CPT Static Cone Penetration test
CPTu Static Cone Penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
ROCK CORE RECOVERY

TCR=Total Core Recovery SCR=Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)
𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅 ∑ 𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒚𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅 ∑ 𝑨𝒙𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 > 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒎𝒎
= × 𝟏𝟎𝟎 = × 𝟏𝟎𝟎 = × 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒖𝒏 𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒖𝒏 𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒖𝒏
MATERIAL BOUNDARIES
= Inferred Boundary – – – – – – – – – = Probable Boundary – ? – ? – ? – ? – ? – = Possible Boundary
EI Form No.4 Rev.C

March 2016
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS
ORGANIC SOILS
FILL CLAY (CL, CI or CH)
(OL, OH or Pt)
COUBLES or
SILT (ML or MH) SAND (SP or SW)
BOULDERS
GRAVEL (GP or Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as
GW) sandy clay
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

Soil is broadly classified and described in Borehole and Test Pit Logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 1993, (Amdt1 –
1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A. Material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
PARTICLE SIZE CHARACTERISTICS USCS SYMBOLS

Major Division Sub Division Particle Size Major Divisions Symbol Description
BOULDERS >200 mm Well graded gravel and gravel-
More than 50% of

GW
than 63mm is greater than 0.075mm
coarse grains are

sand mixtures, little or no fines.
More than 50% by dry mass less

COBBLES 63 to 200 mm Poorly graded gravel and gravel-
COARSE GRAINED SOILS

GP
>2.mm
Coarse 20 to 63 mm sand mixtures, little or no fines.
Silty gravel, gravel-sand-silt
GRAVEL Medium 6 to 20 mm GM
mixtures.
Fine 2 to 6 mm Clayey gravel, gravel-sand-clay
GC
mixtures.
Coarse 0.6 to 2 mm Well graded sand and gravelly
of coarse grains
More than 50%
SW
sand, little or no fines.
are <2 mm
SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm
Poorly graded sand and gravelly
SP
Fine 0.075 to 0.2mm sand, little or no fines.
SM Silty sand, sand-silt mixtures.
SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm Clayey sand, sandy-clay
SC
CLAY <0.002 mm mixtures.
Inorganic silts of low plasticity,
More than 50% by dry mass
less than 63mm is less than
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
Liquid Limit less
ML very fine sands, rock flour, silty

FINE GRAINED SOILS
or clayey fine sands.

< 50%
Inorganic clays of low to medium

CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
0.075mm
clays, silty clays.

Organic silts and organic silty
OL
clays of low plasticity.
MH Inorganic silts of high plasticity.
Limit >
Liquid
50%
than
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity.

Organic clays of medium to high
OH
plasticity.
Peat muck and other highly
PT
organic soils.
MOISTURE CONDITION
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
Moisture content of cohesive soils may also be described in relation to plastic limit (WP) or liquid limit (WL) [» much greater than,
> greater than, < less than, « much less than].
CONSISTENCY DENSITY
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Strength Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
VS Very Soft 0. to 12 kPa VL Very Loose < 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Density 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and equipment type.
MINOR COMPONENTS
Term Assessment Guide Proportion by Mass
Presence just detectable by feel or eye but soil properties little Coarse grained soils: ≤ 5%
Trace
or no different to general properties of primary component Fine grained soil: ≤15%
Presence easily detectable by feel or eye but soil properties little Coarse grained soils: 5 - 12%
Some
or no different to general properties of primary component Fine grained soil: 15 - 30%
EI Form No.2 Rev.B

March 2016
TERMS FOR ROCK MATERIAL STRENGTH
AND WEATHERING

Soil is broadly classified and described in Borehole and Test Pit Logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 1993,
(Amdt1 – 1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A. Material properties are assessed in the field by visual/ tactile methods.
STRENGTH
Point
Load
Symbol Term Index, Field Guide
Is(50)
#
(MPa)
EL Extremely Low < 0.03 Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties.
Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick; can be peeled with
0.03 knife; too hard to cut a triaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 30 mm can be
VL Very Low
to 0.1 broken by finger pressure.
Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with

firm blows of pick point; has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core 150 mm
0.1
L Low long by 50 mm diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp edges of core may be
to 0.3 friable and break during handling.
Readily scored with a knife; a piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter can
M Medium 0.3 to 1 be broken by hand with difficulty.
A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter cannot be broken by hand but

H High 1 to 3 can be broken with pick with a single firm blow; rock rings under hammer.
Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow; rock rings under
VH Very High 3 to 10 hammer.
Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact
EH Extremely High >10 material; rock rings under hammer.
#
Rock Strength Test Results  Point Load Strength Index, Is(50), Axial test (MPa)
● Point Load Strength Index, Is(50), Diametral test (MPa)

Relationship between rock strength test result (Is(50)) and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) will vary with rock type and strength,
and should be determined on a site-specific basis. UCS is typically 10 to 30 x Is(50), but can be as low as 5 MPa.
ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING
Symbol Term Field Guide
Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and substance
RS Residual Soil fabric are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume but the soil has
not been significantly transported.
EW Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties - i.e. it either
Extremely Weathered
disintegrates or can be remoulded, in water.
HW Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly

DW discoloured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or
Distinctly Weathered may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores. In some
MW environments it is convenient to subdivide into Highly Weathered and
Moderately Weathered, with the degree of alteration typically less for MW.
SW Rock slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength relative to

Slightly Weathered
fresh rock.
FR Fresh Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining.
EI Form No.3 Rev.C

March 2016
ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS FOR
ROCK MATERIAL AND DEFECTS
Rock is broadly classified and described in Borehole Logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 1993, (Amdt1 –
1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A. Material properties are assessed in the field by visual/ tactile methods.
ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Layering Structure
Term Description Term Spacing (mm)
Thinly laminated <6
Massive No layering apparent
Laminated 6 – 20
Layering just visible; little effect on Very thinly bedded 20 – 60
Poorly Developed
properties Thinly bedded 60 – 200
Layering (bedding, foliation, cleavage) Medium bedded 200 – 600
Well Developed distinct; rock breaks more easily Thickly bedded 600 – 2,000
parallel to layering Very thickly bedded > 2,000
ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS FOR DEFECT TYPES
Defect Type Abbr. Description
Surface of a fracture or parting, formed without displacement, across which the rock has little
Joint JT or no tensile strength. May be closed or filled by air, water or soil or rock substance, which
acts as cement.
Surface of fracture or parting, across which the rock has little or no tensile strength, parallel or
Bedding Parting BP sub-parallel to layering/ bedding. Bedding refers to the layering or stratification of a rock,
indicating orientation during deposition, resulting in planar anisotropy in the rock material.
Foliation FL Repetitive planar structure parallel to the shear direction or perpendicular to the direction of
higher pressure, especially in metamorphic rock, e.g. Schistosity (SH) and Gneissosity.
Contact CO The surface between two types or ages of rock.
CL Cleavage planes appear as parallel, closely spaced and planar surfaces resulting from
Cleavage
mechanical fracturing of rock through deformation or metamorphism, independent of bedding.
Sheared Seam/ SS/SZ Seam or zone with roughly parallel almost planar boundaries of rock substance cut by closely
Zone (Fault) spaced (often <50 mm) parallel and usually smooth or slickensided joints or cleavage planes.
Seam or zone composed of disoriented usually angular fragments of the host rock substance,
Crushed Seam/ CS/CZ with roughly parallel near-planar boundaries. The brecciated fragments may be of clay, silt,
Zone (Fault)
sand or gravel sizes or mixtures of these.
Decomposed DS/DZ Seam of soil substance, often with gradational boundaries, formed by weathering of the rock
Seam/ Zone material in places.
IS Seam of soil substance, usually clay or clayey, with very distinct roughly parallel boundaries,
Infilled Seam
formed by soil migrating into joint or open cavity.
Schistocity SH The foliation in schist or other coarse grained crystalline rock due to the parallel arrangement
of platy or prismatic mineral grains, such as mica.
Vein VN Distinct sheet-like body of minerals crystallised within rock through typically open-space filling
or crack-seal growth.
ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS FOR DEFECT SHAPE AND ROUGHNESS
Shape Abbr. Description Roughness Abbr. Description
Planar Pl Consistent orientation Polished Pol Shiny smooth surface
Gradual change in
Curved Cu Slickensided SL Grooved or striated surface, usually polished
orientation
Undulating Un Wavy surface Smooth S Smooth to touch. Few or no surface irregularities
One or more well Many small surface irregularities (amplitude generally
Stepped St Rough RF
defined steps <1mm). Feels like fine to coarse sandpaper
Many sharp changes Many large surface irregularities, amplitude generally
Irregular Ir Very Rough VR
in orientation >1mm. Feels like very coarse sandpaper
Orientation: Vertical Boreholes – The dip (inclination from horizontal) of the defect.
Inclined Boreholes – The inclination is measured as the acute angle to the core axis.
ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS FOR DEFECT COATING DEFECT APERTURE
Coating Abbr. Description Aperture Abbr. Description
Clean CN No visible coating or infilling Closed CL Closed.
No visible coating but surfaces are discoloured by
Stain SN Open O Without any infill material.
staining, often limonite (orange-brown)
A visible coating of soil or mineral substance, usually Soil or rock i.e. clay, talc,
Veneer VNR Infilled -
too thin to measure (< 1 mm); may be patchy pyrite, quartz, etc.
EI Form No.4 Rev.C

March 2016
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY CERTIFICATES
MOISTURE CONTENT TEST REPORT
Client: EI Australia Pty Ltd Job No: S17176
Address: Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009 Report No: S23814-MC
Project: 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown E23360
Test Procedure: AS 1289 2.1.1 Soil moisture content tests - Determination of the moisture content of a soil - Oven drying method (Standard method).
AS4133 1.1.1 Rock moisture content tests - Determination of the moisture content of rock - Oven drying method (standard method)
RMS T120 Moisture content of road construction materials (Standard method)
RMS T262 Determination of moisture content of aggregates (Standard method)
Sampling: Sampled by Client Date Sampled: 04-May-17

Preparation: Prepared in accordance with the test method
Sample No. Source Sample Description Moisture Content %
S23814 BH3 0.5-0.95m silty CLAY 28.2
S23815 BH1 3.0-3.2m Rock Chips 7.2

S23816 BH1 8.2-8.3m Rock Chips 5.0
S23817 BH2 5.0-5.1m Rock Chips 7.2
S23818 BH2 7.0-7.1m Rock Chips 6.4

S23819 BH2 9.8-9.9m Rock Chips 4.3
S23820 BH3 3.0-3.45m silty CLAY 10.6
S23821 BH3 5.0-5.1m Rock Chips 2.6
S23822 BH4 4.0-4.1m Rock Chips 8.5

S23823 BH4 6.0-6.1m Rock Chips 4.5
S23824 BH5 4.0-4.1m Rock Chips 7.1
S23825 BH5 4.7-4.8m Rock Chips 8.5
Notes:
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included

Authorised Signatory:
in this document are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall
not be reproduced, except in full. 17-05-17
NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14874 Chris Lloyd Date:

Macquarie Geotechnical
U8 10 Bradford Street
Alexandria NSW 2015
Report Form:MC - AS Issue 1 - Revision C - Issue Date 29/06/16 Page1of1

SOIL CLASSIFICATION REPORT
Client: EI Australia Pty Ltd Source: BH3 0.5-0.95m
Sample
Address: Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009 silty CLAY
Description:
Project: 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown E23360 Report No: S23814-PI
Job No: S17176 Lab No: S23814
Test Procedure: AS1289 2.1.1 Soil moisture content tests (Oven drying method)
AS1289 3.1.1 Soil classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit of a soil - Four point casagrande method
AS1289 3.1.2 Soil classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit if a soil - One point Casagrande method (subsidiary method)
AS1289 3.2.1 Soil classification tests - Determination of the plastic limit of a soil - Standard method
AS1289 3.3.1 Soil classification tests - Calculation of the plasticity Index of a soil
AS1289 3.4.1 Soil classification tests - Determination of the linear shrinkage of a soil - Standard method
Sampling: Sampled by Client Date Sampled: 04-May-17

Preparation: Prepared in accordance with the test method
Liquid Limit (%): 68 Linear Shrinkage (%): 15.0
Plastic Limit (%): 23 Plastic Index: 45
Field Moisture Content (%): -
Plasticity Chart for Classification of Fine-grained Soils
50
45
Clay
40
Plasticity Index %
35
30
25
20
15
10
Inorganic Silts and Clays
5 Silt
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Limit %
Soil Preparation Method: Dry Sieved

Soil History: Air Dried
Soil Condition: Curling Occuring
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this

Authorised Signatory:
document are traceable to Australian/national standards. Accredited for
compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall not be reproduced,
except in full. 17-05-17
NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14874 Chris Lloyd Date:

Macquarie Geotechnical
U8 10 Bradford Street
Alexandria NSW 2015
Report Form:PI LS Issue 1 - Revision F - Issue Date 22/02/17 Page1of1

ANALYTICAL REPORT
Accreditation No. 2562
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
Contact Shanhin Falahati Manager Huong Crawford

Client EI AUSTRALIA Laboratory SGS Alexandria Environmental
Address SUITE 6.01 Address Unit 16, 33 Maddox St
55 MILLER STREET Alexandria NSW 2015
PYRMONT NSW 2009
Telephone 61 2 95160722 Telephone +61 2 8594 0400

Facsimile (Not specified) Facsimile +61 2 8594 0499
Email Shanhin.Falahati@eiaustralia.com.au Email au.environmental.sydney@sgs.com
Project E23360 - 13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown SGS Reference SE165174 R0

Order Number E23360 Date Received 10/5/2017
Samples 3 Date Reported 17/5/2017
COMMENTS
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).
SIGNATORIES
Dong Liang Ly Kim Ha

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader Organic Section Head
SGS Australia Pty Ltd Environment, Health and Safety Unit 16 33 Maddox St Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia t +61 2 8594 0400 www.sgs.com.au
ABN 44 000 964 278 PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia f +61 2 8594 0499
Member of the SGS Group

17/05/2017 Page 1 of 6
ANALYTICAL RESULTS SE165174 R0
pH in soil (1:5) [AN101] Tested: 16/5/2017
BH4 0.5-0.8 BH1 0.5-0.95 BH5 3.0-3.07
SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -
4/5/2017 4/5/2017 4/5/2017
PARAMETER UOM LOR SE165174.001 SE165174.002 SE165174.003
pH pH Units - 6.7 5.2 8.1
17/05/2017 Page 2 of 6
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil [AN106] Tested: 16/5/2017
BH4 0.5-0.8 BH1 0.5-0.95 BH5 3.0-3.07
SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -
4/5/2017 4/5/2017 4/5/2017
Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) µS/cm 1 32 240 160
Resistivity of extract (1:5 as received)* ohm m 0.1 380 51 69
17/05/2017 Page 3 of 6
Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography [AN245] Tested: 16/5/2017
BH4 0.5-0.8 BH1 0.5-0.95 BH5 3.0-3.07
SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -
4/5/2017 4/5/2017 4/5/2017
Chloride mg/kg 0.25 5.0 170 160
Sulphate mg/kg 5 10 300 61
17/05/2017 Page 4 of 6
Moisture Content [AN002] Tested: 16/5/2017
BH4 0.5-0.8 BH1 0.5-0.95 BH5 3.0-3.07
SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -
4/5/2017 4/5/2017 4/5/2017
% Moisture %w/w 0.5 17.4 19.5 6.8
17/05/2017 Page 5 of 6
METHOD SUMMARY SE165174 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
AN002 The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating
basin. After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of
moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.
AN101 pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode and is
calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, sediments and sludges, an extract with water (or
0.01M CaCl2) is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA
4500-H+.
AN106 Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is
calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos /cm or
µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on
the extract, or calculated back to the as -received sample. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a
conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2510 B.
AN245 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
FOOTNOTES
* NATA accreditation does not cover - Not analysed. UOM Unit of Measure.
the performance of this service. NVL Not validated. LOR Limit of Reporting.
** Indicative data, theoretical holding IS Insufficient sample for analysis. ↑↓ Raised/lowered Limit of
time exceeded. LNR Sample listed, but not received. Reporting.
Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/ Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf
This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.
Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.
Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and
within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or
falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
17/05/2017 Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX C
VIBRATION LIMITS
German Standard DIN 4150 – Part 3: 1999 provides guideline levels of vibration velocity for evaluating the effects of
vibration in structures. The limits presented in this standard are generally considered to be conservative.
The DIN 4150 values (maximum levels measured in any direction at the foundation, OR, maximum levels measured in
(x) or (y) directions, in the plane of the uppermost floor), are summarised in Table A below.
It should be noted that peak vibration velocities higher than the minimum figures in Table A for low frequencies may be
quite ‘safe’, depending on the frequency content of the vibration and the actual conditions of the structures.
It should also be noted that these levels are ‘safe limits’, up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been
observed for the particular class of building. ‘Damage’ is defined by DIN 4150 to include even minor non-structural
cracking in cement render, the enlargement of cracks already present, and the separation of partitions or intermediate
walls from load bearing walls. Should damage be observed at vibration levels lower than the ‘safe limits’, then it may be
attributed to other causes. DIN 4150 also states that when vibration levels higher than the ‘safe limits’ are present, it
does not necessarily follow that damage will occur. Values given are only a broad guide.
Table A DIN 4150 – Structural Damage – Safe Limits for Building Vibration
Peak Vibration Velocity (mm/s)

Plane of Floor
At Foundation Level at a Frequency of: of Uppermost
Group Type of Structure
Storey
Less than 10 Hz to 50 Hz to
All Frequencies
10 Hz 50 Hz 100 Hz
Buildings used for commercial purposes,

1 industrial buildings and buildings of similar 20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40
design
Dwellings and buildings of similar design

2 5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15
and/or use
Structures that because of their particular

sensitivity to vibration, do not correspond
3 to those listed in Group 1 and 2 and have 3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8
intrinsic value (e.g. buildings that are under
a preservation order)
Note: For frequencies above 100 Hz, the higher values in the 50 Hz to 100 Hz column should be used.
APPENDIX D
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Important Information
SCOPE OF SERVICES SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ARE TIME DEPENDENT
The geotechnical report (“the report”) has been prepared in Subsurface conditions can be modified by changing natural forces
accordance with the scope of services as set out in the contract, or or man-made influences. The report is based on conditions that
as otherwise agreed, between the Client And Environmental existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction
Investigations Pty Ltd (“EI”). The scope of work may have been operations adjacent to the site, and natural events such as floods,
limited by a range of factors such as time, budget, access and/or or ground water fluctuations, may also affect subsurface
site disturbance constraints. conditions, and thus the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. EI should be kept appraised of any such events, and should
RELIANCE ON DATA be consulted to determine if any additional tests are necessary.
EI has relied on data provided by the Client and other individuals VERIFICATION OF SITE CONDITIONS
and organizations, to prepare the report. Such data may include
surveys, analyses, designs, maps and plans. EI has not verified Where ground conditions encountered at the site differ significantly
the accuracy or completeness of the data except as stated in the from those anticipated in the report, either due to natural variability
report. To the extent that the statements, opinions, facts, of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition
information, conclusions and/or recommendations (“conclusions”) of the report that EI be notified of any variations and be provided
are based in whole or part on the data, EI will not be liable in with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this report.
relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or Recognition of change of soil and rock conditions requires
condition be incorrect or have been concealed, withheld, experience and it is recommended that a suitably experienced
misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to EI. geotechnical engineer be engaged to visit the site with sufficient
frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPRODUCTION OF REPORTS
Geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and
opinion. It is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This report is the subject of copyright and shall not be reproduced
Geotechnical engineering reports are prepared for a specific client, either totally or in part without the express permission of this
for a specific project and to meet specific needs, and may not be Company. Where information from the accompanying report is to
adequate for other clients or other purposes (e.g. a report prepared be included in contract documents or engineering specification for
for a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a the project, the entire report should be included in order to
construction contractor). The report should not be used for other minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation from logs.
than its intended purpose without seeking additional geotechnical
advice. Also, unless further geotechnical advice is obtained, the REPORT FOR BENEFIT OF CLIENT
report cannot be used where the nature and/or details of the
proposed development are changed. The report has been prepared for the benefit of the Client and no
other party. EI assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to
LIMITATIONS OF SITE INVESTIGATION 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
The investigation programme undertaken is a professional damage suffered by any other person or organisation arising from
estimate of the scope of investigation required to provide a general matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report (including
profile of subsurface conditions. The data derived from the site without limitation matters arising from any negligent act or omission
investigation programme and subsequent laboratory testing are of EI or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying
extrapolated across the site to form an inferred geological model, upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the
and an engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface report). Other parties should not rely upon the report or the
conditions and their likely behaviour with regard to the proposed accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should make
development. Despite investigation, the actual conditions at the their own inquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to
site might differ from those inferred to exist, since no subsurface such matters.
exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all
subsurface details and anomalies. The engineering logs are the OTHER LIMITATIONS
subjective interpretation of subsurface conditions at a particular
location and time, made by trained personnel. The actual interface EI will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into
between materials may be more gradual or abrupt than a report account any events or emergent circumstances or fact occurring or
indicates. becoming apparent after the date of the report.
Rev.7, January 2016

Diamond Sons Pty LTD: Geotechnical Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Diamond Sons Pty LTD: Geotechnical Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DIAMOND SONS PTY LTD

13-17 Oxford Street, Blacktown, NSW

1 Soft Copy (PDF – Secured, issued by email) George Youssef

1 Original (Saved to Digital Archives) EI Australia

Authors: Technical Reviewer:

Shahin Falahati Janak Patel

Revision Details Date Amended By

Lot and Deposited Plan (DP) Lot 2, 3 and 4 in DP 203866

2.2 LOCAL LAND USE

2.3 REGIONAL SETTING

Table 3-2 Approximate RL of top of Each Unit Assessed in the Boreholes

2 Residual Soil 60.9 59.9 59.2 59.2 58.1

4 Low Strength Sandstone 58.0 57.1 55.2 55.2 54.7

5 Medium to High Strength Sandstone 55.0 53.4 54.3 54.3 54.0

3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Table 3-3 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Liquid Limit (%) - - - 68

Plastic Limit (%) - - - 23

Plasticity Index (%) - - - 45

Linear Shrinkage (%) - - - 15

Table 3-4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

• After construction of the retaining structures, but before commencement of excavation;

4.5.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters

Table 4-1 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Ultimate Shaft Adhesion (kPa) 4, 5, -

4.7 BASEMENT FLOOR SLAB

5 FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL INPUTS

o Installation of a monitoring well;

Drawn: G.Y. Figure:

Approximate basement boundary

Drilling Sampling Field Material Description

Drilling Sampling Field Material Description

0.10 - CONCRETE; 100mm thick. - - CONCRETE HARDSTAND

From 4.00 m, grey to dark grey, with orange iron staining.

Drilling Sampling Field Material Description

Drilling Sampling Field Material Description

Drilling Sampling Field Material Description

0.60 SPT 0.50-0.95 m

3 3.10 SPT 3.00-3.07 m

HA Hand Auger RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm

Water level at date shown Partial water loss

Water inflow Complete Water Loss

ROCK CORE RECOVERY

= Inferred Boundary – – – – – – – – – = Probable Boundary – ? – ? – ? – ? – ? – = Possible Boundary

EI Form No.4 Rev.C

CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

PARTICLE SIZE CHARACTERISTICS USCS SYMBOLS

More than 50% of

than 63mm is greater than 0.075mm

coarse grains are

More than 50% by dry mass less

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

ML very fine sands, rock flour, silty

or clayey fine sands.

Inorganic clays of low to medium

clays, silty clays.

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity.

EI Form No.2 Rev.B

CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with

A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter cannot be broken by hand but

● Point Load Strength Index, Is(50), Diametral test (MPa)

ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING