Geotechnical Investigation Report - Strathfield Council · PDF fileGeotechnical Investigation Report ... recommended that further drilling during excavation be ... into the excavation

PO Box 4405 East Gosford, NSW 2250

M 0466 385 221 [email protected] www.benvirongroup.com.au

ABN 52 119 978 063

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Proposed Development at 29‐35 Burlington Road and 30‐32 The Crescent

Homebush NSW

prepared for

Lion Civil Group Pty Ltd

Report No. G17

January 2016

January 2016 Geotechnical Investigation Report, Ref: P2014‐003‐G11 Site: 29‐35 Burlington Road, 30‐32 The Crescent, Homebush Page 2 of 18

DOCUMENT CONTROL REGISTER

Document Information

Job Number G17

Document Number 1

Report Title Geotechnical Assessment

Site Address 29‐35 Burlington Road & 30‐32 The Crescent, Homebush NSW

Prepared for Lion Civil Group Pty Ltd

Document Review

Revision Number Date Issued Description Issued By

0 10/03/14 Initial Issue Ben Buckley

1 11/12/15 Revision 1 Ben Buckley

2 14/01/15 Revision 2 Ben Buckley

Distribution Register

Distribution Method Custodian Issued to

Electronic B. Buckley Benviron Group Office

Electronic Youssef Rahman/Lion Civil

Group

PO Box 5123, Chullora NSW

Authorisation and Release

Signature Name Date

Author

Benjamin Buckley 14/01/15


Executive Summary

Benviron Group carried out a geotechnical investigation at 29‐35 Burlington Road, and 30‐

32 The Crescent at Homebush in February 2014 to investigate and assess the site’s surface

and subsurface conditions in order to provide geotechnical recommendations and advice for

the design and construction of the proposed residential development.

It is understood the proposed development involves the demolition of all existing site

features on 29‐35 Burlington Road, and 30‐32 The Crescent and with the construction of a

9‐storeys mixed commercial and residential building development with a 4 level basement

car parking facility.

As of November 2015 and additional basement has been added to the building. It is

recommended that further drilling during excavation be undertaken to confirm the

underlying geology which was undertaken on the 23rd December 2015.

Two investigation holes was drilled to depths of approximately 9.1m and 14.1m with rock

coring to enable the stratigraphy of the subsoil profile and engineering properties be

mapped in anticipation for the basement excavation works and proposed foundations

works.

This report presents and interprets the findings of the geotechnical investigation that was

carried within accessible areas of the site. Based on the findings, geotechnical assessments

and recommendations are presented.

The proposed development is considered feasible subjected to the recommendations

provided in this report are carried out.


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 AVAILABLE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 6

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 6

3.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 6

3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 6

4.0 FIELDWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 FILED WORK RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 7

5.1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 7

5.2 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................................... 7

6.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................... 9

7.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 9

7.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 9

7.2 EXCAVATION CONDITIONS AND VIBRATION CONTROL ................................................. 10

7.3 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 11

7.4 TEMPORARY BATTER SLOPES ................................................................................................ 11

7.5 RETAINING STRUCTURES ......................................................................................................... 12

7.6 FOUNDATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 15

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 15

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 17

LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................ 18

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Engineering Logs

Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Benviron Group was engaged to undertake a geotechnical investigation at the subject site

located at 29‐35 Burlington Road, and 30‐32 The Crescent at Homebush. The purpose of this

investigation is to assess the site’s surface and subsurface conditions within accessible areas

in order to provide geotechnical recommendations and advice for the design and

construction of the proposed mixed‐use commercial and residential apartment

development in preparation for a development application submission.

The proposed development involves the demolition of all existing site features and the

construction of a 7‐storeys mixed commercial and residential building and a 3‐level

basement car parking facility. As of November these plans have been amended and is now 9

storeys and 4 basement levels.

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

on the 26th February 2014 and the 23rd December 2015 on the subject site, known as

number 29‐35 Burlington Road, and 30‐32 The Crescent at Homebush. With the site

constraints, the fieldwork was carried out by using a truck mounted drilling rig with coring

facilities to accessible parts of the site at 29‐35 Burlington Road Homebush. Two boreholes

were drilled and cored to provide the following information:

Method of investigation,

Site description, including surface and sub‐surface conditions,

Site plan indicating borehole locations and footprint of the proposed roads and buildings

within the development,

Groundwater conditions and management,

Result of laboratory rock testing,

Recommendations on the excavation conditions and temporary slope batters,

Recommendations on vibration control and management,

Provision of earth pressure parameters for design of retaining structures,

Recommendations on footings and serviceability bearing pressures,


2.0 AVAILABLE INFORMATION

At the time of writing this report, there were no architectural drawings provided from the

client. There is a drawing prepared by Strat Surv on the Nos. 37‐39 Burlington Road & 33‐34

The Crescent Homebush. Verbal information was provided to indicate that there is a 3 level

basement carpark and the proposed development is 7 storeys high with a ground floor

commercial units. As of November these plans have been amended and is now 9 storeys

and 4 basement levels.

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Site Location and Description

The site is located near the Homebush at approximately 11 Km west of the Sydney CBD as

shown in the Locality Plan (Figure 1). The site comprises two major lots, and is bounded by

Burlington Road in the south and The Crescent in the north. The lot adjoining Burlington

Road currently is a mainly a carpark, and the lot adjoining The Crescent is a single storey

house as shown in the Site Plan (Figure 2). The proposed development comprises mixed

development with a 4 level basement carpark.

3.2 Regional Geology

Reference to the Sydney 1: 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9029‐9130 Edition 1, 1983,

indicates the site to be underlain by Ashfield Shale of Middle Triassic Age. Ashfield Shale is

typically consisted of dark grey to black shale and laminate.

4.0 FIELDWORK

Fieldwork for the geotechnical investigation was carried on the 26 February 2014 and the

23rd December 2015 and comprised the following works:

A detailed walk‐over inspection of the site and surrounding environment to capture any

significant geological features.

Drilling of one (1) borehole BH1 using a 10 tonne drilling rig mounted with V‐bit , and then

T bit attached to a solid flight auger and then using NMLC diamond rock coring


techniques to drill down to a total depth of 9.1m below existing ground level . TA follow

up second borehole was drilled to approximately 14.1m BGL.

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

to assess the in‐situ strength of subsoil properties.

The approximate location of the investigation borehole is shown in Figure 2 and the

Engineering Logs are presented in Appendix B.

5.0 FILED WORK RESULTS

5.1 Subsoil Conditions

Based on information gathered and observations made from the site inspection, it can be

inferred that it is likely the subsoil profile comprises road base which overlies the residual

material of differing degree of weathering ranging from a sandy CLAY to a more

predominant CLAY matrix that sits on top of the Shale Bedrock .

The subsurface soil profile within BH1 indicated a 200mm thick gravel underlain by a loose

to medium dense silty Sand to a depth of approximately 1.0m below the existing ground

level. This is then underlain by a moist stiff to very stiff high plasticity Clay which extends

down to approximately 2.0m below existing ground level. This moist Clay material becomes

hard in strength from 2.0m to approximately 5.5m below ground level. The shale bedrock

commenced at approximately 5.5m and varying between low to high strength from 5.5m to

9.1m below existing ground level. This borehole was terminates at 9.1m below existing

ground level.

5.2 Ground Water

Groundwater or seepage was not observed in the borehole during the investigation

works on the 26 February 2014. Groundwater seepage was also not observed during

auger drilling of the boreholes on the 23rd December 2015.

However Groundwater level was measured at a depth of about 6.5 mBGL, on 4th

January 2016, which is expected to be above the final bulk excavation level.


However, due to the expected low permeability of the residual clay and shale bedrock,

we do not expect the groundwater to have a major impact on the proposed

development or adjoining structures. However, we expect minor groundwater inflows

into the excavation at the soil/rock interface and through any defects within the shale

bedrock (such as jointing, and bending planes, etc.) following periods of heavy rain.

We expect that any seepage that does occur will be able to be controlled using a

conventional sump‐and‐pump system. 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.

Notwithstanding, we recommend further detailed groundwater monitoring with pump

out tests be carried out within the already installed monitoring well for monitoring of

groundwater levels, estimation of seepage volumes and to determine the extent of

seasonal variation on the groundwater table

However, it should be noted groundwater levels may be subject to seasonal

fluctuations, rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and also future developments of

the areas and land forms.


6.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Rock cores drilled are kept at core‐boxes as shown in Appendix D. Samples have been

collected from these core‐boxes to assess the rock strength at the various level within the

Shale bedrock. The testing carried out on the rock samples was the Point Load Strength

Index Test, and the Point Load Strength Indices for the rock cores and the assessed rock

strengths in accordance with the Australian Standards (Reference 1). The test results are

enclosed in Appendix C and are summarised in the following Table 1.

Table 1: Point Load Test Results

Sample ID Location Depth

(m)

Diametrical

Is(50) (MPa)

Axial

Is(50) (MPa)

Assessed Strength

1 BH1 6.3 0.55 0.50 Medium/High

2 BH1 7.7 0.39 0.36 Medium

3 BH1 9.0 NA 0.60 High

Based on the rock core strengths (Table 1) and the rock discontinuities (shown in the core

logs and core photographs), the bedrock for the proposed development site for preliminary

foundation design purposes in accordance with Pells et al (Reference 4) is classified in

general as a Class III Shale.

7.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

From the result of the investigation obtained on this site, it can be inferred that the subsoil

conditions comprise generally a sandy fill layer which is underlain by predominantly a high

plasticity clay. Depth to the shale bedrock within the proposed development is likely to be

approximately 5.5m below the existing ground surface level. The strength and quality of the

Shale bedrock in general increase with depth.


The proposed development involves the demolition of all existing site features and the

construction of a 9‐storeys mixed commercial and residential building and a 4‐level

basement car parking facility. Formation of the basement is expected to entail excavations

of up to 12m deep and stratigraphy of the ground material for the proposed basement and

foundation has been assessed.

For the lot adjoining The Crescent, where the future access ramp to the basement carpark is

likely, additional site investigation works will be required to confirm the stratigraphy of the

area as assumed with the current information provided once the access is made available for

further drilling works in that area.

7.2 Excavation Conditions and Vibration Control

Based on provided information, the establishment of basement B4 car park level will involve

excavation of materials to depths of approximately 12m below the existing pavement level

of Burlington Road. The likely soil profile materials to be encountered within the depths of

basement excavation are likely to comprise sandy fill overlying stiff to very stiff sandy clays

and Shale of differing degree of weathering.

It is expected that excavation of soils and low strength shale bedrock can be achieved by

conventional excavation methods. However, for the excavation of medium to high strength

shale bedrock, these may be achieved by using saw cutting method followed by rock

breaking hammers to ensure the integrity of the nearby structures are safeguarded.

With the close proximity of buildings and civil structures along the perimeter of the site

boundaries, and the use of vibratory rock breaking hammer equipment that may be

required for the proposed excavation works in the expected harder shale bedrock, it is

essential to carry out saw cutting along the perimeter of the site in order to limit the

vibration levels that may induce on nearby structures to within acceptable levels. Induced

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

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


poor‐conditioned structures. Vibration monitoring system should be established at critical

locations such as along southern and northern boundaries adjoining major roads, as well as

along eastern and western site boundaries with neighbouring buildings in order to monitor

the vibration levels throughout the period of rock excavation.

We recommend that where percussive excavation techniques are to be adopted,

dilapidation reports are to be carried out on all adjoining buildings, roads and civil structures

so that an accurate record of the existing conditions of these elements are mapped prior to

the commencement of excavation. These records shall be agreed by the respective owner in

order to reduce the risk of future owner’s dispute on subsequent potential damage claims.

7.3 Ground Water Management

With the excavation anticipated to be at least 12.1m below existing ground level, based on

the data observed from the investigation, it is possible that excavation works could

encounter ground water inflow at 6.5m BGL. As water seepage could be detected, these

flows should be managed accordingly with measures to facilitate the inflow and to keep the

excavation dry for working as per sections above.

7.4 Temporary Batter Slopes

With the proposed development, there is very limited room for the use of temporary batter

slopes during construction as most of the building perimeter walls are very close to the

boundaries. However wherever required (such as an access ramp for construction propose)

the safe temporary batters are recommended as presented in Table 2, provided that the

basement excavation is set back sufficiently from the common site boundaries to facilitate

for the formation of the batters..


Table 2: Minimum temporary batter slopes

Materials

Temporary

(Horizontal: Vertical)

Exposed Protected

Silty and clayey soils, sand‐clay

mixtures 2.0:1.0 1.5:1.0

Weathered Shale bedrock 1.0:1.0 ‐

Temporary surface protection against erosion may be provided by covering the batter

with plastic sheeting, and these should be applied for a limited time and inspected by

Geotechnical Engineers after significant events. It should be noted however that the

plastic sheeting should extend at least 1.5m behind the crest of the cut face or at least up

to the common site boundaries.

7.5 Retaining Structures

With the proposed development footprint close to the site boundary and adjoining a major

roadway, the forming of basement will need to adopt a construction methodology that

ensure the cut faces are supported at all times. In particularly, to manage ground

movement by limiting wall deflections to acceptable limits during all stages of the

excavation works. The retaining structures should be designed to withstand the applied

lateral pressures of the soil layers, the water pressure, and all existing surcharges in their

zone of influence that includes existing nearby structures and traffic loadings.

With the proposed basement level of the development, it is likely the excavation will be

beneath the foundation of the adjacent buildings northwest of the site. It is therefore

necessary to ensure that the construction system ensure that the integrity of these adjacent

buildings’ foundations are safeguarded at all times, and this is dependent on the conditions

of the foundations of the adjacent buildings when exposed.


In general, it is considered a continuous pile wall system may be necessary to ensure that

the excavation faces are protected at all times. However, other methods of protecting the

exposed faces can be considered depending the soil properties in the area, the rock head

levels encountered, the conditions of the existing footings, and the integrity of the

pavement sub‐grade when exposed.

The pressure distribution on cantilever retaining structures may be assumed to be

triangular and estimated as follows:

ph = kH + qk

Where,

ph = Horizontal pressure (kN/m2)

= Wet density (kN/m3)

k = Coefficient of earth pressure (ka or ko)

H = Retained height (m)

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

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

acceptable, an active earth pressure coefficient is recommended. Should it be critical to

limit the horizontal deformation of a retaining structure, use of an earth pressure

coefficient at rest should be considered. Recommended parameters for the design of

retaining structures are presented in the following Table 3.


Table 3: Geotechnical Design Parameters

Materials

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Active Earth

Pressure

coefficient

(Ka)

At Rest Earth

Pressure

Coefficient

(Ko)

Passive Earth

Pressure Coefficient (Kp) or Pressure

Fill 17 0.5 0.63 ignore

Residual Soil 18 0.40 0.50 ignore

Extremely

Weathered Shale

(Class V or IV)

20 0.25 0.40 250kPa

Distinctly to Slightly

Weathered Shale

( Class IV or III)

21 0.20 0.3 375kPa

Slightly Weathered

to fresh Shale

(Class III or II)

22 0.15 0.2 500kPa

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

horizontal and the retained material is effectively drained. It should be noted that

hydrostatic pressures due to ground water table (if present) and surcharge due to nearby

structures (within the influence zone) should also be taken into the account in the design

of the retaining structures. This is particularly the case for the retaining walls located

immediately adjacent to the neighboring buildings.

Should the retaining structures be anchored or strutted, the pressure distribution is

assessed to be rectangular, with magnitude estimated as follows:

ph = 0.65kH

The design of any retaining structure should be checked for bearing capacity, overturning,

and overall stability of the slope.


7.6 Foundation Systems

The loading conditions for the proposed development are not known at the time of

preparation of this report. However, considering the scale of the development, it is

envisaged that foundation materials required to support the proposed structure would

comprise Class III or better shale bedrock. Based on the borehole information and rock

strength testing, it is envisaged that the shale bedrock likely to be exposed at basement bulk

excavation levels would constitute either Class III or Class III/II and is feasible to meet this

requirement.

Spread footings comprising strip or pad footings founded in Class III or better shale bedrock

below the basement bulk excavation level may be designed for a serviceability end bearing

capacity of 3000kPa. It is recommended that a further drilling for assessment of the

foundation material of the proposed footings be carried out once excavation to the final

basement level has been reached in order to confirm outcomes of this assessment. The

footing inspection and assessment requirement can be referred to the guidelines given in

accordance with Pells, Douglas et al . (Reference 5).

Footing inspections by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required during footing excavation to

confirm appropriate founding materials, that the recommended serviceability bearing

pressures could be met and to ensure that all soft and wet materials have been removed

from the foundation footprint prior to concrete placement.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

This report presents the findings and recommendations for the proposed mixed

development at 29‐35 Burlington Road, and 30‐32 The Crescent, Homebush NSW. It is based

on the geotechnical investigation results available to date. It considers that the proposed

development is feasible subjected to the recommendations presented in this report.


For and on behalf of

Benviron Group

Noriman Mak

Geotechnical Engineer

MIEAust., RPE (Civ, Geo), NPER (Civ, Geo)


REFERENCES

1. Australian Standard AS1726‐1993 ‘Geotechnical Site Investigation’; and

2. Australian Standard AS2870‐2011 ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’;

3. Australian Standards – Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential

Developments, AS3798‐2007.

4. Pells, P.J.N, Mostyn, E and Walker , B F – Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the

Sydney Region, Australian Geomechanics Journal, Dec 1998

5. Pells, P.J.N, Douglas D.J, Rodway, B, Thorne C, McManon B.K – Design Loadings for

Foundations on Shale and Sandstone in the Sydney Region.oundations on Sandstone and

Shale in the Sydney Region, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978

6. N.S.W. Transport : Roads & Maritime Services – Technical Direction Geotechnology

GTD2012/001 27 April 2012


LIMITATIONS

The assessment of the sub‐surface profile within the proposed development area and the

recommendations presented in this report are based on limited information available to date.

The recommendations and advice presented in this report on soil and rock condition is considered

to be indicative only as only very limited areas were assessed on site to date. Site inspection by a

consulting Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist are to be undertake when further

investigation works are to be carried out to confirm the condition of founding materials in which

this geotechnical assessment recommends.

Anecdotal evidence and Information provided by client is assumed to be relevant and to the best

of knowledge be appropriate for its interpretation.

There is a possibility that the actual geotechnical and groundwater conditions across the site could

differ from the inferred geotechnical assumptions and derivations on which our recommendations

are presented in this report.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Locality Plan G17-P2014-010 Figure 1

The Site

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Site Plan & Investigation Locations G17-P2014-010 Figure 2

The Crescent

The Site

BH1

Rochester Street

Burlington Road

Ben Buckley

Text Box

BH2

Ben Buckley

Oval

Job No: G17-P2014-010Hole No: BH1Sheet 1 of 2

ENGINEERING LOG OF DRILLED BOREHOLEClient: Lion Civil Pty LtdProject: Proposed Development Test Method: Project Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush Date:

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/Fi

eld

Test

s

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Description Moi

stur

e C

ondi

tion

Con

sist

ency

/R

el. D

ensi

ty

Additional Comments Dep

th (m

)

0.1 GRAVEL, coarse grained, dark grey M 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, dark grey M 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 CLAY, high plasticity, light brown M 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 CLAY, high plasticity, red brown and grey M 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 M 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5

Explanatory Notes:Consistency Density Index Samples MoistureVS Very Soft VL Very Loose B Bulk Sample D DryS Soft L Loose D Disturbed Sample M MoistF Firm MD Medium Dense U50 Undisturbed Sample W WetSt Stiff D Dense (50mm diam.) Wp Plastic LimitVSt Very Stiff VD Very Dense N S.P.T. Value Wl Liquid LimitH Hard

Logged by: MM

SPT

14,16,12

N=28

CH

VSt

VSt

Test Location: Refer to Figure 2

SM

VL

Surface Level: Approx. +8.8mAHD26/02/14Drill Rig

VSt-H

S

GM

CH

SPT

4,6,7

N=13

CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange brown and grey with traces of iron stained gravel

CH


ENGINEERING LOG OF DRILLED BOREHOLEClient: Lion Civil Pty LtdProject: Proposed Development Test Method: Project Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush Date:

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/Fi

eld

Test

s

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Description Moi

stur

e C

ondi

tion

Con

sist

ency

/R

el. D

ensi

ty


th (m

)

3.6 CLAY, low plasticity, light brown with traces of gravel M 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 CLAY, low to medium plasticity, grey M 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 CLAY, low to medium plasticity, dark grey M 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 No groundwater encountered 5.4

5.5 5.5

5.6 See Core Log BH1 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0


CL H

CL H

Test Location: Refer to Figure 2Drill Rig

26/02/14 Logged by: MMSurface Level: Approx. +8.8mAHD

CL H

N>30

8, 30 at 100mm

V-Bit refusal at 5.5m

SPT

5,15,20

N=35

SPT


CORELOG OF TEST HOLEClient: Lion Civil Pty LtdProject: Proposed DevelopmentProject Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush

Drill Model: Slope: 90o R.L. Surface: Existing

Barrel Type / Length: 1.5m Bearing: - Datum: -Drilling Information Rock Substance Rock Mass Defects

Met

hod

Cas

e - L

ift

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fiel

d Te

sts

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

Substance Description Wea

ther

ing

EL VL

L

E

stim

ated

M H

S

treng

thV

HEH

Is(50) Mpa

A:Axial D:Diam-

etral 30 100

Def

ect

300

1000

S

paci

ng30

00 Defect Description Dep

th (m

)

3.6 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 See Borehole Log BH1 5.5

5.6 EW 5.6

5.7 5.77m, B=00, flat, smooth, clean 5.7



6.0 MW 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.16m to 6.23m, crushed zone 6.2

6.3 Is(A) 0.54 6.3

6.4 Is(D) 0.75 6.4

6.5 MW 6.5

6.6 to 6.6

6.7 SW 6.54m to 6.58m, crushed zone 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0

7.1 7.1Key - Method Case - lift Weathering Strength Is (50) MPa

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

EH Extremely High >10.0

6.65m to 7.10m, 4 x B=00, flat, smooth, clean

SHALE, extremely low strength, grey, extremely weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured

SHALE, medium to high strength grey, moderately weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured to fractured

SHALE, mediume to high strength, grey, moderately to slightly weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured to fractured

NM

LC 1

00%

Rec

over

y

Hole Commenced: 26/02/2014Hole Completed: 26/02/2014Supervised by: MMChecked by: NM


NM

LC 1

00%

Rec

over

yN

MLC

100

% R

ecov

ery

6.30m to 6.45m, 3 x B=00 to 200, flat, smooth, clean

6.51m, B=100, flat, smooth, clay infill 2mm


CORELOG OF TEST HOLEClient: Lion Civil Pty LtdProject: Proposed DevelopmentProject Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush



Met

hod

Cas

e - L

ift

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fiel

d Te

sts

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log


ther

ing

EL VL

L

E

stim

ated

M H

S

treng

thV

HEH

Is(50) Mpa

A:Axial D:Diam-

etral 30 100

Def

ect

300

1000

S

paci

ng30

00 Defect Description Dep

th (m

)

7.2 SW 7.2


7.4 7.4


7.6 7.6

7.7 Is(A) 0.38 7.7

7.8 Is(D) 0.50 7.60m to 7.64m, clay seam 4mm 7.8

7.9 7.9

8.0 8.0

8.1 8.1

8.2 8.2

8.3 8.3

8.4 8.4

8.5 8.5

8.6 8.6

8.7 8.7


8.9 8.9


9.1 Is(A) 0.67 9.1

9.2 BH1 Terminated at 9.1m 9.2

9.3 9.3

9.4 9.4

9.5 9.5

9.6 9.6

9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8

9.9 9.9

10.0 10.0

10.1 10.1

10.2 10.2

10.3 10.3

10.4 10.4

10.5 10.5

10.6 10.6





NM

LC 1

00%

Rec

over

y



SHALE, medium to high strength, grey, slightly weathered, very thinly laminated, fractured to slightly fractured


7.53m to 7.60m, J=800, flat, smooth, clean

Job No: G17

Hole No: BH2Sheet 1 of 2

ENGINEERING LOG OF DRILLED BOREHOLEClient: Lion CivilProject: Proposed Development Test Method: Project Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush Date:

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fie

ld T

ests

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssif

icat

ion

Description Moi

stur

e C

ondi

tion

Con

sist

ency

/R

el. D

ensi

ty


th (

m)

0.1 Concrete 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, dark grey M 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.0 CLAY, high plasticity, light brown M 1.0

1.1 1.1

1.2 CLAY, high plasticity, red brown and grey M 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5 1.5

1.6 1.6

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.1 M 2.1

2.2 2.2

2.3 2.3

2.4 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.6 2.6

2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4

3.5 3.5


14,16,12

N=28

SPT

CH CLAY, medium to high plasticity, red brown and grey with traces of iron stained gravel

VSt-H

4,6,7 N=13

SPT CH VSt

CH VSt

SM S


23/12/2015 Logged by: BBSurface Level:

Job No: G17

Hole No: BH2Sheet 2 of 2

ENGINEERING LOG OF DRILLED BOREHOLEClient: Lion CivilProject: Proposed Development Test Method: Project Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush Date:

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fie

ld T

ests

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

Uni

fied

Cla

ssif

icat

ion

Description Moi

stur

e C

ondi

tion

Con

sist

ency

/R

el. D

ensi

ty


th (

m)

3.6 CLAY, low plasticity, light brown with traces of gravel M 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 CLAY, low to medium plasticity, grey M 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 CLAY, low to medium plasticity, dark grey M 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 No groundwater encountered 5.4

5.5 See Core Log BH2 5.5

5.6 5.6

5.7 5.7

5.8 5.8

5.9 5.9

6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 6.5

6.6 6.6

6.7 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0


V-Bit refusal at 5.4m

8, 30 at 100mm N>30

SPT

CL H

N=36

SPT CL H5,15,21


23/12/2015 Logged by: BBSurface Level: -

CL H

Job No: G29

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 1 of 3

CORELOG OF TEST HOLEClient: Lion CivilProject: Proposed DevelopmentProject Location: 29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush



Met

hod

Cas

e -

Lif

t

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fie

ld T

ests

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log


ther

ing

EL

VL

L

E

stim

ated

M H

S

tren

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

Mpa A:Axial D:Diam-

etral 30 100

Def

ect

300

1000

S

paci

ng30

00

Defect Description Dep

th (

m)

3.6 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8

3.9 3.9

4.0 4.0

4.1 4.1

4.2 4.2

4.3 4.3

4.4 4.4

4.5 4.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.7

4.8 4.8

4.9 4.9

5.0 5.0

5.1 5.1

5.2 5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 See Borehole Log BH2 5.5

5.6 EW 5.6




6.0 6.0

6.1 6.1

6.2 MW 6.2

6.3 6.3

6.4 6.4

6.5 MW 6.5

6.6 to 6.6

6.7 SW 6.7

6.8 6.8

6.9 6.9

7.0 7.0




NM

LC

100

% R

ecov

ery 6.00m to 6.07m, B=00, flat, smooth,

clean

6.30m to 6.45m, 3 x B=00 to 200, flat, smooth, clean

NM

LC

100

% R

ecov

ery

SHALE, low to medium strength, grey, moderately to slightly weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured to fractured

6.51m, B=100, flat, smooth, clay infill 2mm


SHALE, very low to low strength, grey, moderately weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured to fractured


NM

LC

100

% R

ecov

ery SHALE, extremely low strength, grey, extremely

weathered, very thinly laminated, highly fractured

Job No: G17

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 2 of 3




Met

hod

Cas

e -

Lif

t

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fie

ld T

ests

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log


ther

ing

EL

VL

L

E

stim

ated

M H

S

tren

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

Mpa A:Axial D:Diam-

etral 30 100

Def

ect

300

1000

S

paci

ng30

00


th (

m)

7.2 7.2

7.3 SW 7.40m, B=00, flat, smooth, clean 7.3

7.4 7.4


7.6 7.6

7.7 7.40m to 7.54m, clay seam 4mm 7.7

7.8 7.8

7.9 7.9

8.0 8.0

8.1 8.1

8.2 8.2

8.3 8.3

8.4 8.4

8.5 8.5

8.6 8.6

8.7 8.7

8.8 8.8

8.9 8.9


9.1 9.1

9.2 9.2

9.3 9.3

9.4 9.4

9.5 9.5

9.6 9.6

9.7 9.7

9.8 9.8

9.9 9.9

10.0 10.0

10.1 10.1

10.2 10.2

10.3 10.3

10.4 10.4

10.5 10.5

10.6 10.6




NM

LC

100

% R

ecov

ery



SHALE, medium to high strength, grey, slightly weathered, very thinly laminated, fractured to slightly


Job No: G17

Hole No: BH2

Sheet 3 of 3




Met

hod

Cas

e -

Lif

t

Gro

undw

ater

Sam

ples

/

Fie

ld T

ests

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log


ther

ing

EL

VL

L

E

stim

ated

M H

S

tren

gth

VH

EH

Is(50)

Mpa A:Axial D:Diam-

etral 30 100

Def

ect

300

1000

S

paci

ng30

00


th (

m)

10.8 10.8

10.9 SW 10.9

11.0 11.0

11.1 11.1

11.2 11.2

11.3 11.3

11.4 11.4

11.5 11.5

11.6 11.6


11.8 11.8

11.9 11.9

12.0 12.0

12.1 12.1

12.2 12.2

12.3 12.3

12.4 12.4

12.5 12.5


12.7 12.7

12.8 12.8

12.9 12.9

13.0 13.0

13.0 13.0

13.2 13.2

13.3 13.3

13.4 13.4

13.5 13.5

13.6 13.6

13.7 13.7

13.8 13.8

13.9 13.9

14.0 14.0

14.1 BH2 Terminated at 14.0m 14.1

14.2 14.2




NM

LC

100

% R

ecov

ery


SHALE, medium to high strength, grey, slightly weathered, very thinly laminated, fractured to slightly

Soil Sand

Bituminous ConcreteClayey Sand

ConcreteSilty Sand

Topsoil

GravelFill

Sandy GravelPeat

ClaySedimentary Rock

Silty Clay Sandstone Coarse Grained

Silt Sandstone Fine Grained

Sandy Clay Siltstone

Gravelly Clay Laminite

Shaly Clay Shale

Clayey Silt Coal

Sandy Silt Limestone

GRAPHIC SYMBOLS FOR SOIL AND ROCK

ACN 069 211 561

Unit 12/9-15 Gundah Road

Mount Kuring-gai NSW 2080

Phone: (02) 8438 0300

Fax: (02) 8438 0310

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.netgeo.com.au

Point Load Strength Index Test ReportG09/1306_PL

Client: Benviron Group Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Project: G11 Approved Signatory: Chris Stabb

Consultant

Job No: G09/1306 10/03/2014

Test Request No: NA

THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL

Sample Details

Sampled By: Client Air dried conditon from field

Date Sampled: 6/03/2014 As received

Test Results

Date of Test: 10/03/2014 AS 4133 4.1

Diam Width

Comments

Failure Mode

1= Fracture through fabric oblique to bedding 4= Fracture through rock mass:

2= Fracture along bedding (J) Joint plane, (M) Microfracture, (F) Follation, (V) Vein

3= Fracture through rock mass 5= Partial fracture or chip (invalid result)

Point Load

Strength

Index

Is(50) (Mpa)

Load at

Failure

(kN)

Test

Orientation

Failure

Mode

Test Method:

Sampling Method:

Lithology

Sample History:

Report Number:

Point Load

Strength

Is (Mpa)

0.552

0.54

Sample SourceSample

No.

Issue Number: 1

Mount Kuring-gai

Laboratory 1318

Date of Issue:

Size of Specimen

(mm)

0.38

0.50

1.06

0.74

Diametral 0.49 0.75

51.77

Diametral

Axial 0.98

0.42

0.67

25.62

24.07

29.44

51.71

27.51

51.48

51.75

51.87

G35781

G35781

G35782

ShaleG35780

G35780 Shale

BH1 - 6.3

BH1 - 6.3

0.39

BH1 - 9.0

BH1 - 7.7

BH1 - 7.7 Shale 28.92

Axial

Axial 2

2

Shale

Shale

0.60

0.36

2

2 0.50

Document No: RP315 Version No: 3 16/01/14 Page 1 of 1

Job No: G17

Core Box Photographs

Lion Civil Pty Ltd

Proposed Development

29-35 Burlington Road, Homebush

February 2014

BH1: 5.50m to 9.10m

GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.96

A1150DRAWING NUMBER

DA AISSUE

1:200

DRAWING NAME

STREETSCAPE ANALYSIS

HOMEBUSH PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS

27/11/2015

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

08.1

4

DRAWN BY: CHECKED 1: CHECKED 2: APPROVED:

SCALE: DATE: CAD FILE NUMBER:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:ARCHITECT:

PLANNING:BCA:HYDRAULIC:ACOUSTIC:TRAFFIC:ACCESS:

29-35 BURLINGTON RD, HOMEBUSH

QUANTITY SURVEY: WASTE MANAGEMENT:HERITAGE:LANDSCAPING :GEOTECHNICAL:BASIX:

JU GAMO

0 1 2 5 10M

N© COPYRIGHT

DO NOT SCALE DWGS. USE DIMENSIONSONLY. REFER ANY DISCREPANCIES TOARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE SUBJECT TOCOPYRIGHT.

FOR DA PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A1

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

D A T. +612 9744 7035 | E . office@ ghazia.c o mA C N : 67 167 131 838

DA

27/1

1/20

15A

SCALE 1:200

UNIT 2 , 14 RAILWAY PARADE ,B U R W O O D N S W 2134

TRAFFIXA:SUITE 3.08 46a Macleay Street Potts PointNSW 2011 | PO Box Potts Point NSW 1035t: +61 2 8324 8700

WILLANA ASSOCIATESRandwick NSW 2037 | PO BOX NSW 170t: +61 2 9399 6500

VIPAC ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS2 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, NSW 2066t: +61 2 9422 4230

SGC CONSULTANTS PTY LIMITEDa: suite 113, Bldg A, Level 1, 20 LexingtonDrive, Bella Vista, NSW 2153 |t: +612 88834239 f: +612 96726977 w:www.sgce.com.au

Elephants Foot Recycling SolutionsSuite 29, Level 8 | 320 Adelaide Street |Brisbane QLD 4000

m: 04 3799 5916 f: 61+ 02 9707 2588 w:www.elephantsfoot.com.au

MMDCSuite 5/101 George St Parramatta NSW2150t: +61 2 9633 9233

CONZEPT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSSuite 101, 506 Miller Street, CammerayNSW 2062t: +61 2 9922 5312w: www.conzept.net.au

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

ROCHESTERSTREET

37-39 BURLINGTON RD 29-35 BURLINGTON RD41 BURLINGTON RD 25-27 BURLINGTON RD 39 ROCHESTER ST

11m HEIGHT LIMIT

16m HEIGHT LIMIT

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

EAST ELEVATION @ 1:200

APPROVED DA 195/2

011

(SUBJECT TO S96)

PROPOSED DADA 195/2011

DA


A1250DRAWING NUMBER

DA AISSUE

1:200

DRAWING NAME

BASEMENT 4


27/11/2015

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

08.1

4



CLIENT:

PROJECT:ARCHITECT:




JU GAMO

0 1 2 5 10M

N© COPYRIGHT




Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A1

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion


DA

27/1

1/20

15A

SCALE 1:200










920

920

920

920

216 217 218 219 220 221

222223

224225

226

227

175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

228 229 230

16

x 18

8 =

3,00

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9101112131415

199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215 16 x 188 = 3,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415

174

16 x 188 = 3,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,902

500 14,600 4,250 29,274 200500

200 3,950 200 2,200 200 8,876 2,800 14,000 40,170

3,00

018

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

724

11,5

652,

600

4,87

16,

600

2,60

02,

259

2,70

09,

000

2,80

1

2,99

918

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

724

23,6

986,

557

2,20

020

09,

540

2,80

0

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,920

500 7,620 5,204 2,800 10,688 48,887 6,050 40,170

-3.30

-3.30

-3.30

-3.30

STORMWATER CULVERT

STORM

WATER

EASEMEN

T

BURLIN

GTO

N RO

AD

FOR SHORING DETAILSREFER TO STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERS DWG'S


ENGINEERS DWG'S

MIRROR

FIREEXIT

FIREEXIT


ENGINEERS DWG'S

STORE

FIREEXIT

1500 LIFT

1500

1500

LIFT

LIFT

LIFT

FIREEXIT

GIVEW

AY

CONVEXMIRROR

CONVEXMIRROR

CONVEXMIRROR

CONVEXMIRROR

STORE

STORE

STORE

STO

RE

CAR WASH BAY /SERVICE BAY

STORE

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BASEMENT 4

RAMP2m @ 1:8

16.25m @ 1:6,5

RAMP16.25m @ 1:6,5

RAMP2m @ 1:8

AA1

AA1

BB

1B

B1

AA

AA

BB

BB

LIFT

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

BASEMENT 04 @ 1:200


A 1211DRAWING NUMBER

DA AISSUE

1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 08 - SUBJECT TO DAAPPROVAL


27/11/2015

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

08.1

4



CLIENT:

PROJECT:ARCHITECT:




JU GAMO

0 1 2 5 10M

N© COPYRIGHT




Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A1

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion


DA

27/1

1/20

15A

SCALE 1:200










2100

-268

521

00-2

350

2400-31182400-31182400-21712400-2171

2100-1800

2100

-359

9

850

2800

-534

4

2800-1800

2100-35992100-3599

2100-5344

2100

-300

021

00-3

000

920

850

2100-2171

2100-3599

850

920

850

850

9202100-4213820

850850

850

850

2100-3599

820

820

820

820

820

850 850

820

820 820 820820 820

820

820

820

820

820

820

850

850

850

850

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D

16

x 18

8 =

3,00

0

1234567

8

9101112131415

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

AA1

AA1

BB

1B

B1

AA

AA

BB

BB

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,902

3,00

018

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

32,324 200 13,700 200 2,235 200 7,015 200 4,738 200 3,980 200 13,831 200 8,750 200 1,950 31,796

2,99

920

01,

800

200

10,6

9020

05,

336

200

8,70

720

08,

309

2,93

43,

945

3,00

020

012

,690

200

5,04

62,

100

200

4,80

020

05,

023

200

8,81

120

03,

050

2,99

918

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,920

9,164 2,200 15,460 5,500 200 6,300 200 6,300 200 7,236 200 2,000 250664

200 5,726 200 7,550 200 8,114 200 9,910 200 2,000 31,746

34.30

34.30

34.30

16.33 m2

11.00 m2

13.08 m2 13.81 m2

15.66 m2

12.80 m2

14.78 m2

8.81 m2 8.27 m2

37-39 HOMEBUSH RD 33 THE CRESCENT

31 THE CRESCENT

25 HOMEBUSH RD

FHR

1500

LIFT

FHR

FIREEXIT

LIFT

FHR BINS

1500LIFT

CHUTE04

BALCONY

L'DRY

12.00 m2

12.00 m2

12.00 m2

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY

SKYLIGHT

SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT

BALCONY BALCONY

KITCHEN

LIVING/DINING

STORE

ROBE

ROBE

BED 1ENS.

DINING

KITCHEN

BED 2

BATH

L'DRY

LIVING

STORE

STO

RE

STOREROBE

BED

LIVING/DINING KITCHEN

BATHROOM

L'DRY

STO

RAG

E

STORE

ROBEROBE

L'DRY

BED 2

KITCHEN

BED 1

LIVING/DINING

BATH

ENS.

STORAGE

STORE

STORAGE

STO

RE

ROBE ROBE

LIVING

KITCHEN BED 2 BED 1

L'DRY BATH ENS.

STO

RE

DINING

STO

REST

ORE

BED 1

KITCHEN

LIVING/DINING

BATH

STO

RE

ROBE

ROBE

STO

RAG

E

STUDY

L'DRY

STORAGE

ROBE

LIVING

BEDL'DRY

BATH

KITCHEN

DINING

STORE

STORE

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

ROBE

BED 2 BED 1

KITCHEN

LIVING/DINING

L'DRY

ENSUITE

ROBE

STORE

ROBE

BED 2

KITCHEN

LIVING/DINING

BATH

ROBE

BED 1

ENS.

L'D

RY

STORE

STO

RE

STORE

OUTLINE OF THEBUILDING BELOW

OU

TLIN

E O

F TH

EBU

ILD

ING

BEL

OW

OU

TLIN

E O

F TH

EBU

ILD

ING

BEL

OW

BATH

ROBE

WIR

WIR

L'D

RYST

ORESKYLIGHT

SKYLIGHT

8073 BED

91.68 m2

8011 BED

61.35 m2

8022 BED

85.60 m2

8032 BED

83.61 m2

8042 BED

77.80 m2

8052 BED

89.71 m2

8092 BED

78.42 m2

8101 BED

65.85 m2

8061 BED

58.09 m2

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

CHUTE02

CHUTE03

BATHROOM

LEVEL 08 @ 1:200


A 1212DRAWING NUMBER

DA AISSUE

1:200

DRAWING NAME

ROOF PLAN - SUBJECT TO DAAPPROVAL


27/11/2015

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

08.1

4



CLIENT:

PROJECT:ARCHITECT:




JU GAMO

0 1 2 5 10M

N© COPYRIGHT




Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A1

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion


DA

27/1

1/20

15A

SCALE 1:200










33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

DA

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

A

A B

B

E

E

F

F

11

22

5 5

D

D G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

G

G

H

H

I

I

AA1

AA1

BB

1B

B1

AA

AA

BB

BB

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,920

3,00

05,

925

7,16

55,

336

1,80

910

,223

9,21

13,

050

3,00

018

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

2,99

927

,533

15,1

88

6,165 5,199 15,460 6,126 5,874 9,835 6,300 14,790 21,250 30,902

9,164 39,495 3,082 18,295 18,136 33,746

2,99

918

,136

9,39

72,

926

9,21

13,

050

7,620 2,744 1,000 15,460 12,000 6,500 9,936 5,700 8,790 6,942 8,025 3,457 33,746

37.30

38.10

38.10

38.10

37-39 HOMEBUSH RD 33 THE CRESCENT

31 THE CRESCENT

25 HOMEBUSH RD

SKYLIGHT

SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

OUTLINE OF THEBUILDING BELOW

OU

TLIN

E O

F TH

EBU

ILD

ING

BEL

OW

OU

TLIN

E O

F TH

EBU

ILD

ING

BEL

OW

SKYLIGHT

SKYLIGHT

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

C

C

4 4

ROOF PLAN @ 1:200


A1700DRAWING NUMBER

DA AISSUE

1:200

DRAWING NAME

SECTIONS


27/11/2015

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

08.1

4



CLIENT:

PROJECT:ARCHITECT:




JU GAMO

0 1 2 5 10M

N© COPYRIGHT




Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A1

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion


DA

27/1

1/20

15A

SCALE 1:200










A

A

B

B

C

C

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

I

I

D

D

F

F

E

E

D

D

C

C

B

B

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

H

H

H

H

H

H

G

G

G

G

G

G

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

21,250 14,790 6,300 9,835 5,874 6,126 15,460 5,199

3,00

03,

000

3,00

04,

600

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

0

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

1,60

0

-3.30

-0.30

+2.70

+5.70

+8.70

+10.30

+13.30

+16.30

+19.30

+22.30

+25.30

+28.30

+31.30

+34.30

+37.30+38.10+38.10

2,200

+10.30

+25.30

+31.30+32.10

+26.40

+13.30

+37.30

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

+34.10

+32.30+31.30

NGL +9.20NGL +8.71

NGL +8.44

NGL +8.51


BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

800

200

1,60

0

G RL. 10.300

RL. 13.300

RL. 16.300

1

2

3RL. 19.300

RL. 22.3004

GROUND LEVEL

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05RL. 25.300

5

LEVEL 06RL. 28.300

6

BASEMENT LEVEL 01 RL. 5.700B1


BASEMENT LEVEL 03 RL. -0.300B3

LEVEL 07RL. 31.300

7

ROOF LEVELRRL. 37.300

LEVEL 088RL. 34.300


5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

18,136 9,397 2,926 9,211

3,00

03,

000

3,00

04,

600

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

0

+31.30

+28.30

+25.30

+22.30

+19.31

+16.30

+13.30

+10.30

+5.70

+2.70

-3.30

-0.30

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

1,40

03,

200

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

3,00

03,

000

2,400

+37.30+38.10

+10.30 +10.20

+34.30

+37.30

+25.50

+26.40

+8.70

+26.30

NGL +8.36 NGL +8.52 NGL +8.71


BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

G RL. 10.300

RL. 13.300

RL. 16.300

1

2

3RL. 19.300

RL. 22.3004

GROUND LEVEL

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05RL. 25.300

5

LEVEL 06RL. 28.300

6




LEVEL 077RL. 31.300

ROOF LEVELRRL. 37.300

LEVEL 088RL. 34.300


SEC TION AA @ 1:200

SEC TION BB @ 1:200 SUBJECT TO DA APPROVAL

APPROVED DA 2011/1

95

APPROVED DA 2011/1

95



Geotechnical Investigation Report - Strathfield Council · PDF fileGeotechnical Investigation Report ... recommended that further drilling during excavation be ... into the excavation

Documents