Ibis Hotel Enfield, 626-628 Liverpool Road (Hume Highway ...

25th September 2015

Ref: GS6365-1A Nos. 28-30 Dumaresq Street Gordon NSW2072

Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 1 of 19

_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

Ibis Hotel Enfield,

626-628 Liverpool Road (Hume Highway)

Strathfield South, NSW 2136

Prepared for

Iris Capital

Report No. GS8219-1A

28th May 2021

28th May 2021

Ref: GS8219-1A, Ibis Hotel Enfield, 626-628 Liverpool Road, Strathfield South, NSW 2136


_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

Copy No. Custodian Location

_________________________________________________________________________

1 Nick Kariotoglou Aargus (Library)

2 Warren Duarte, Iris Capital GPO Box 5479

Sydney NSW 2001

3 (Electronic) Warren Duarte [email protected]

Note: This register identifies the current custodians of controlled copies of the subject

document.

It is expected that these custodians would be responsible for:

The storage of the document.

Ensuring prompt incorporation of amendments.

Making the document available to pertinent personnel within the organisation.

Encouraging observance of the document by such personnel.

Making the document available for audit.

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Revision No. Issue Date Description

_____________________________________________________________________

0 (GS8219-1A) 28 May 2021 First Issue

Issued By: Shyam Ghimire

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 5

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION .............................................................. 5

3. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................. 5

4. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 6

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 7

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................... 7

6.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 7

6.2 Ground Profile .................................................................................................................................... 7

6.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 7

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 8

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 8

7.2 Excavation Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 8

7.3 Vibration Control ............................................................................................................................... 8

7.4 Stability of Excavation ....................................................................................................................... 9

7.5 Earth Pressures ................................................................................................................................ 11

7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks ......................................................................................... 12

7.7 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................... 13

7.8 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................. 14

7.9 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................... 15

7.10 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification .................................................................................. 18

7.11 Further Investigation Recommendations ....................................................................................... 18

8. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 19

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions 7

Table 2: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity 9

Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary) 9

Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 11

Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 11

Table 6: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Temporary Anchors 12

Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities 14

Table 8. Results of Atterburg Limit Tests 15

Table 9. Results of CBR/ Compaction Testing 16

Table 10: Results of Electrical Conductivity Tests (Salinity) 16

Table 11: Soil pH, Chloride, Sulphate, Electrical Resistivity Test Results 18

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

APPENDIX B SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1)

APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX D DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

REFERENCES

1. Australian Standard – AS 1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigation.

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

Earthquake actions in Australia.

3. Australian Standard – AS3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and

Residential Developments.

4. Australian Standard – AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and footings.

5. Australian Standard – AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation.

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

Sydney Region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION

Aargus Pty Ltd (Aargus) has been commissioned by Warren Duarte of Iris Capital, to carry

out a Geotechnical site investigation at the Ibis Hotel Enfield, at Nos. 626-628 Liverpool

Road (Hume Highway) Strathfield South, NSW 2136. The site investigation was carried

out on Monday 10th May 2021 and was followed by geotechnical interpretation, assessment

and preparation of a geotechnical report.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the ground conditions and feasibility, from a

geotechnical perspective, of the site for a proposed development, being additions and

extensions to the existing hotel on the site.

This report presents results of the geotechnical site investigation, laboratory testing,

interpretation, and assessment of the site existing geotechnical conditions, as a basis to

provide recommendations for design and construction of ground structures for the

proposed development.

To assist in reading the report, reference should be made to the “Important Information

About Your Geotechnical Report” attached as Appendix A.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Prior to preparation of this report, the following information was made available to Aargus:

• Formule 1 Motel, Site and Location Plans, by Austin Australia Pty Ltd, Contract

No. AS1144, Sheet No. A10, Issue No. D, date 16/08/96.

• Architectural Plans, by Squillace Architects Interior Designers, Project Ibis Hotels,

Key Planning Controls and Return Brief, Stage Preliminary Investigations (PI),

Section 6 Ibis Budget Enfield, Plan No SK01, dated February 2021.

• First Floor Plan

• Ground Floor Plan

3. SCOPE OF WORK

In accordance with the brief, fieldwork for the geotechnical site investigation was carried

out by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from Aargus; following in general the

guidelines provided in Australian Standard AS 1726-2017 (Reference 1) and comprised the

following:

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

• A site walkover inspection in order to determine the overall surface conditions and

to identify any relevant site features;

• Service locating using electromagnetic detection equipment to ensure that the

investigation area is free from underground services;

• Machine boring of six (6) boreholes, to between 2.8 and 6.0m below ground level,

to the nominal depth of 6.0m or prior refusal on bedrock and one shallow borehole

for California Bearing Ratio test sampling.

• Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests were conducted to assess the in-situ strength of

subsurface soil layers;

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

• Representative soil samples from the boreholes for laboratory testing for Atterberg

limits and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests;

• Reinstatement of the boreholes with soil cuttings generated from the auger drilling,

and concrete finish at the surface.

The approximate location of the boreholes completed during the geotechnical site

investigation are shown on “Figure 1 - Site Plan” attached in Appendix B.

Boreholes BH1, BH2, BH4, BH5 and BH6 were auger bored to refusal at 2.8m, 2.5m, 5m,

5.6m and 5m, below ground level (bgl) respectively. BH7 was augered to termination

depth of 6.0 m and BH8 was terminated at 2.3m below ground level (for CBR sampling).

BH3 was not bored as a vehicle was parked over the location.

Following completion of the site investigation, laboratory testing was carried out on

selected rock core samples recovered from the borehole, and consisted of:

• Soil Salinity and Aggressivity Testing.

• Plasticity index Testing

• California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests

Based on the results of the site investigation and laboratory testing, Aargus carried out

geotechnical interpretation and assessment of the main potential geotechnical issues that

may be associated with the proposed development. A geotechnical report (this report) was

prepared to summarise the results of the geotechnical site investigation and to provide

comments and recommendations relating to:

• Excavation conditions;

• Stability of basement excavation;

• Suitable foundations;

• Allowable bearing pressure (and shaft adhesion for piles);

• Lateral pressure for design of retaining walls;

• Groundwater; and

• Site earthquake classification.

4. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is a rectangular shaped block 35m by 72m with an approximate area of 2500m2,

and comprises the properties at Nos. 626-628 Liverpool Road, Enfield. The site is located

within the Strathfield Council area.

At the time of the investigation, a three-storey building (existing Ibis hotel building) was

present on the site.

The site is bounded by the following properties, public roads and infrastructure:

• Hume Highway to the north of the site;

• Braidwood St, to the west of the site;

• Existing concrete road to the south of the site; and

• Existing Kentucky Fried Chicken building to the east of the site.

The site topography during the investigation was generally level.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Based on the information provided by the client, the proposed development comprises the

demolition of the existing buildings on site and the construction of a new two-storey

building (pub with hotel rooms above) with one basement level on the Hume Highway side

of the site, plus a new light industrial building on grade at the rear of the site.

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Geology

Reference to the Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 Edition 1, dated 1983, by

the Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources, indicates

the site is located at a geological boundary underlain by Bringelly Shale (Rwb) of the

Wianamatta Group. The Rwb is described as “carbonaceous claystone, laminite, fine to

medium-grained lithic sandstone, rare coal and tuff”.

Assessment of the subsurface materials, discussed in Section 6.2, confirms the published

geology.

It should be noted this geological profile does not take into account any residual soils

derived from in-situ weathering of the bedrock, or the presence of fill that may have been

generated from previous earthworks.

6.2 Ground Profile

The subsoil conditions encountered within the boreholes are summarised in Table 1 and

detailed on the attached Engineering Borehole Logs attached to this report. Reference

should be made to the logs and/or specific test results for design purposes.

Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Unit Description BH1

(m)

BH2

(m)

BH4

(m)

BH5

(m)

BH6

(m)

BH7

(m)

BH8

(m)

Pavement Asphalt 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1

Fill

Sandy Silty CLAY, brown, red

brown, grey, medium to high

plasticity, with medium brick

gravel. With some coal gravel in

BH7

0.1-2.7 0.1-2.3 0.1-1.5 0.1-4.5 0.1-0.6 0.1-6.0 0.1-2.3

Bedrock1

SHALE, grey, with fine to

medium grained sandstone, pale

brown, extremely to highly

weathered, very low to low

estimated strength.

Inferred Class V Shale (or better).

2.7-2.8 2.3-2.5 1.5-5.0 4.5-5.6 0.6-5.0 - -

1Pells P.J.N, Mostyn G. & Walker B.F. Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the Sydney Region, Australian

Geomechanics Journal, December 1998 (Reference 6).

6.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during augering in the boreholes. Groundwater may be

encountered within the underlying weathered bedrock.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 General

Consideration needs to be given to specific geotechnical issues including excavation

stability, foundation conditions and temporary shoring. Geotechnical commentary

regarding these geotechnical constraints and recommendations for the proposed

development is presented in the following sections.

7.2 Excavation Conditions

Excavation for the development of the site is expected to be through fill and then into Shale

bedrock of generally very low to low strength, grading to medium strength in places.

Excavation within the soils and extremely low to low strength bedrock is expected to be

readily achieved using a large hydraulic excavator down to the level of medium or stronger

bedrock. However, localised use of rock breaking equipment or ripping may be required

where high strength bands are encountered.

For medium or greater strength rock (if encountered), excavation will require the use of

heavy ripping and/or hydraulic rock hammers. Excavation for foundations or trenches in

this strength sandstone may require the use of hydraulic hammers and possibly a rock saw.

Both noise and vibration will be generated by excavation work within these bedrock

materials.

The rock classification system in Table 1 should not be used to directly assess rock

excavation characteristics. Contractors should refer to the engineering logs, core

photographs and point load tests when assessing the suitability of their excavation

equipment.

7.3 Vibration Control

Where rock hammering is required for excavation through medium strength (or greater)

rock, or other activities that cause vibration, consideration should be given to a vibration

monitoring plan during construction of the proposed development, to monitor the potential

vibration effects on existing buildings within adjoining properties, during excavation,

piling, and from the demolition works.

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

effects of vibration, if required, excavation into medium strength bedrock or stronger

should be complemented with saw cutting or other appropriate methods prior to

excavation. Rock saw cutting should be carried out using an excavator mounted rock saw,

or similar, so as to minimise transmission of vibrations to any adjoining properties that

may be affected. Hammering is not recommended and should be avoided. However, if

necessary, hammering should be carried out horizontally along bedding planes of (pre-cut)

broken rock blocks or boulders where possible and at the required operational limit to

ensure noise levels are restricted to limits acceptable to adjacent residents.

Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) for different types of building or

structure is summarised in Table 2. Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the

excavation should not be exceeded.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 2. Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

Type of Building or Structure Max. PPV (mm/sec)

Historical or structures in sensitive conditions 2

Residential and low-rise buildings 5

Brick or unreinforced structures in good condition 10

Commercial and industrial buildings or structures of reinforced

concrete or steel construction. 25

It is recommended that monitoring is carried out during demolition and excavation using a

vibration monitoring instrument (seismograph) and alarm levels (being the appropriate

PPV) selected in accordance with the type of structures present within the zone of

influence of the proposed excavation.

If vibrations in adjacent structures exceed the above values or appear excessive during

construction, excavation should cease, and the project Geotechnical Engineer should be

contacted immediately for appropriate reviews.

It is recommended a dilapidation survey of the existing buildings within adjoining

properties and infrastructure is conducted. Preparation of dilapidation survey report and

vibration monitoring plan together with vibration monitoring should constitute as “Hold

Points”.

7.4 Stability of Excavation

Temporary batter slopes may be considered in areas where sufficient space exists between

the basement excavation and the boundary or where an adjacent property is outside a zone

of influence obtained by drawing a line up at 45° from the toe of the proposed excavation.

Recommended maximum slopes for temporary batters are provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary)

Material Max. Batter Slope (H:V)

Fill 2:1

Residual Soils 1.5:1

Class V Shale 1:1

Class IV Shale 0.75:1

1 Subject to assessment by a Geotechnical Professional Engineer to assess stability and provide recommendations

as required.

Aargus understands that the development may include excavation for a single basement,

with excavation to approximately 3.0m depth. Where batter slopes are not considered

appropriate, temporary shoring should be provided. Shoring design should consider both

short term (construction) and permanent conditions as well as the presence of adjacent

buildings and roads. Consideration should be given to inspection pits to determine the

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

nature and depth of adjacent footings of neighbouring properties and to determine the need

for underpinning to rock prior to excavation.

Based on the ground conditions encountered and the requirements of the proposed

development, consideration may be given to a soldier pile wall solution extending and

socketing to the underlying bedrock, with shotcrete infill panels to support soil. Piles

should be anchored with at least one row of anchors.

Where the retained height is such that tolerable wall movements can be achieved using a

cantilevered wall arrangement (typically less than 2.5m high) or where only one row of

anchors is required (to control lateral deflection), a triangular pressure distribution may be

adopted for derivation of active pressures. Where two or more rows of anchors are required

to support the shoring due to significant retained height or where significant lateral

movements cannot be tolerated (e.g., due to adjacent infrastructure), the shoring/basement

wall should be designed as a braced structure.

If adopted, anchor designs should be based on allowing effective bonding to be developed

behind an ‘active zone’ determined by drawing a line at 45° from the base of the wall to

intersect the ground surface behind the excavated face. It is considered that basement floor

slabs will provide permanent restraint to the retaining walls where these are incorporated

into the permanent works. Anchors are therefore considered to be temporary but depending

on the sensitivity of the adjacent infrastructure, it may be necessary to incorporate the

temporary anchors into the permanent works to control deflections.

Anchor installation beyond the property boundaries will be subject to approval by owners

of adjoining properties, roads and infrastructure. Where an anchorage system is shown to

be impractical, consideration of other temporary support options would be necessary.

These options include the following:

• Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged

excavation; and

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

• Top-down construction where floor slabs and beams are constructed at the top of

shoring wall and at floor levels of the upper basement levels prior to excavation

within the basement level underneath the floor slabs.

The design of retaining structures should take into account horizontal pressures due to

surcharge loads from any adjacent infrastructure. The shoring wall and anchors can be

designed using the recommended parameters provided in Section 7.5 below.

A dilapidation survey will be required prior to excavation for the existing buildings within

the adjoining properties and the section of road carriageway and road reserve adjoining the

site.

Detailed construction supervision, monitoring and inspections will be required during

piling and subsequent bulk excavation and should be carried out by an experienced

Geotechnical Engineer, in addition to inspection of the structural elements by the Project

Structural Engineer. The inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

7.5 Earth Pressures

Earth retaining structures should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressure,

hydrostatic and earthquake (if applicable) pressures, and the applied surcharge loads in

their zone of influence, including existing structures, traffic and construction related

activities.

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

it is recommended the design should be based on active lateral earth pressure. Should it be

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

coefficient “at rest” should be considered such as the case when the shoring wall is in the

final permanent state and is restrained by the concrete slab in its final state.

Recommended parameters for the design of earth retaining structures in the soils and rock

horizons underlying the site are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls

Units Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

Effective

Cohesion c’

(kPa)

Angle of

Friction ′

()

Modulus of

Elasticity Esh

(MPa)

Fill 19 0 26 8

Class V Shale 22 30 28 100

1Class IV Shale 23 50 30 200

1Class III Shale 24 100 30 300

1Class IV and III Shale to be confirmed onsite during excavation.

Table 5 below provides preliminary coefficients of lateral earth pressure for the soils and

rocks encountered during the geotechnical investigation. The coefficients provided are

based on horizontal ground surface and fully drained conditions.

Table 5. Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Units

Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth

Pressure Ka

Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth

Pressure at Rest Ko

Coefficient of Passive

Lateral Earth

Pressure Kp

Fill 0.39 0.56 2.56

Class V Shale 0.36 0.53 2.77

Class IV Shale 0.33 0.5 3.0

Class III Shale 0.33 0.5 3.0 1 Class IV and III Shale to be confirmed onsite during excavation.

• Coefficient of active and passive lateral earth pressure Ka and Kp, respectively, can

be calculated using Rankine’s or Coulomb’s equations, as appropriate.

• Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest Ko for soils, can be calculated using

Jacky’s equation.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

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

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

active (or at rest) and passive earth pressures can be carried out for cantilever walls using

Rankine’s equation shown below:

𝑃𝑎 = 𝐾 𝛾 𝐻 − 2𝑐√𝐾 For calculation of lateral active or ‘at rest’ earth pressure

𝑃𝑝 = 𝐾𝑝 𝛾 𝐻 + 2𝑐√𝐾𝑝 For calculation of passive earth pressure

For braced retaining walls, a uniform lateral earth pressure should be adopted as follows:

𝑃𝑎 = 0.65 𝐾 𝛾 𝐻 For calculation of active earth pressure

Where;

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

Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

= Bulk density (kN/m3)

K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)

Kp = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure

H = Retained height (m)

c = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)

If adopted, temporary anchors will require embedment in bedrock. Preliminary allowable

bond stresses may be adopted for temporary anchors, as detailed in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Rock Anchors

Units Allowable Bond Stress (kPa)

Class V Shale 60

Class IV Shale 100

Class III Shale 300 1 Class IV and III Shale to be confirmed onsite during excavation.

Anchors should undergo proof testing following installation. The anchors can be designed

for the parameters recommended above providing:

• The bond (socket) length is at least 3.0m; and

• Anchors are proof tested to 1.3 times the design working load specified by the

Structural Engineer, before they are locked off at working load. Anchor testing

should constitute as a “Hold Point”.

7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks

The following general procedure is provided for site preparation of building platforms and

pavements:

• Strip topsoil and remove any unsuitable material from site.

• Excavate fill, residual soils and rock stockpiling for re-use as engineered fill or

remove to spoil.

• Where clayey soil is exposed at formation level, the exposed surface should be

treated and moisture conditioned to within 2% of optimum moisture content (OMC)

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

followed by proof rolling with a smooth drum roller. Soft or loose areas should be

excavated and replaced with approved fill material.

• Where rock is exposed at footing level, it should be free of loose or softened

material.

The suitability of imported materials for filling should be subject to the following criteria:

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

material), free of inclusions of >120mm in size; high plasticity material and soft

material be removed and suitably conditioned to meet the design assumptions

where fill material is proposed to be used.

• Material with excessive moisture content should not be used without conditioning.

• The materials should satisfy the Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 3).

The final surface levels of all cut and fill areas should be compacted in order to enable the

subgrade to achieve adequate strength for the proposed building platforms.

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

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

• Minimum density ratio of 98% of the maximum dry density for the building

platforms of the proposed dwellings;

• The loose thickness of layer should not exceed 300mm during the compaction.

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

Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 3). Inspections by the project Geotechnical Engineer

will be required during earthworks, subgrade preparation and proof rolling. The

inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.

7.7 Foundations

Bulk excavation is mainly likely to expose Fill and Class V Shale rock or better within the

footprint of the proposed development. Suitable footings are likely to comprise a

reinforced concrete raft slab with pad and strip footings to support columns and walls

where suitable bedrock is exposed at bulk excavation level.

It is recommended that all footings be founded on consistent subsurface materials to

minimise the risk of differential settlement. This could be achieved by strip footings where

suitable bedrock is exposed at bulk excavation level and shallow pad or pile foundations

elsewhere. Installation of piles may be required in cases where axial loads on columns and

walls exceed the bearing pressure of the bedrock present at bulk excavation level and

should be socketed into Class III Shale (presence and depth to be confirmed).

Other cases where piles may be required include the need to increase the resistance against

lateral seismic and wind loads. Design of shallow and pile foundations should be carried

out in accordance with Australian Standards AS2870-2011 (Reference 4) and AS2159-

2009 (Reference 5), respectively.

Table 7 provides geotechnical parameters recommended for design of shallow and piled

foundations.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 7. Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities

Unit

Allowable Capacity Values (kPa)

End Bearing

Pressure1

Shaft Adhesion Compression

(Tension)2

Fill N/A3 N/A3

Class V Shale 700 50 (25)

4 Class IV Shale 1000 100 (50)

4 Class III Shale 3500 200 (100) 1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for deep foundations and 0.4m for shallow foundations. 2 Clean rock socket of roughness of at least R2, ie grooves of depth 1mm to 4mm and width greater than 5mm at spacing of 50mm to 200mm. Shaft Adhesion in Tension is 50% of Compression, applicable to piles only. 3 N/A, Not Applicable, not recommended for the proposed building of this development. 4The actual depth of the underlying Class IV and III Sandstone, if present, should be confirmed during construction if required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

socket lengths. Where the piles penetrate soils that are susceptible to shrinkage and

swelling, we recommend that the shaft adhesion be ignored in the zone of seasonal

moisture variations due to the potential of shrinkage cracking.

The excavations should be dewatered using conventional sump and pump methods, prior to

concrete pouring if groundwater seepages or surface runoff are encountered within

foundation excavations. Any loose debris and wet soils should also be removed from

excavations.

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should review footing designs to ensure

compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and assess foundation

excavations to ensure suitable materials of appropriate bearing capacity have been reached.

The presence of water within foundation excavations may negate satisfactory examination

of founding surfaces and certification of founding materials quality. Foundation

inspections should only be undertaken under conditions satisfying WHS requirements.

Verification of the capacity of the shallow and pile foundations by inspections would be

required and inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.

7.8 Groundwater Management

Groundwater in the form of minor seepage was encountered only in BH7 at a depth of

5.0m. No groundwater was encountered in the other boreholes during the investigation.

Groundwater may be present in fractures in the underlying bedrock.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Based on observations during the fieldwork, any groundwater is likely to be minor, and

easily controllable with standard sump and pump methods.

7.9 Laboratory Testing

Recovered soil samples from the site were submitted to NATA accredited materials testing

laboratory for testing. The testing comprised:

• Two Atterberg Limits Tests

• One CBR/ Compaction Test

• Two Soil Salinity and Aggressivity Assessment (pH, Chloride Cl- and Sulphates

SO4)

7.9.1 Atterberg Limits Test Results

Atterburg limits and linear shrinkage testing was carried out on disturbed soil samples

recovered from boreholes BH6 and BH8. The results of the tests are presented in Table 6

below and detailed on the attached Laboratory Test Results presented in Appendix E.

Table 1. Results of Atterburg Limit Tests

7.9.2 CBR and Compaction Testing

During the course of the investigation, one bulk sample was obtained from the borehole

BH3, at 0.5-1.5m depth. The sample was tested for determination of the California Bearing

Ratio (CBR) for pavement design purposes, with testing being carried out in Aargus’

NATA accredited laboratory in accordance with Australian Standards AS1289-1998.

Optimum moisture content and Maximum Dry Density tests were performed as part of

CBR testing to determine the moisture content at which maximum dry density could be

achieved during pavement construction.

The results of CBR testing are presented in Table 7 with the laboratory test result sheets

attached in Appendix E.

Borehole ID Depth (m)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Liquid

Limit

(%)

Plastic

Limit

(%)

Plasticity

index

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

BH6 0.4-0.7 19.1 65 20 45 14.5

BH8 1.5-1.7 19.1 45 16 29 12.5

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 2. Results of CBR/ Compaction Testing

Location Depth

(m) Description

Moisture

Content

(%)

MDD 1 OMC 2 Swell

(%)

CBR

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

BH8 0.7-1.7 Silty Clay 17.0 1.77 15.8 0.5 5 12.5

1. Maximum Dry Density (t/m3)

2. Optimum Moisture Content (%)

7.9.3 Exposure Classification for Ground Structures – Soil Salinity & Aggressivity

Assessment

Two soil samples recovered from the boreholes were tested by ALS, a NATA accredited

laboratory. The testing comprised:

• Soil Salinity and Aggressivity testing (pH, Chloride Cl-, Sulphates SO4, electrical

conductivity and moisture content).

Results of the laboratory testing are attached to this report and are summarised in Tables 8

and 9.

Through introduction of a multiplying factor to the test results, as stipulated in the

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) publication “Site Investigations for Urban

Salinity” (2002), the resultant electrical conductivity of saturated extracts (ECe) from the

samples tested ranged from approximately 0.32 dS/m to 0.18 dS/m, as shown in Table 3,

indicating samples of the Residual Clay soils tested to be “Non saline”.

Table 10. Results of Electrical Conductivity Tests (Salinity)

Borehole Depth

(m bgl)

Electrical

Conductivity (dS/m)

Multiplication

Factor a

Electrical Conductivity of

Saturated Extract (dS/m) Soil Type

Ec

ECe

BH1/

DCP1 0.5-0.6 0.046 7 0.32

Residual Heavy

Clay

BH2/

DCP2 0.5-0.6 0.026 7 0.18

Residual Heavy

Clay

“Site Investigations for Urban Salinity” (2002) Saline at >4 dS/m

Non-saline <2 dS/m

Slightly saline 2-4 dS/m

Moderately saline 4-8 dS/m

Very saline 8-16 dS/m

Highly saline >16 dS/m

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Soil samples recovered from the boreholes were tested for pH, chloride Cl-, Sulphate S04

content and electrical resistivity/ conductivity. The testing was carried out by a NATA

accredited laboratory. The results of the tests are attached to this report and are summarised

in Table 4 below. The results were assessed in conjunction with the exposure classification

for soil aggressivity levels for buried concrete and steel structures outlined in Australian

Standard AS 2159-2009.

Reference to AS2159-2009, “Piling – Design and Installation”, and the results of soil

electrical conductivity, pH, Chloride, and Sulphate tests on three soil samples collected

from boreholes BH2, BH4 & BH5 indicate that the soil samples tested are:

• “Non-aggressive” to concrete piles or structures in low permeability soils (Soil

Condition B), based on the pH and Sulphate test results, and

• “Non-aggressive” to steel piles or structures in low permeability soils (Soil

Condition B), based on the Chloride, PH and Electrical Conductivity / Resistivity

test results.

However, the Australian Standard AS2159-2009 states “pH alone may be a misleading

measure of aggressivity without a full analysis of causes”, and that pH may change over

the lifetime of the pile or concrete structure. Refer to the attached laboratory test results

and further explanatory notes on the exposure classifications for concrete and steel

structures, extracted from Australian Standard AS2159-2009 “Piling - Design and

Installation”.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 11. Soil pH, Chloride, Sulphate, Electrical Resistivity Test Results

Borehole Depth

(m bgl)

MC*

(%) pH

Chloride

(mg/kg)

Sulphate as S04

(mg/kg)

Electrical

Resistivity

(ohm.cm)

BH1 0.5-0.6 21.4 6.2 40 20 21,739

BH2 0.5-0.6 14.7 5.7 20 40 38,461

AS2159-2009

Piling - Design and Installation

Reinforced Concrete Piles

High Permeability Soils

Mild >5.5 - <5000 -

Moderately aggressive 4.5 - 5.5 - 5000 – 10,000 -

Severely aggressive 4.0 - 4.5 - 10,000 – 20,000 -

Very severely <4.0 - >20,000 -

Low Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive > 5.5 - <5000 -

Mild 4.5 - 5.5 - 5000 – 10,000 -

Moderately aggressive 4.0 - 4.5 - 10,000 – 20000 -

Severely aggressive <4.0 - >20,000 -

Steel Piles

High Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive >5.0 <5000 - >5,000

Mild 4.0 - 5.0 5000 – 20,000 - 2,000-5,000

Moderately aggressive 3.0 - 4.0 20,000-50,000 - 1,000-2,000

Severe <3 >50,000 - <1,000

Low Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive >5.0 <5000 - >5,000

Non-aggressive 4.0 - 5.0 5000 – 20,000 - 2,000-5,000

Mild 3.0 - 4.0 20,000-50,000 - 1,000-2,000

Moderately aggressive <3.0 >50,000 - <1,000

Note: MC * = Moisture Content

Note: Electrical Resistivity converted from Electrical Conductivity

7.10 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification

The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of fill and residual soil extending

to depths between 2.5m and > 6.0m (varying within the site), underlain by residual soils

and very low to low strength Class V Shale or better.

In accordance with Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007 (Reference 2) the site may be

classified as a “Shallow soil site” (Class Ce) for design of foundations and retaining walls

embedded in the underlying soils and weathered Shale. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Sydney

in accordance with AS 1170.4-2007 is considered to be 0.08.

7.11 Further Investigation Recommendations

The preliminary geotechnical site investigation comprised borehole drilling to a maximum

depth of 6.0m, with most boreholes encountering TC-bit refusal in weathered bedrock

(Class V Shale or better). Borehole BH7 was terminated at the target depth of 6.0m, ending

in Fill.

28th May 2021



_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

Therefore, Aargus recommends further site investigation be carried out to confirm the

actual depth of the rock, and to determine the type and strength of the rock at this site

location for design purposes:

• Machine drilling of at least two boreholes to TC-bit refusal followed by NMLC

coring in bedrock for at least 2m rock coring to establish rock class, allowable

bearing capacities to optimise foundation design.

8. LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical assessment of the subsurface profile and geotechnical conditions within

the proposed development area and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this

report have been based on available information obtained during the work carried out by

Aargus and in the provided documents listed in Section 2 of this report. Inferences about

the nature and continuity of ground conditions away from and beyond the locations of field

exploratory tests are made but cannot be guaranteed.

It is recommended that should ground conditions including subsurface and groundwater

conditions, encountered during construction and excavation vary substantially from those

presented within this report, Aargus Pty Ltd be contacted immediately for further advice

and any necessary review of recommendations. Aargus does not accept any liability for site

conditions not observed or accessible during the time of the inspection.

This report and associated documentation and the information herein have been prepared

solely for the use of Iris Capital and any reliance assumed by third parties on this report

shall be at such parties’ own risk. Any ensuing liability resulting from use of the report by

third parties cannot be transferred to Aargus Pty Ltd, directors or employees.

For and on behalf of

Aargus Pty Ltd

Rafael Furniss

Senior Engineering Geologist

BSc (Applied Geology), Hons, MSc

MAGS, MAIG, ISSMGE

Attachments

➢ Important Information about this Report

➢ Site Location Plan

➢ Borehole Logs

➢ DCP Test Results

➢ Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX A

______________________________

Information About Geotech Report

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOURGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

More construction problems are caused by sitesubsurface conditions than any other factor. Astroublesome as subsurface problems can be, theirfrequency and extent have been lessenedconsiderably in recent years, due in largemeasure to programs and publications of ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicingin the Geosciences.

The following suggestions and observations areoffered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, cost-overruns and other costlyheadaches that can occur during a constructionproject.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET

OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS

A geotechnical engineering report is based on asubsurface exploration plan designed toincorporate a unique set of project-specificfactors. These typically include the generalnature of the structure involved, its size andconfiguration, the location of the structure on thesite and its orientation, physical concomitantssuch as access roads, parking lots, andunderground utilities, and the level of additionalrisk which the client assumed by virtue oflimitations imposed upon the exploratoryprogram.

To help avoid costly problems, consult thegeotechnical engineer to determine how anyfactors which change subsequent to the date ofthe report may affect its recommendations.

Unless your consulting geotechnical engineerindicates otherwise, your geotechnicalengineering report should NOT be used:

when the nature of the proposed structure ischanged: for example, if an office building willbe erected instead of a parking garage, or if arefrigerated warehouse will be built instead ofan un-refrigerated one,

when the size or configuration of the proposedstructure is altered,

when the location or orientation of the proposedstructure is modified,

when there is a change of ownership, or

for application to an adjacent site.

Geotechnical engineers cannot acceptresponsibility for problems which may develop ifthey are not consulted after factors considered intheir report's development have changed.

Geotechnical reports present the results ofinvestigations carried out for a specific project andusually for a specific phase of the project. Thereport may not be relevant for other phases of theproject, or where project details change.

The advice herein relates only to this project and thescope of works provided by the Client.

Soil and Rock Descriptions are based on AS1726-1993, using visual and tactile assessment except atdiscrete locations where field and/or laboratory testshave been carried out. Refer to the attached termsand symbols sheets for definitions.

MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"

ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES

Site exploration identifies actual subsurfaceconditions only at those points where samples aretaken, when they are taken. Data derived throughsampling and subsequent laboratory testing areextrapolated by geotechnical engineers who thenrender an opinion about overall subsurfaceconditions, their likely reaction to proposedconstruction activity, and appropriate foundationdesign. Even under optimal circumstances actualconditions may differ from those inferred to exist,because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how

cynthia

Stamp

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

qualified, and no subsurface explorationprogram, no matter how comprehensive, canreveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time.The actual interface between materials maybe far more gradual or abrupt than a reportindicates. Actual conditions in areas notsampled may differ from predictions. Nothingcan be done to prevent the unanticipated, butsteps can be taken to help minimize theirimpact. For this reason, most experiencedowners retain their geotechnical consultantsthrough the construction stage, to identifyvariances, conduct additional tests which maybe needed, and to recommend solutions toproblems encountered on site.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN

CHANGE

Subsurface conditions may be modified byconstantly changing natural forces. Because ageotechnical engineering report is based onconditions which existed at the time ofsubsurface exploration, construction decisionsshould not be based on a geotechnicalengineering report whose adequacy may havebeen affected by time. Speak with thegeotechnical consultant to learn if additionaltests are advisable before construction starts.

Construction operations at or adjacent to thesite and natural events such as floods,earthquakes or groundwater fluctuationsmay also affect subsurface conditions, andthus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnicalreport. The geotechnical engineer should bekept apprised of any such events, and should beconsulted to determine if additional tests arenecessary.

Subsurface conditions can change with timeand can vary between test locations.Construction activities at or adjacent to the siteand natural events such as flood, earthquake orgroundwater fluctuations can also affect thesubsurface conditions.

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE

PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC

PURPOSES AND PERSONS

Geotechnical engineers’ reports are prepared to meetthe specific needs of specific individuals. A reportprepared for a consulting civil engineer may not beadequate for a construction contractor, or even someother consulting civil engineer. Unless indicatedotherwise, this report was prepared expressly for theclient involved and expressly for purposes indicatedby the client. Use by any other persons for anypurpose, or by the client for a different purpose, mayresult in problems.No individual other than the client should applythis report for its intended purpose without firstconferring with the geotechnical engineer. Noperson should apply this report for any purposeother than that originally contemplated withoutfirst conferring with the geotechnical engineer.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS SUBJECT TO

MISINTERPRETATION

Costly problems can occur when other designprofessional develop their plans based onmisinterpretations of a geotechnicalengineering report. To help avoid theseproblems, the geotechnical engineer should beretained to work with other appropriate designprofessionals to explain relevant geotechnicalfindings and to review the adequacy of theirplans and specifications relative togeotechnical issues.

The interpretation of the discussion andrecommendations contained in this report are basedon extrapolation/interpretation from data obtained atdiscrete locations. Actual conditions in areas notsampled or investigated may differ from thosepredicted

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE

SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING

REPORT

Final boring logs are developed bygeotechnical engineers based upon theirinterpretation of field logs (assembled by sitepersonnel) and laboratory evaluation of fieldsamples. Only final boring logs customarilyare included in geotechnical engineeringreports. These logs should not under anycircumstances be redrawn for inclusion inarchitectural or other design drawings becausedrafters may commit errors or omissions in the

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

transfer process. Although photographicreproduction eliminates this problem, itdoes nothing to minimize the possibilityof contractors misinterpreting the logsduring bid preparation. When this occurs,delays, disputes and unanticipated costsare the all-too-frequent result.

To minimise the likelihood of boring logmisinterpretation, give contractors readyaccess in the complete geotechnicalengineering report prepared or authorizedfor their use. Those who do not providesuch access may proceed under mistakenimpression that simply disclaimingresponsibility for the accuracy ofsubsurface information always insulatesthem from attendant liability. Providingthe best available information tocontractors helps prevent costlyconstruction problems and the adversarialattitudes which aggravate them todisproportionate scale.READ RESPONSIBILITY

CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because geotechnical engineering is basedextensively on judgment and opinion, it isfar less exact than other designdisciplines. This situation has resulted inwholly unwarranted claims being lodgedagainst geotechnical consultants. To helpprevent this problem, geotechnicalengineers have developed model clausesfor use in written transmittals. These arenot exculpatory clauses designed to foistgeotechnical engineers’ liabilities ontosomeone else. Rather, they are definitiveclauses which identify where geotechnicalengineers' responsibilities begin and end.Their use helps all parties involved rec-ognize their individual responsibilitiesand take appropriate action. Some ofthese definitive clauses are likely toappear in your geotechnical engineeringreport, and you are encouraged to readthem closely. Your geotechnical engineerwill be pleased to give full and frankanswers to your questions.

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO

REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineerwill be pleased to discuss other

techniques which can be employed to mitigaterisk. In addition, ASFE has developed avariety of materials which may be beneficial.Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of itspublications directory.

FURTHER GENERAL NOTES

Groundwater levels indicated on the logs are takenat the time of measurement and may not reflect theactual groundwater levels at those specific locations.It should be noted that groundwater levels canfluctuate due to seasonal and tidal activities.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not bereproduced either totally or in part without theexpress permission of the Company. Whereinformation from this report is to be included incontract documents or engineering specifications forthe project, the entire report should be included inorder to minimise the likelihood ofmisinterpretation.

APPENDIX B

_______________________________ Site Plan (Figure 1)

Image Source

Aargus ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

Drawn RF

Iris Capital

-Geotechnical Investigation

Ibis Hotel, Hume Highway, Enfield NSW

Figure 1

Checked RF

Title Site Plan Date 17 May 2021

Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS8219-1A

LEGEND

Borehole Location

Borehole/Piezometer Location

LEGEND

Borehole locations

BH-1

BH-4

BH-2

HUME HIGHWAY)

BH-6

BH-7

BH-8

APPENDIX C

______________________________ Engineering Borehole Logs

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 7

GRAPHIC LOG SYMBOLS FOR SOIL AND ROCK

The following information is intended to assist in the interpretation of terms and symbols used in geotechnical borehole logs, test pit logs and

reports issued by or for Aargus Pty Ltd. More detailed information relating to specific test methods is available in the relevant Australian

Standard AS1726-2017.

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 7

Soil Description

Description and Classification of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes: Refer to AS1726-2017 (Clause 6.1.6) The following chart (adapted from AS1726-2017, Clause 6.1.6, Table A1) is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Table 1

Major Divisions

Particle

size mm

USCS

Group

Symbol

Typical Names

Field classification of sand and gravel

Laboratory Classification

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(mo

re t

han

65

% o

f so

il e

xcl

udin

g o

ver

size

fra

ctio

n i

s gre

ater

than

0.0

75

mm

)

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVELS

(more than

half of

coarse

fraction is

larger than

2.36 mm)

SANDS

(more than

half of

coarse fraction is

smaller than

2.36 mm)

200

63

coarse

20

medium

6

fine

2.36

coarse

0.6

medium

0.2

fine

0.07

5

% < 0.075 mm

Plasticity

of fine

fraction

Cu =D60

D10

Cu =(𝐷30)

2

(D10)(D

60)

NOTES

GW

Gravel and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Wide range in grain size and substantial amounts of all intermediate sizes, not enough

fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength

Use

th

e g

radat

ion c

urv

e o

f m

ater

ial

pas

sing

63 m

m f

or

clas

sifi

cati

on o

f fr

acti

ons

acco

rdin

g t

o t

he

crit

eria

giv

en i

n 'M

ajor

Div

isio

ns'

≤ 5% fines

>4

Between

1 and 3

(1) Identify fines by the method given for fine-

grained soils.

(2) Borderline

classification

s occur when

the

percentage of fines

(fraction

smaller than 0.075 mm

size) is

greater than 5% and less

than 12%.

Borderline classifications

require the

use of SP-SM, GW-

GC.

GP

Gravel and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines,

uniform gravels

Predominantly one size or range of sizes with some intermediate sizes missing, not enough

fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength

≤ 5% fines

Fails to comply with above

GM Gravel-silt mixtures and

gravel-sand-silt mixtures ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of non-plastic

fines, zero to medium dry strength

≥ 12% fines,

fines are

silty

Below 'A'

line or

PI<4

Fines behave

as silt

GC

Gravel-clay mixtures and

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

‘Dirty’ materials with excess of plastic fines,

medium to high dry strength

≥ 12% fines,

fines are clayey

Above

'A' line and PI>7

Fines behave

as clay

SW

Sand and gravel-sand

mixtures, little or no fines

Wide range in grain size and substantial

amounts of all intermediate sizes, not enough fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength

≤ 5% fines

>6

Between

1 and 3

SP

Sand and gravel-sand

mixtures, little or no fines Predominantly one size or range of sizes with

some intermediate sizes missing, not enough fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength

≤ 5% fines

Fails to comply with

above

SM Sand-silt mixtures ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of non-plastic

fines, zero to medium dry strength

≥ 12% fines, fines are

silty

Below 'A' line or

PI<4

SC

Sand-clay mixtures ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of plastic fines,

medium to high dry strength ≥ 12% fines, fines are

clayey

Above

'A' line

and PI>7

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 2 of 7

Classification of fine-grained soils

Major Divisions USCS

Group

Symbol

Typical Names

Field classification of sand and gravel

Laboratory

classification

Dry

Strength

Dilatancy Toughness

% < 0.075 mm

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(mo

re t

han

35%

of

soil

excl

udin

g o

ver

size

fra

ctio

ns

is l

ess

than

0.0

75

mm

)

SILT and CLAY (low to

medium plasticity, %)

(Liquid Limit ≤50%)

ML

Inorganic silt and very fine sand, rock flour, silty

or clayey fine sand or silt

with low plasticity

None to low

Slow to rapid

Low

Below A line

CL

CI

Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity,

gravelly clay, sandy clay

Medium to

high

None to

slow

Medium

Above A line

OL Organic silts and clays

of low plasticity

Low to

medium

Slow

Low

Below A line

SILT and CLAY (high plasticity)

(Liquid Limit >50%)

MH

Inorganic silts, mic- aceous or diato-maceous fine sands

or silts, elastic silts

Low to

medium

None to

slow

Low to

medium

Below A line

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat

clays

High to very

high

None

High

Above A line

OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity,

organic silt

Medium to

high

None to

very slow

Low to

medium

Below A line

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOILS

PT

Peat and other highly organic soils

-

-

-

-

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 3 of 7

Soil Colour: Is described in the moist condition using black, white, grey, red, brown, orange, yellow, green or blue. Borderline cases can be

described as a combination of two colours, with the weaker followed by the stronger. Modifiers such as pale, dark or mottled, can be used as necessary. Where colour consists of a primary colour with secondary mottling, it should be described as follows: (Primary) mottled

(Secondary). Refer to AS 1726-2017, Clause 6.1.5

Soil Moisture Condition: Is based on the appearance and feel of soil. Refer to AS 1726-2017, Clause 6.1.7

Term Description

Dry (D) Cohesive soils; hard and friable or powdery, well dry of plastic limit. Granular soils; cohesionless and free-running.

Moist Soil feels cool, darkened in colour. Cohesive soils can be moulded. Granular soils tend to cohere.

Wet Soil feels cool, darkened in colour. Cohesive soils usually weakened and free water forms on hands when handling. Granular soils tend to cohere and free water forms on hands when handling.

Consistency of Cohesive Soils: May be estimated using simple field tests, or described in terms of a strength scale. In the field, the undrained

shear strength (su) can be assessed using a simple field tool appropriate for cohesive soils, in conjunction with the relevant calibration. Refer to AS 1726-2017, Table 11.

Note: SPT - N to qu correlation from Terzaghi and Peck, 1967. (General guide only).

Consistency of Non-Cohesive Soils: Is described in terms of the density index, as defined in AS 1289.0-2014. This can be assessed using a

field tool appropriate for non-cohesive soils, in conjunction with the relevant calibration. Refer to AS 1726-2017, Table 12

Consistency - Essentially Non-Cohesive Soils

Term Symbol SPT N Value Field Guide Density Index (%)

Very loose VL 0-4 Foot imprints readily 0-15

Loose L 4-10 Shovels Easily 15-35

Medium dense MD 10-30 Shoveling difficult 35-65

Dense D 30-50 Pick required 65-85

Very dense VD >50 Picking difficult 85-100

Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Refer to. AS 1289.6.3.1-2004 (R2016). Example report formats for SPT results are shown below:

Test Report Penetration Resistance (N) Explanation / Comment

4, 7, 11 N=18 Full penetration; N is reported on engineering borehole log

18, 27, 32 N=59 Full penetration; N is reported on engineering borehole log

4, 18, 30/15 mm N is not reported 30 blows causes less than 100 mm penetration (3rd interval) – test discontinued

30/80 mm N is not reported 30 blows causes less than 100 mm penetration (1st interval) – test discontinued

rw N<1 Rod weight only causes full penetration

hw N<1 Hammer and rod weight only causes full penetration

hb N is not reported Hammer bouncing for 5 consecutive blows with no measurable penetration – test

discontinued

Consistency - Essentially Cohesive Soils

Term Field Guide Symbol

SPT

“N”

Value

Undrained

Shear

Strength

su (kPa)

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

qu (kPa)

Very soft Exudes between the fingers

when squeezed in hand VS 0-2 <12 <25

Soft Can be moulded by

light finger pressure S 2-4 12-25 25-50

Firm Can be moulded by

strong finger pressure F 4-8 25-50 50-100

Stiff Cannot be moulded by fingers St 8-15 50-100 100-200

Very stiff Can be indented by thumb nail VSt 15-30 100-200 200-400

Hard Can be indented with difficulty by thumb nail. H >30 >200 >400

Friable

Can be easily crumbled or broken into small

pieces by hand Fr - - -

Soil Particle Sizes

Term

Size Range

BOULDERS >200 mm

COBBLES 63-200 mm

Coarse GRAVEL 20-63 mm

Medium GRAVEL 6-20 mm

Fine GRAVEL 2.36-6 mm

Coarse SAND 0.6-2.36 mm

Medium SAND 0.2-0.6 mm

Fine SAND 0.075-0.2 mm

SILT 0.002-0.075 mm

CLAY <0.002 mm

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 4 of 7

Rock Descriptions Refer to AS 1726-2017 Clause 6.2.3 for the description and classification of rock material composition, including:

(a) Rock name (Table 15, 16, 17, 18)

(b) Grain size

(c) Texture and fabric

(d) Colour (describe as per soil)

(e) Features, inclusion and minor components.

(f) Moisture content

(g) Durability

The condition of a rock material refers to its weathering characteristics, strength characteristics and rock mass properties. Refer to AS 1726-201 7Clause 6.2.4 Tables 19, 20 and 21).

Weathering Condition (Degree of Weathering):

The degree of weathering is a continuum from fresh rock to soil. Boundaries between weathering grades may be abrupt or gradational.

Rock Material Weathering Classification

Weathering Grade Symbol Definition

Residual Soil (Note 1)

RS

Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass

structure and material texture and fabric of original rock are no longer visible, but the soil has not been significantly transported

Extremely Weathered Rock (Note 2)

XW Material is weathered to such an extent that it has soil properties. Mass

structure and material texture and fabric of original rock are still visible

Highly Weathered Rock (Note 2)

Distinctly Weathered

(Note 2)

HW

DW

The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or

bleaching to the extent that the colour of the original rock is not

recognizable. Rock strength is significantly changed by weathering. Some primary minerals have weathered to clay minerals. Porosity may be

increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering

products in pores Moderately Weathered Rock (Note 2)

MW The whole of the rock material is discoloured, usually by iron staining or bleaching to the extent that the colour of the original rock is not recognizable,

but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.

Slightly Weathered Rock SW Rock is partially discoloured with staining or bleaching along joints but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock

Fresh Rock FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition of individual minerals or colour changes.

Notes:

1. Minor variations within broader weathering grade zones will be noted on the engineering borehole logs.

2. Extremely weathered rock is described in terms of soil engineering properties.

3. Weathering may be pervasive throughout the rock mass, or may penetrate inwards from discontinuities to some extent.

4. Where it is not practicable to distinguish between ‘Highly Weathered’ and ‘Moderately Weathered’ rock the term ‘Distinctly Weathered’

may be used. ‘Distinctly Weathered’ is defined as follows: ‘Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly discoloured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products

in pores. There is some change in rock strength.

Strength Condition (Intact Rock Strength):

Strength of Rock Material

(Based on Point Load Strength Index, corrected to 50 mm diameter – Is(50). Field guide used if no tests available. Refer to AS 4133.4.1-2007

(R2016).

Term

Sym

b

o

l

Point Load Index (MPa)

Is(50)

Field Guide to Strength

Extremely Low EL ≤0.03 Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties.

Very Low

VL

>0.0

3

Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick; can be peeled with knife;

≤0.1 too hard to cut a triaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 3 cm thick can be broken by

finger pressure.

Low

L

>0.1

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

≤0.3 blows of the pick point; has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core 150 mm long by

50 mm diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp edges of core may be friable and

break during handling.

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 5 of 7

Discontinuity Description: Refer to AS 1726-2017, Table 22.

Note: Describe ‘Zones’ and ‘Coatings’ in terms of composition and thickness (mm).

Discontinuity Spacing: On the geotechnical borehole log, a graphical representation of defect spacing vs depth is shown. This representation takes into account all the natural rock defects occurring within a given depth interval, excluding breaks induced by the drilling / handling of

core. Refer to AS 1726-2017, BS5930-2015.

Defect Spacing Bedding Thickness

(Sedimentary Rock

Stratification) Spacing/Width

(mm)

Descriptor

Symbol

Descriptor Spacing/Width

(mm)

Thinly Laminated < 6

<20 Extremely Close

EC

Thickly Laminated

6 – 20

20 – 60

Very Close

VC

Very Thinly Bedded

20 – 60

60 – 200 Close C Thinly Bedded 60 – 200

200 – 600 Medium M Medium Bedded 200 – 600

600 – 2000 Wide W Thickly Bedded 600 – 2000

2000 – 6000 Very Wide VW Very Thickly Bedded > 2000

>6000 Extremely Wide EW

Medium

M

>0.3 ≤1.0

Readily scored with a knife; broken by hand with difficult

Readily scored with a knife; broken by hand with difficult a piece of core 150 mm long by

50 mm diameter can be y.

High

H

>1 ≤3 A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter cannot be broken by hand but can be broken by a pick with a single firm blow; rock rings under hammer.

Very High VH >3 ≤10

H

a

nd

s

pe

c

im

e

n b

r

ea

k

s w

i

th

pick after more than one blow; rock rings under hammer.

Extremely High

EH

>10 Specimen requires many blow rock ring with geological pick to break through intact material;

under hammer

Notes:

1. These terms refer to the strength of the rock material and not to the strength of the rock mass which may be considerably weaker due to

the effect of rock defects.

2. Anisotropy of rock material samples may affect the field assessment of strength.

Anisotropic Fabric

BED Bedding

FOL Foliation

LIN Mineral lineation

Defect Type

LP Lamination Parting

BP Bedding Parting

FP Cleavage / Foliation Parting

J, Js Joint, Joints

SZ Sheared Zone

CZ Crushed Zone

BZ Broken Zone

HFZ Highly Fractured Zone

AZ Alteration Zone

VN Vein

Roughness (e.g. Planar, Smooth is abbreviated Pl / Sm) Class

Stepped (Stp)

Rough or irregular (Ro) I

Smooth (Sm) II

Slickensided (Sl) III

Undulating (Un)

Rough (Ro) IV

Smooth (Sm) V

Slickensided (Sl) VI

Planar (Pl)

Rough (Ro) VII

Smooth (Sm) VIII

Slickensided (Sl) IX

Aperture Infilling

Closed CD No visible coating or infill Clean Cn

Open OP Surfaces discoloured by mineral/s Stain St

Filled FL Visible mineral or soil infill <1mm Veneer Vr

Tight TI Visible mineral or soil infill >1mm Coating Ct

Other

Cly Clay

Fe Iron

Co Coal

Carb Carbonaceous

Sinf Soil Infill Zone

Qz Quartz

CA Calcite

Chl Chlorite

Py Pyrite

Int Intersecting

Inc Incipient

DI Drilling Induced

H Horizontal

V Vertical

Defect Persistence

(areal extent)

Trace length of defect given in metres

Defect Spacing in 3D

Term Description

Blocky Equidimensional

Tabular Thickness much less than

length or width

Columnar Height much greater than

cross section

Aargus Pty Ltd

Page 6 of 7

Symbols

The list below provides an explanation of terms and symbols used on the geotechnical borehole, test pit and penetrometer logs.

Test Results Test Symbols

PI Plasticity Index c′ Effective Cohesion DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

LL Liquid Limit cu Undrained Cohesion SPT Standard Penetration Test

LI Liquidity Index c′R Residual Cohesion CPTu Cone Penetrometer (Piezocone) Test

DD Dry Density ɸ′ Effective Angle of Internal Friction PANDA Variable Energy DCP

WD Wet Density ɸu Undrained Angle of Internal Friction PP Pocket Penetrometer Test

LS

Linear Shrinkage ɸ′R

Residual Angle of Internal Friction

U50 Undisturbed Sample 50 mm (nominal

diameter)

MC

Moisture Content

cv

Coefficient of Consolidation

U100 Undisturbed Sample 100mm (nominal diameter)

OC Organic Content mv Coefficient of Volume Compressibility UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength

WPI

Weighted

Plasticity Index

cαε

Coefficient of Secondary Compression

Pm

Pressuremeter

Test Results Test Symbols

WLS Weighted Linear Shrinkage

e

Voids Ratio

FSV

Field Shear Vane

DoS Degree of Saturation cv Constant Volume Friction Angle DST Direct Shear Test

APD

Apparent Particle Density

qt / qc

Piezocone Tip Resistance

(corrected / uncorrected)

PR

Penetration Rate

su Undrained Shear Strength qd PANDA Cone Resistance A Point Load Test (axial)

qu

Unconfined

Compressive Strength

Is(50)

Point Load Strength Index

D

Point Load Test (diametral)

R Total Core Recovery RQD Rock Quality Designation L Point Load Test (irregular lump)

Groundwater level on the date shown

28/11/19

Water Inflow

Water Outflow

AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILL

WEATHERED BEDROCK

D(Dry)/

M(Moist)

M

M

D /M

Asphaltic CONCRETE, 100mm.

FILL, Sandy Gravel, fine to coarse grained, pale brown to grey, fine to coarse basaltgravel.

FILL, Sandy Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, pale brown, grey, with mediumgravel.

Becoming red brown.

SHALE, grey, highly to moderately weathered, low to medium estimated strength.

TC bit refusal at 2.8m.Borehole BH1 terminated at 2.8m

Met

hod

Wat

er

Additional Observations

Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks

BOREHOLE NUMBER BH1PAGE 1 OF 1

COMPLETED 14/5/21DATE STARTED 14/5/21

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Aargus Pty Ltd

LOGGED BY AS CHECKED BY RF

NOTES Depths to lithogical units and contacts are approximate

HOLE LOCATION See Figure 1 - Site PlanEQUIPMENT Small excavator mounted drilling rig

HOLE SIZE 100

R.L. SURFACE 27.0 DATUM m m AHD

SLOPE 90° BEARING NA

CLIENT Iris Capital

PROJECT NUMBER GS8219-1A

PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation

PROJECT LOCATION Ibis Hotel, Enfield, NSW

BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21

Aargus Pty Ltd6 Carter StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300 137 038Fax: 1300 136 038

RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log

Material Description

AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILL

WEATHERED BEDROCK

M

M/D

D /M



FILL, Sandy Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, pale brown, grey, with mediumgravel.

SHALE, grey, brown, slightly weathered, medium to high estimated strength.


Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILL

WEATHERED BEDROCK

M

D/M

D/M

D/M

D/M



FILL, Sandy Clay, low plasticity, grey, with medium bricks gravel, trace of coarseporcelain.

SHALE, grey, pale brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength.

Becoming brown, pale brown.

Becoming brown.

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T D/M

D /M

SHALE, grey, pale brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength.(continued)

SHALE, grey, pale brown, slightly to highly weathered, extremely low estimatedstrength.TC bit refusal at 5.0mBorehole BH4 terminated at 5m

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

22.5

22.0

21.5

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.5

19.0

Depth(m)

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILLM

M

M


FILL, Sandy Gravel, fine to coarse grained, pale brown to grey, fine to coarse basaltgravel.FILL, Sandy SIlty Clay, medium to high plasticity, red brown, with medium to coarsebrick gravel.

Becoming dark brown.

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

WEATHERED BEDROCK

M

D /M

D /M

FILL, Sandy SIlty Clay, medium to high plasticity, red brown, with medium to coarsebrick gravel. (continued)

SHALE, brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength.

SHALE, brown, slightly to highly weathered, low to medium estimated strength.


Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

22.5

22.0

21.5

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.5

19.0

Depth(m)

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILL

WEATHERED BEDROCK

M

D /M

D /M

D /M

AtterbergLimit



FILL, Sandy Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, red brown, with medium to coarsebrick gravel.

SHALE, pale brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength.

Becoming pale grey.

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T D /M

D /M

D /M

SHALE, pale brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength.(continued)

SHALE, orange, brown, extremely weathered, extremely low estimated strength, traceof Sandstone, medium grained.

SHALE, orange, brown, slightly to highly weathered, low to medium estimated strength.

TC bit refusal at 5.0m.Borehole BH6 terminated at 5m

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

22.5

22.0

21.5

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.5

19.0

Depth(m)

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T PAVEMENT

FILLM

M

M



FILL, Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, brown, with basalt gravel and medium tocoarse brick gravel, traces of coarse porcelain gravel.

FILL, Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, brown, dark grey, with coarse coal and tuff.

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

Min

or s

eepa

ge

M

W(Wet)

FILL, Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, brown, dark grey, with coarse coal and tuff.(continued)

FILL, Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, dark grey, with fine to medium brick gravel.

Terminated at 6.0m.Borehole BH7 terminated at 6m

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks







HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

22.5

22.0

21.5

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.5

19.0

Depth(m)

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

Not

enc

ount

ered

PAVEMENT

FILLM

M

CBR

AtterbergLimit


FILL, Sandy Gravel, medium, basalt, pale brown to grey, fine to medium grained.

FILL, Sandy Silty Clay, high plasticity, dark grey, brown, with fine to medium brickgravel.

Terminated at 2.3m.Borehole BH8 terminated at 2.3m

Met

hod

Wat

er


Moi

stur

e

Con

s./D

ens.

SamplesTests

Remarks






HOLE LOCATION See Figure 1 - Site PlanEQUIPMENT Small excavator mounted

HOLE SIZE 100



CLIENT Iris Capital




BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

8219

-1A

EN

FIE

LD B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

28/

5/21


RL(m)

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


APPENDIX D

_______________________________ Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results

1a 1b 6a 6b

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

12 - - -

8 - - -

8 - - -

9 - 21 -

21 - R -

Bouncing - -

R - -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

6 -

13 -

10 -

10 -

24 -

Bouncing -

R -

-

22

R

3700-3800 3700-3800 3

3500-3600 3500-3600 4

3600-3700 3600-3700 4

3300-3400 3300-3400 6

3400-3500 3400-3500 4

-

-

-

-

3100-3200 8

No

DC

P p

erfo

rmed

(S

hal

low

Bed

rock

)

- -

900-1000

- -

- -

Depths

(mm)

0-100

-

500-600

600-700

700-800

-

-

800-900

500-600

100-200 100-200

200-300

300-400

400-500

200-300

300-400

-

-

600-700

700-800

-

-

-

1300-1400

1400-1500

1500-1600

1600-1700

1500-1600

1600-1700

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

900-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

800-900

-

1000-1100

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

2400-2500

2500-2600

2000-2100

2100-2200

2200-2300

2300-2400

2600-2700

2700-2800

2800-2900

2900-3000

3800-3900

2600-2700

2700-2800

2800-2900

2900-3000

3000-3100

3100-3200

3200-3300 3200-3300

3800-3900

3000-3100

2500-2600

2000-2100

2100-2200

2200-2300

2300-2400

2400-2500

R

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

Bouncing

R

21

9 -

-

1100-1200

1200-1300

1300-1400

1400-1500

8

11

- 25

- R

-

18

17 - 11

-

16

- 17

11

11 - 15

19/50mm - 15

-

12

11

-

-

-

3

10

8

Geotechnical Investigation

DCP No. DCP No.

Project:

1 of 1

5 7 82 3 4

Relative Level

27 26.8

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTS

Location: Ibis Hotel, Enfield, NSW

Test Type

PSP Sheet:

- -

Iris CapitalClient: GS8219-1AJob No:

0-100

Depths

(mm)

26.6 26.6 26.8 26.8

-

No

DC

P p

erfo

rmed

(S

hal

low

Bed

rock

)

DCP 14/05/2021Date:

-

-

-- -

400-500

- -

--

-

-

-

- -

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

APPENDIX E

______________________________ Laboratory Test Results

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 2ES2117819

:: LaboratoryClient AARGUS PTY LTD Environmental Division Sydney

: :ContactContact MR RAFAEL Customer Services ES

:: AddressAddress PO BOX 398

DRUMMOYNE NSW, AUSTRALIA 2047

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

:Telephone +61 1300137038 :Telephone +61-2-8784 8555

:Project GS8219-1A Geotechnical Investigation Date Samples Received : 12-May-2021 16:10

:Order number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 18-May-2021

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 20-May-2021 14:46

Sampler : ----

Site : Enfield

Quote number : EN/222

2:No. of samples received

2:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted, unless the sampling was conducted by ALS. This document shall

not be reproduced, except in full.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Ivan Taylor Analyst Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

2 of 2:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES2117819

GS8219-1A Geotechnical Investigation:Project

AARGUS PTY LTD

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by ALS have been developed from established internationally recognised procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures

are fully validated and are often at the client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing

purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

Analytical Results

------------BH-4 0.7BH-1 2.0Sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

------------12-May-2021 00:0012-May-2021 00:00Sampling date / time

------------------------ES2117819-002ES2117819-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result ---- ---- ----

EA002: pH 1:5 (Soils)

8.0 8.2 ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity (1:5)

644 767 ---- ---- ----µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA055: Moisture Content (Dried @ 105-110°C)

16.9 13.9 ---- ---- ----%1.0----Moisture Content

ED040S : Soluble Sulfate by ICPAES

780Sulfate as SO4 2- 1230 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1014808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

240Chloride 310 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1016887-00-6

Ibis Hotel Enfield, 626-628 Liverpool Road (Hume Highway ...

Documents