GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT No. 9 – 11 Alice Street Seven Hills, NSW Prepared for Mineow Pty Ltd Reference No. ESWN-PR-2016-70 6 th January 2017 Geotechnical Engineering Services - Geotechnical investigation - Site classification - Geotechnical design - Excavation methodology and monitoring plans - Footing inspections - Slope stability analysis - Landslide risk assessment ESWNMAN PTY LTD ABN 70 603 089 630 PO Box 6, Ashfield NSW 1800 Telephone +61 2 7901 5582 Email [email protected]http://www.eswnman.com.au
65
Embed
No. 9 11 Alice Street Seven Hills, NSW Mineow Pty Ltd...No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70 Geotechnical Investigation Report th 6 January 2017 indicates
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
No. 9 – 11 Alice Street
Seven Hills, NSW
Prepared for
Mineow Pty Ltd
Reference No. ESWN-PR-2016-70
6th
January 2017
Geotechnical Engineering Services
- Geotechnical investigation
- Site classification - Geotechnical design - Excavation methodology and monitoring plans
Hills, Lot: 62 & 63 DP: 14294” prepared by McNeil Architects, referenced project
No. 1614, Issue 1 and dated 16th December 2016, including drawing nos. A01 to
A23 inclusive; and
A survey plan titled “Detail Survey Over Lots 62 & 63 in DP 14294, Known as
No‟s 9, 9A, 11 & 11A Alice Street, Seven Hills” prepared by Advance Land
Surveyors Pty Ltd, referenced Job No. 075 and dated 3rd
June 2016.
1.2 Proposed Development
The design drawings provided indicated that the proposed development includes the
demolition of existing buildings within 9-11 Alice Street and construction of a six storey
residential building with two levels of basement for underground car parking areas.
The site is bounded by the following properties and infrastructure:
Northwest: Carriageway and road reserve of Alice Street;
Northeast: Adjoining property at No. 7 Alice Street;
Southeast: Adjoining properties at No. 8-10 George Street; and
Southwest: Adjoining property at No. 13-15 Alice Street.
Page 7 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Based on existing ground elevations as indicated in a survey plan and Finished Floor Level
(FFL) of RL36.16m & RL38.2m for Level 1 Basement or Lower Basement Level, the
excavation of basement area by approximately 4.6m to 8.0m below the existing ground
level (BGL) may be required. An approximate further 1.5m deep excavation below
basement floor level will be required for lift shaft within middle portion of the site.
The following approximate setbacks were proposed from the basement wall:
4.0m to 9.0m from site north-western boundary;
0.35m to 0.8m from site north-eastern boundary;
0.35m from site south-eastern boundary; and
0.5m from site south-western boundary.
1.3 Scope of Work
The geotechnical investigation involved machine drilling of three boreholes supervised by
an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from ESWNMAN, including the following:
Collection and review of Dial-Before-You-Dig (DBYD) plans;
A site walkover to assess site accessibility and surface conditions, identify relevant
site features and nominate borehole locations;
On-site underground service scanning by a professional service locator;
Drilling of three boreholes identified as BH1 to BH3 using Han-Jin 8D drilling rig;
Performing of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) within soils to determine strength
of the materials encountered;
Conducting of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test, identified as DCP1, at
location of borehole BH1 to assess the strength of soils and rock profile.
Geotechnical logging of rocks and soils retrieved from boreholes by an experienced
Geotechnical Engineer;
Collection of soil and rock samples during drilling;
Installation of standpipe piezometer (identified as GW1) in borehole BH3;
Reinstatement of site with soil cuttings from boreholes;
Point Load Strength Index Test on selected rock core samples
Page 8 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Water sampling from groundwater monitoring well GW1;
Salinity classification (Electrical Conductivity), aggressivity test (pH, Sulfate and
Chloride) and exposure classification on water samples; and
Subsequent site visits to measure water level.
The approximate locations of boreholes completed during the site investigation are shown
on a site location plan as included in Appendix A of this report.
Selected site photographs recorded during site investigation are provided in Appendix B.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located within the Blacktown City Council area, approximately 27.2km to the
northwest of Sydney CBD, approximately 260m to the southwest of Seven Hills Railway
Station and Main Western Railway Line, and 390m to the south of Blacktown Creek.
The site consists of the amalgamation of four adjoining properties being nos. 9, 9A, 11 and
11A Alice Street. The site is a parallelogram-shaped land identified as Lots 62 & 63 in
Development Plan (DP) 14294, with an approximate total area of 1624m2.
The existing buildings consist of four single storey weatherboard houses at nos. 9, 9A, 11
& 11A Alice Street. At time of site investigation, it was a vacant land within adjoining
property No. 7 Alice Street.
During site investigation, no information was available on the foundation type of the
existing buildings at the subject site. However, based on our observations, it is inferred the
buildings are likely to be supported by shallow type foundations.
Based on the survey plan referenced in Section 1.1, the site is sloping slightly towards
northwest. The ground elevations vary approximately between RL45.88m and RL46.81m
along the site south-eastern boundary, to approximately between RL42.77m and RL44.24m
along the site north-western boundary.
Selected site photographs recorded during site investigation are provided in Appendix B.
3. LOCAL GEOLOGY
Reference to the Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 (Edition 1), dated 1991,
by the Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources,
Page 9 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
indicates the site is located within an area underlain by Triassic Age Ashfield Shale (Rwa)
of the Wianamatta Group. The Ashfield Shale is described as “black to dark grey shale and
laminate”.
Results of the investigation provided in Section 5.2 confirmed the published geology.
4. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Pre-fieldwork
Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, a site Safety Work Method Statement (SWMS)
was prepared, which identifies potential hazards associated with Occupational Health,
Safety and Environment aspects of the fieldwork and various control measures to be
implemented to mitigate the hazards, which are likely to encounter on site.
A „Dial Before You Dig‟ (DBYD) underground services search, which forms a part of the
SWMS, was also conducted by a professional service locator prior to the mobilisation.
4.2 Borehole Drilling
Three boreholes were completed during site investigation. Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3
were drilled to an approximate final depth of 8.2m, 10.0m, and 11.2m BGL respectively
using Tungsten Carbide (TC) Bit technique and followed by rock coring using NMLC
technique. To protect the hole from collapse during rock coring, casing was installed to the
bottom of augered holes.
The borehole locations are shown in Appendix A. Engineering logs of boreholes processed
using Bentley gINT software together with borehole explanatory notes are presented in
Appendix C. The rock core photographs are attached in Appendix D of this report.
4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test
One DCP test identified as DCP 1 was completed during site investigation. The DCP test
reached refusal depth where bounce of DCP hammer occurred at 1.9m BGL approximately.
The locations of DCP tests are shown on the site location plan attached in Appendix A. The
record of DCP test results is presented in Appendix E.
4.4 Piezometer Installation and Groundwater Monitoring
During the site investigation, borehole BH3 was developed into a groundwater monitoring
well identified as GW1 after completion of the drilling.
Page 10 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
The monitoring well was extended into approximate depth of 8m BGL. The monitoring
well was installed using threaded, flush-jointed polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and screen
with a minimum outside diameter of 50 mm. PVC plugs were used to cap the bottom and
top of each well during installation to keep out debris.
A gravel and sand pack was installed in the annulus between the bore and the well screen.
Bentonite seal was placed above the screen slots. The annulus was then filled with concrete
from the bentonite seal to the surface.
The residual drilling water in the well was completely bailed out after installation of the
monitoring well as indicated on Photograph 7 in Appendix B. Subsequently, water level
was measured in monitoring well GW1 on 15th
and 20th of December 2016.
4.5 Point Load Strength Index Test
Point Load Strength Index (PLSI) Tests are used to obtain the estimates of rock strength
and may be related to Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) by an appropriate
correlation. The tests were conducted in both axial and diametrical directions.
A total of nine core samples were selected for PLSI tests. The test results are shown in
borehole logs and summarised in Appendix F of this report.
4.6 Water Chemical Tests
Water sampling at approximate depth of 5.0m BGL in groundwater monitoring well (GW1)
was undertaken by our staff on 20th
December 2016 during second site visit. The water
samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for undertaking the following tests:
Electrical Conductivity;
Aggressivity test (pH, Sulfate and Chloride); and
Exposure classification.
The results of laboratory tests are provided in Appendix G of this report.
5. INVESTIGATION RESULTS
5.1 Surface Conditions
During site investigation, apart from existing buildings, concrete driveway and footpath,
the remainder of the site was covered with grass and vegetation. Several young trees were
present within front portion of the site.
Page 11 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3 are shown on the
Engineering Borehole Logs in Appendix C. Based on borehole information, the subsurface
conditions encountered at testing locations consisted of the following:
Fill (Unit 1): Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel, trace
brick material, extending to approx. 0.3m to 0.4m BGL; overlying
Residual Soils (Unit 2): Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown and red mottled
brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, extending approx. to 1.8m to 1.9m BGL; overlying
Class V Shale (Unit 3): brown - grey, extremely weathered, extremely low and low
strength, extending approx. to 6.5m, 4.0m, and 6.0m BGL in boreholes BH1, BH2
and BH3 respectively; overlying
Class IV Shale (Unit 4): light grey, moderately weathered, low strength, extending
approx. to 7.0m, 5.8m BGL in boreholes BH1 & BH2 respectively, and absent in
borehole BH3; overlying
Class III Shale or better rock (Unit 5): grey, slightly weathered, medium strength.
Classification of the rock was carried out in accordance with the guidelines provided by
Pells et al (Reference 7).
The subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes BH1 to BH3 during site investigation
are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 - Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Geotechnical Unit
Depth to Top
of Unit
(m bgl)
Thickness
(m)
RL Top of
Unit (m)
SPT(N) or
RQD (%)
UCS
(MPa)
Fill (Unit 1): Silty CLAY,
stiff 0 0.3 – 0.4 43.5 – 45.2 DCP>5 NT
Residual Soils (Unit 2): Silty
CLAY, Stiff to very stiff 0.3 – 0.4 1.4 – 1.5 43.1 – 44.9 SPT: N=9, 14 NT
Class V Shale (Unit 3): XW-
HW, XL-L 1.8 – 1.9 2.1 – 4.7 41.7 – 43.4 N/A NT
Class IV Shale (Unit 4):
MW, L 4 – 6.5 0 – 1.8 37.0 – 40.1
RQD:
70% 13
Class III Shale or better rock
(Unit 5), SW, M 5.8 – 7.0 Unconfirmed 36.5 – 39.2
RQD:
85 - 100% 11– 24
All depths, thicknesses and Reduced Levels (RL) are approximate. XW – Extremely weathered; HW – Highly weathered; MW – Moderately weathered; SW – Slightly weathered; FR – Fresh; XL – Extremely low strength; VL – Very low strength; L – Low strength M – Medium strength; H – High strength
NT = Not Tested; NA=Not Applicable SPT=Standard Penetration Test
RQD= Rock Quality Designation UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength
Page 12 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
5.3 Groundwater
(a) General
Based on Fact Sheet 1: Groundwater and the Sydney Coastal Region (Reference 9),
groundwater is the water contained within rocks and sediments below the ground surface in
the saturated zone. Groundwater sources are divided into four broad hydrogeological types:
Alluvium: unconsolidated sediments
Coastal sand: unconsolidated sediments, such as Botany sand.
Porous rock: Hawkesbury Sandstone Formation and Narrabeen Group sandstone
Fractured rock: Wianamatta Group shale: Ashfield Shale & Bringelly Shale.
We assessed that the groundwater within the site is likely to be phreatic water sourced from
fractured rock in Ashfield Shale, which relies on the conditions and interconnectivity of
fractures/defects within rock formation.
(b) Groundwater conditions
No groundwater was encountered in boreholes during drilling using augering technique up
to 6.5m in BH1 and 6.0m BGL in BH3 as indicated on photograph 5 in Appendix B, where
dry drilled material was recovered from bottom of holes prior to rock coring. Measurement
of seepage or water levels during core drilling below depths achieved by augering was not
possible due to the introduction of water required for rock coring.
It is inferred that natural groundwater level or phreatic surface may be deeper at this site
and likely present within interface of soils and rocks, fractures/defects in the rock,
including apertures, joints or other natural defects within the underlying shale.
During basement excavation, minor seepage may occur within interface of soils and rocks
and fractures/defects of rock if it encounters an intense and prolonged rainfall.
(c) Water level monitoring
A standpipe piezometer (GW1) was installed in borehole BH3 at the day of drilling and the
water in the well was completely bailed out. The first water level was measured 2.3m BGL
on 14th December 2016 and the water inside the well was bailed out after the measurement
was made. Water level measured on 20th
December 2016 in piezometer GW1 was at
approximately 3.3m BGL. It should be noted that natural groundwater may be deeper than
Page 13 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
this since effects of drilling water has not been completely eliminated over such a short
period of time.
5.4 Laboratory Testing
During the investigation, the water samples were obtained from groundwater monitoring
well (GW1). The samples were tested for determination of Salinity and Aggressivity
parameters by the NATA accredited laboratory. The laboratory test report is provided in
Appendix G and results of tests are summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Results of Water Chemical Analysis
Borehole BH3 (GW1) pH Chloride
(ppm or mg/L)
Sulphate as S04
(ppm or mg/L)
Electrical
Conductivity
EC (dS/m)
WS1 5.8 1600 390 5.4
Exposure Classification1 Non-aggressive -
Salinity - Moderately
saline2
Note: 1 – “Soil condition B – low permeability soils (e.g. silts and clays) or all soils above groundwater”
adopted for this site in accordance with AS2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation; 2 - Since no groundwater occurred during drilling as mentioned in Section 5.3(b), the results of water
chemical tests may indicate salinity of surrounding soils and rocks to some extents. Classification of soil
salinity based on Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 1994 & Dryland Salinity:
Productive Use of Saline Land and Water as below:
Class Salinity Class ECe (dS/m) Comments
No-saline 0 <2 Possible waterlogging
Slightly saline 1 2 – 4 Some salt tolerant species (e.g. sea barley
grass) but no bare patches
Moderately saline 2 4 – 8 Small bare patches
Very saline 3 8 – 16 Large bare areas
Highly saline 4 >16
6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The main geotechnical aspects associated with the proposed development are assessed to
include the following:
Site classifications;
Excavation conditions;
Stability of basement excavation and shoring/support;
Earth retaining structures;
Foundations;
Earthworks and material reuse;
Vibration controls;
Page 14 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Salinity assessment;
Groundwater management; and
Preliminary comments on pavement design.
The assessment of the geotechnical aspects on the above and recommendations for the
proposed development are presented in the following sections.
6.1 Site Characterisation and Classifications
(a) Site characterisation
In accordance with AS2159-2009 (Reference 2), the soil aggressivity test results presented
in Table 2 indicates that the exposure classifications of tested water samples may be
classified as “Non-aggressive” to concrete and steel elements.
(b) Site reactivity classification
Based on the site soil profile, proposed development and the criteria specified in AS2870 –
2011 (Reference 2), the site can be assessed as Class M – Moderately reactive clay or silt
sites, which may experience moderate ground movement from moisture changes. However,
during basement excavation, Fill (Unit 1), residual soils (Unit 2) and Class V Shale (Unit 3)
will be excavated and the footing systems at basement floor level will be founded
predominately within Class V or better rock and protected from becoming extremely wet.
Therefore, it can be classified as Class A or Class S and may be treated as “non-reactive”
site for the proposed development.
(a) Site earthquake classification
The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of fill and cohesive soils,
underlain by Class V Shale or better rock. In accordance with Australian Standard
AS1170.4-2007, the site sub-soil may be classified as a “Rock Site” (Class Be) for design
of foundations and retaining walls. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Seven Hills in accordance
with AS1170.4-2007 (Reference 5) is considered to be 0.08.
6.2 Excavation Conditions
It is anticipated that construction excavation will include excavation of basement, driveway
ramp, footing areas and lift shaft, and trench for underground pipelines.
Page 15 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Based on information provided in Section 1.1, excavation depths within proposed basement
area are expected to vary between 4.6m and 8.0m BGL approximately. The results of the
geotechnical site investigation indicate basement excavation for proposed building will
likely be within Fill (Unit1), Residual Soils (Unit 2), Class V Shale (Unit 3) and minor
Class IV Shale (Unit 4). Medium strength shale bands maybe encountered during
excavation of lower basement level.
Excavation of the fill, residual soils and Class V Shale will be typically feasible using
conventional earthmoving equipment. Excavation of low strength Class IV Shale may be
feasible with conventional earthmoving equipment and ripping equipment. Medium
strength and less fractured Class IV Shale & medium strength Class III Shale would
require heavy ripping and rock breaking equipment or vibratory rock breaking equipment.
6.3 Excavation Support / Stability of Basement Excavation
(a) Shallow Excavation (i.e. <1.5 m in Depth)
The excavations should be benched in accordance with the „NSW WorkCover: Code of
Practice – Excavation‟ March 2000.
Temporary excavations through the underlying fill and residual soils to a maximum depth
of 1.5m, may be excavated near vertical provided that:
They are barricaded when not in use;
They are not left open for more than 24 hours;
No surcharge loading is applied within 1.5m of the edge of the excavation;
No groundwater flows are encountered; and
They are not used for access by a worker.
Where access is required for workers, the temporary excavation batters should be re-graded
to no steeper than 2 Horizontal (H) to 1 Vertical (V) for the fill above the natural
groundwater level, or supported by suitable temporary shoring measures. Any permanent
excavation (or filling) greater than 0.5m in height should be retained by a permanent
retaining wall to be designed based on the recommendation provided in Section 6.4 of this
report.
(a) Deep Excavations (i.e. >1.5 m in Depth)
If required, any excavation batters in soils and/or rocks greater than 1.5 m in depth, the
Page 16 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
temporary safe batters for excavated slopes in Table 3 can be adopted under dry conditions:
Class III Shale or better (Unit 5)3 Vertical, self-supporting
Notes: 1 - Typical temporary batters of excavated slopes (Hoerner, 1990). Assume no surcharge on top of
cutting batter and no major adjoining structures. Excavation using benching technique can be adopted. 2 – Reinforced shotcrete and/or rock bolts may be required for vertical or sub-vertical cut slope in this
unit subject to assessment by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer during excavation. 3 – Approximate RLs of rock classification refers to Table 1.
Based on excavation depths and proposed setbacks as mentioned in Section 1.2, excavation
using batter slope and/or shotcreting is likely feasible for basement wall along site north-
western boundary and part of driveway ramp, and may not be feasible for those basement
walls along other site boundaries. Other options to support the excavation and control
lateral ground movement would be necessary. These options include the following:
Contiguous or semi-contiguous cast in-situ reinforced concrete piles embedded into
underlying Class III Shale or better rock, and gaps between the piles should be
covered with reinforced shotcrete or reinforced concrete panels; or
Soldier pile wall shoring system; or
Soil nail wall system.
If the magnitude of movement is assessed by analysis to be excessive, temporary
anchorage or other temporary tie-back system may be required to be installed prior to
excavation to reduce the potential effects of ground movement on adjoining properties.
Typically, anchors are to be installed at regular intervals along the shoring wall. However,
installation of anchors beyond the property boundaries will be subject to approval by
owners of adjoining properties. If installation of temporary anchors is not feasible, it is
necessary to consider other options to control lateral ground movement. These options
include the following:
Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged
excavation; or
Page 17 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Staged excavations and creating temporary partial berms in front of walls.
Other alternative shoring options may be considered subject to assessment by the project
Structural Engineer in consultation with the project Geotechnical Engineer.
With the recommended shoring/support options above, construction of the proposed
basement in the short and long terms is expected to have low effects on the adjoining
buildings and road infrastructure. Earth retention structures can be designed using the
recommended parameters provided in Section 6.4.
We recommend that monitoring of ground movement (settlement and deflection) should be
carried out during excavation.
During basement excavation, observations and recording on conditions of exposed faces
should be carried out by the project Geotechnical Engineer, so that loose materials or weak
rock within the excavated rock face can be identified and treated as appropriate.
Inspections of the excavation faces/shoring by a Geotechnical Engineer during construction
will be required.
6.4 Earth Retaining Structures
If an earth retaining structure is adopted, it should be designed to withstand the applied
lateral pressures of the subsurface layers, the surcharges in their zone of influence,
including loading from existing structures, construction machinery, traffic and construction
related activities. The design of retaining structures should also take into consideration
hydrostatic pressures and lateral earthquake loads as appropriate.
The recommended preliminary parameters for the design of retaining structures are
presented in Tables 4 and 5. The coefficients provided are based on drained conditions.
Table 4: Preliminary Soil and Rock Design Parameters for Retaining Walls
Geotechnical Unit
Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
Effective
Cohesion
c (kPa)
Angle of
Effective
Internal Friction
(degree)
Modulus of
Elasticity
Es (h) (MPa)
Poisson
Ratio
Fill (Unit 1) 17 0 26 8 0.35
Residual Soils (Unit 2) 18 5 27 20 0.35
Class V Shale (Unit 3) 22 50 28 100 0.35
Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 24 60 28 300 0.30
Class III Shale (Unit 5) 24 200 30 800 0.25
Page 18 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure
Geotechnical Unit
Coefficient of
Active Lateral
Earth Pressure
(Ka)
Coefficient of
Lateral Earth
Pressure at Rest
(Ko)
Coefficient of
Passive Lateral
Earth Pressure
(Kp)
Fill (Unit 1) 0.39 0.56 2.6
Residual Soils (Unit 2) 0.38 0.55 2.7
Class V Shale (Unit 3) 0.36 0.53 2.8
Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 0.36 0.53 2.8
Class III Shale (Unit 5) 0.33 0.50 3.0
The coefficients of lateral earth pressure should be verified by the project Structural
Engineer prior to use in the design of retaining walls. Simplified calculations of lateral
active (or at rest) and passive earth pressures can be carried out using Rankine‟s equation
shown below:
√ For calculation of Lateral Active or At Rest Earth Pressure
√ For calculation of Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
Pa = Active (or at rest) Earth Pressure (kN/m2)
Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)
= Bulk density (kN/m3)
K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)
Kp = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure
H = Retained height (m)
c = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)
To reduce excavation induced movements along site boundaries, the shoring system would
need to be tied back by rock anchors or supported by earth berms or internal props/struts as
excavation progresses. Attentions should be made that any rock anchors will not clash with
adjoining basement or footings, services, pipe easements. Approval from owners from
adjoining properties will be required prior to installation of anchors into their properties.
For design of soils nails or temporary ground anchors, the allowable bond stress of 30kPa,
50kPa, 150kPa and 250kPa can be adopted within Residual Soils (Unit 2), Class V Shale
(Unit 3), Class IV Shale (Unit 4), and Class III Shale (Unit 5) respectively. The following
is recommended for the anchor design:
Page 19 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Anchor bond length of at least 3m behind the “active” zone of the excavation;
Overall stability of anchor system and interaction is satisfactory; and
The anchors are proof loaded to at least 1.3 times the design working load before
locking off at working load.
6.5 Foundations
Based on proposed elevation of basement and ground profile encountered in the boreholes,
basement floor slabs are likely to be founded predominantly in Class IV Shale (Unit 3) or
better rock.
We assessed that a foundation system consisting of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete shallow
foundations, such as pad or strip footings under columns and walls, would be applicable for
the proposed development at this site.
Installation of piles is expected to be required in case of large axial loads on columns and
walls and exceeding the bearing pressure of the bearing stratum. Other cases where piles
may be required include the need to increase the stiffness of the founding rock, or increase
the resistance against lateral seismic loads. Piles are expected to be socketed into
underlying Class III Shale or better rock. Bored piles would be applicable for this site.
Preliminary geotechnical capacities and parameters recommended for design of shallow
and piled foundations are provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities and Parameters
Geotechnical Unit Allowable End Bearing
Pressure kPa1
Allowable Shaft
Adhesion
Compression2 kPa
Modulus of
Elasticity Es,v
(MPa)
Fill (Unit 1) N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
Residual Soils (Unit 2) N/A3 40 20
Class V Shale (Unit 3) 500 (shallow footing)
700 (piles) 50 150
Class IV Shale (Unit 4) 1000 (shallow footing)
1500 (piles) 150 300
Class III Shale (Unit 5) 2500 (shallow footing)
3000 (piles) 300 500
1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for piled foundations and 0.3m for shallow foundations. 2 Shaft Adhesion applicable to piles only. 3 N/A, Not Applicable or not recommended for the proposed development. 4 The actual depth of underlying Class V Shale to Class III Shale should be confirmed during construction.
Page 20 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Design of shallow and pile foundations should be carried out in accordance with Australian
Standards AS2870-2011 (Reference 2) and AS2159-2009 (Reference 3) respectively.
To minimise the potential effects of differential settlement under the buildings loads, it is
recommended all foundations of the proposed building should be founded on consistent
materials of similar properties or rock of similar class.
Shaft adhesion may be applied to socketed piles adopted for foundations if socket shaft
lengths conform to appropriate classes of shale and accepted levels of shaft sidewall
cleanliness and roughness. The rock socket sidewalls should be free of soil and/or crushed
rock to the extent that natural rock is exposed over at least 80% of the socket sidewall.
Shaft adhesion should be reduced or ignored within socket lengths that are smeared and fail
to satisfy cleanliness requirements. Additional attention to cleanliness of socket sidewalls
may be required where presence of clay seams and weathered shale bands is evident over
socket lengths.
Excavations of shallow foundation should be dewatered if seepages or surface runoff is
encountered during excavations, in particular when a rainfall event occurs. Any loose
debris and wet material should be removed from excavations.
An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should be engaged to inspect footing excavations
and construction to ensure foundation bases have suitable materials with adequate bearing
capacity, and to check the adequacy of footing embedment depth or pile socket length.
Verification of embedment depth/socket length, founding material and bearing capacity of
foundation material by inspections would be required and inspections should constitute as
“Hold Points”.
6.6 Salinity Assessment and Groundwater Management
Based on results of laboratory tests, the electrical conductivity (EC) of water sample may
be classified as “Moderately Saline” in accordance with Dryland Salinity (1993).
In accordance with Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice (Reference 10), a site which
is in an area of moderate salinity potential may seem to have little potential to create a
salinity problem on the site. Mitigation measures are still required to limit water use on the
site (if any), therefore limiting its contribution to changes in the local and regional water
balance.
Page 21 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
The observations summarised in Section 5.3 indicate no groundwater during drilling up to
a depth of 6.0m to 6.5m BGL. We assessed that during basement excavation the potential
to occur large amount of inflow/seepage through soils, interface of soils and rocks, and
through joints within shale is minor.
Nevertheless, it would be prudent at this stage of the design to allow for precautionary
drainage measures in the design and construction of the proposed development. Such
measures would include the following:
The basement walls and floor should be constructed with water-tight construction
joints.
Potential seepage/inflow areas associated with fractured rock should be sealed and
treated with shotcrete.
Strip drains or drainage materials should be installed behind the shoring/retaining
walls.
Collection trenches or pipes and pits connected to the building stormwater system.
A stormwater storage tank and pump system may be required.
The basement walls and slabs should be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures
taking into consideration the potential for seepage.
Seepage or subsurface runoff inside the excavated foundation pits or pile holes
should be removed prior to pouring of concrete.
During intense and prolonged rainfall period, basement excavations would typically require
a temporary sump pit within the site to collect and remove any surface water or seepage
that may occur.
With the recommended procedures and precautionary mitigation measures described
above, the potential impacts (including salinity issue) of the proposed development on
surrounding properties and road are expected to be negligible.
6.7 Earthworks and Material Reuse
Based on the information provided on the proposed development, it is anticipated that
earthworks may involve the following:
Excavation within basement area and driveway ramp;
Excavation within structural footings areas and lift shaft;
Page 22 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
Excavation and backfilling during installation of underground pipelines; and
Subgrade preparation for footpath and pavement areas.
The excavated materials from excavation are assessed to be generally suitable for
landscaping provided they are free of any contaminants.
The suitability of the excavated materials for engineering fill should be subject to satisfying
the following criteria:
The materials should be clean (i.e. free of contaminants, deleterious or organic
material), free of inclusions of >75mm in size, high plasticity material be removed
and suitably conditioned to meet the design assumptions where fill material is
proposed to be used.
The materials should satisfy the Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on
Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments (Reference 4).
The final surface levels of all excavation and filling areas should be compacted in order to
achieve an adequate strength for subgrade.
For the fill construction, the recommended compaction targets should be the following:
Moisture content of ±2% of OMC (Optimal Moisture Content);
Minimum density ratio of 100% of MDD (Maximum Dry Density) for filling
within building/structural foundation areas;
Minimum density ratio of 98% of MDD for backfilling surrounding the pipes
within trenches;
The loose thickness of layer should not exceed 150mm; and
For the footpath and pavement areas, minimum density ratio of 95% of MDD for
general fill and 98% for the subgrade to 0.5m depth.
Design and construction of earthworks should be carried out in accordance with Australian
Standard AS 3798-2007 (Reference 4).
6.8 Vibration Controls
Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the excavation should not exceed a Peak
Particle Velocity (PPV) of 10mm/sec for brick or unreinforced structures in good
Page 23 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
condition, 5mm/sec for residential and low rise buildings or 2mm/sec for historical or
structures in sensitive conditions.
To ensure vibration levels remain within acceptable levels and minimise the potential
effects of vibration, excavation into Class IV Shale and Class III Shale should be
complemented with saw cutting or other appropriate methods prior to excavation. Rock
saw cutting should be carried out using an excavator mounted rock saw, or the like, so as to
minimise transmission of vibrations to any adjoining properties. Hammering is not
recommended and should be avoided. However, if necessary, hammering should be carried
out horizontally along bedding planes of (pre-cut) broken rock blocks or boulders where
possible with noise levels restricted to acceptable to comfortable limits to adjacent
residents.
As vibrations are considered possible during the use of heavy ripping and rock hammers, it
is recommended that a dilapidation survey of the adjoining structures be undertaken prior
to project excavation commencement.
If vibrations in adjacent structures exceed the values recommended above or appear
excessive during construction, excavation should cease and the project Geotechnical
Engineer should be contacted immediately for appropriate reviews so that counter-
measures/actions can be taken.
6.8 Preliminary Comments on Pavement Subgrade
It is recommended that pavement can be designed on a CBR value of 5% on stiff residual
soils or medium dense granular subgrade.
Any loose or soft materials that may be present during construction, as confirmed by a site
inspection and in-situ testing, should be either removed or improved by compaction in
order to increase the strength of the material. The final levels of subgrade should be
tested/proof rolled and inspected by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer.
Pavement design should be carried out in accordance with “Pavement Design – A Guide to
the Structural Design of Road Pavements” (Reference 8) and should be complemented by
the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage.
Page 24 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the geotechnical investigation and assessment for this site indicate the
ground conditions are suitable for the proposed development. A foundation system
consisting of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete shallow foundations, such as pad or strip
footings, would be applicable for the proposed development at this site. Piles are expected
to be required in case of large axial loads on columns and walls and exceeding the bearing
pressure of the bearing stratum or other cases as discussed in Section 6.5. Bored piles
would be suitable for this site.
Based on results of laboratory tests, the site may be classified as “Moderately Saline” and
“Non-aggressive” to concrete and steel elements in terms of exposure classification.
The construction excavation, shoring and drainage works should be implemented in
accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6 of this report.
It is recommended that excavation batter, shoring/support system, and excavation
technique adopted should be inspected by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer during
basement excavation.
It is recommended that an experienced Geotechnical Engineer should be engaged to inspect
foundation excavations to ensure the foundation base have been taken to suitable materials
of appropriate bearing capacity and adequate embedment depth/socket length.
We assessed that the proposed development will have negligible impacts arising from
salinity issue if mitigation measures and our recommendations in Section 6.6 are taken into
the consideration appropriately during design and construction.
It is recommended the final civil and structural design drawings for the proposed
development should be provided to us for further assessment and confirmation of suitable
mitigation measures, foundation system, bearing capacity of founding material and
embedment depth, retaining walls and drainage systems.
8. LIMITATIONS
This report should be read in conjunction with the “Limitations of Geotechnical
Investigation Statement” attached as Appendix H, which provides important information
regarding geotechnical investigation, assessment and reporting. If the actual subsurface
Page 25 of 25
No. 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Ref No.: ESWN-PR-2016-70
Geotechnical Investigation Report 6th January 2017
conditions exposed during construction vary significantly from those discussed in this
report, this report should be reviewed and seek further advices from ESWNMAN.
For and on behalf of
ESWNMAN Pty Ltd
Jiameng Li
BE (Civil), MEngSc (Geotechnical), MIEAust, CPEng, NER Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, some gravel, brick material.
Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red mottled brown, moist, stiff.
SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low to low strength.
- becoming red mottled brown, medium strength sandstone bands at 2.6m depth. - Casing installed to 2.6m depth during NMLC coring.Borehole BH2 continued as cored hole
Met
hod
Wat
er
SamplesTests
RemarksAdditional Observations
BOREHOLE NUMBER BH2PAGE 1 OF 2
COMPLETED 2/12/16DATE STARTED 2/12/16
DRILLING CONTRACTOR BG Drilling Pty Ltd
LOGGED BY J.L. CHECKED BY J.L.
NOTES RL top of borehole is approximate
HOLE LOCATION Refer to Figure 1EQUIPMENT Han-Jin 8D
HOLE SIZE 110mm Diameter
R.L. SURFACE 44.1 DATUM m AHD
SLOPE 90° BEARING ---
CLIENT Mineow Pty Ltd
PROJECT NUMBER ESWN-PR-2016-70
PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION 9-11 Alice Street, Seven Hills, NSW
Explanatory Notes – Description for Soil In engineering terms soil includes every type of uncemented or partially cemented inorganic material found in the ground. In practice, if the material can be remoulded by
hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a soil. The dominant soil constituent is given in capital letters, with secondary textures in lower case. The dominant
feature is assessed from the Unified Soil Classification system and a soil symbol is used to define a soil layer .
METHOD
Method Description
AS Auger Screwing
BH Backhoe
CT Cable Tool Rig
EE Existing Excavation/Cutting
EX Excavator
HA Hand Auger
HQ Diamond Core-63mm
JET Jetting
NMLC Diamond Core –52mm
NQ Diamond Core –47mm
PT Push Tube
RAB Rotary Air Blast
RB Rotary Blade
RT Rotary Tricone Bit
TC Auger TC Bit
V Auger V Bit
WB Washbore
DT Diatube
WATER
Water level at date shown Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
NFGWO: The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible
due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
NFGWE: The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. Inflow may have
been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.
SAMPLING
Sample Description
B Bulk Disturbed Sample
D Disturbed Sample
Jar Jar Sample
SPT Standard Penetration Test
U50 Undisturbed Sample –50mm
U75 Undisturbed Sample –75mm
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The appropriate symbols are selected on the result of visual examination, field tests
and available laboratory tests, such as, sieve analysis, liquid limit and plasticity
index.
USC Symbol Description
GW Well graded gravel
GP Poorly graded gravel
GM Silty gravel
GC Clayey gravel
SW Well graded sand
SP Poorly graded sand
SM Silty sand
SC Clayey sand
ML Silt of low plasticity
CL Clay of low plasticity
OL Organic soil of low plasticity
MH Silt of high plasticity
CH Clay of high plasticity
OH Organic soil of high plasticity
Pt Peaty Soil
MOISTURE CONDITION
Dry - Cohesive soils are friable or powdery
Cohesionless soil grains are free-running
Moist - Soil feels cool, darkened in colour
Cohesive soils can be moulded
Cohesionless soil grains tend to adhere
Wet - Cohesive soils usually weakened
Free water forms on hands when handling
For cohesive soils the following codes may also be used:
MC>PL Moisture Content greater than the Plastic Limit.
MC~PL Moisture Content near the Plastic Limit.
MC<PL Moisture Content less than the Plastic Limit.
PLASTICITY
The potential for soil to undergo change in volume with moisture change is assessed
from its degree of plasticity. The classification of the degree of plasticity in terms of
the Liquid Limit (LL) is as follows:
Description of Plasticity LL (%)
Low <35
Medium 35 to 50
High >50
COHESIVE SOILS - CONSISTENCY
The consistency of a cohesive soil is defined by descriptive terminology such as very
soft, soft, firm, stiff, very stiff and hard. These terms are assessed by the shear
strength of the soil as observed visually, by hand penetrometer values and by
resistance to deformation to hand moulding.
A Hand Penetrometer may be used in the field or the laboratory to provide an
approximate assessment of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of cohesive
soils. The undrained shear strength of cohesive soils is approximately half the UCS.
The values are recorded in kPa as follows:
Strength Symbol Undrained Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)
Very Soft VS < 12
Soft S 12 to 25
Firm F 25 to 50
Stiff St 50 to 100
Very Stiff VSt 100 to 200
Hard H > 200
COHESIONLESS SOILS - RELATIVE DENSITY
Relative density terms such as very loose, loose, medium, dense and very dense are
used to describe silty and sandy material, and these are usually based on resistance to
drilling penetration or the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) „N‟ values. Other
condition terms, such as friable, powdery or crumbly may also be used.
Description for Rock The rock is described with strength and weathering symbols as shown below. Other features such as bedding and dip angle are given.
METHOD
Refer soil description sheet
WATER
Refer soil description sheet
ROCK QUALITY
The fracture spacing is shown where applicable and the Rock Quality Designation
(RQD) or Total Core Recovery (TCR) is given where:
TCR (%) = length of core recovered
length of core run
RQD (%) = Sum of Axial lengths of core > 100mm long
length of core run
ROCK MATERIAL WEATHERING
Rock weathering is described using the abbreviations and definitions used in
AS1726. AS1726 suggests the term “Distinctly Weathered” (DW) to cover the
range of substance weathering conditions between (but not including) XW and SW.
For projects where it is not practical to delineate between HW and MW or it is
deemed that there is no advantage in making such a distinction, DW may be used
with the definition given in AS1726.
Symbol Term Definition
RS Residual Soil Soil definition on extremely weathered rock;
the mass structure and substance are no
longer evident; there is a large change in
volume but the soil has not been
significantly transported
XW Extremely
Weathered
Rock is weathered to such an extent that it
has „soil‟ properties, ie. It either
disintegrates or can be remoulded in water
HW
DW
Highly
Weathered
Distinctly
Weathered (see
AS1726
Definition
below)
The rock substance is affected by
weathering to the extent that limonite
staining or bleaching affects the whole rock
substance and other signs of chemical or
physical decomposition are evident.
Porosity and strength is usually decreased
compared to the fresh rock. The colour and
strength of the fresh rock is no longer
recognisable.
MW Moderately
Weathered
The whole of the rock substance is
discoloured, usually by iron staining or
bleaching, to the extent that the colour of the
fresh rock is no longer recognisable
SW Slightly
Weathered
Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little
or no change of strength from fresh rock
FR Fresh Rock shows no sign of decomposition or
staining
“Distinctly Weathered: Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock
may be highly discoloured, usually by iron staining. Porosity may be increased by
leaching, or may be decreased due to the deposition of weathering products in
pores.” (AS1726)
ROCK STRENGTH
Rock strength is described using AS1726 and ISRM - Commission on
Standardisation of Laboratory and Field Tests, "Suggested method of determining
the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock materials and the Point Load Index", as
follows:
Term Symbol Point Load Index
Is(50) (MPa)
Extremely Low EL <0.03
Very Low VL 0.03 to 0.1
Low L 0.1 to 0.3
Medium M 0.3 to 1
High H 1 to 3
Very High VH 3 to 10
Extremely High EH >10
Diametral Point Load Index test
Axial Point Load Index test
DEFECT SPACING/BEDDING THICKNESS
Measured at right angles to defects of same set or bedding.
Term Defect Spacing Bedding
Extremely closely spaced <6 mm
6 to 20 mm
Thinly Laminated
Laminated
Very closely spaced 20 to 60 mm Very Thin
Closely spaced 0.06 to 0.2 m Thin
Moderately widely spaced 0.2 to 0.6 m Medium
Widely spaced 0.6 to 2 m Thick
Very widely spaced >2 m Very Thick
DEFECT DESCRIPTION
Type: Definition:
B Bedding
BP Bedding Parting
F Fault
C Cleavage
J Joint
SZ Shear Zone
CZ Crushed Zone
DB Drill Break
Planarity: Roughness:
P – Planar R – Rough
Ir – Irregular S – Smooth
St – Stepped Sl – Slickensides
U – Undulating Po – Polished
Coating or Infill: Description
Clean No visible coating or infilling
Stain No visible coating or infilling but surfaces are
discoloured by mineral staining
Veneer A visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral
substance but usually unable to be measured (<1mm).
If discontinuous over the plane, patchy veneer
Coating A visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral
substance, >1mm thick. Describe composition and
thickness
The inclinations of defects are measured from perpendicular to the core axis.
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock Graphic symbols used on borehole and test pit reports for soil and rock are as follows. Combinations of these symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as
DOWN TO EARTH GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PTY LTD
Nathan Smith
Samples
Order Number
Project
Email
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
22 Dec 2016
ANALYTICAL REPORT
SE160574 R0
21 Dec 2016Date Received
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).
COMMENTS
Shane McDermott
Senior Laboratory Technician
SIGNATORIES
Member of the SGS Group
www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400
f +61 2 8594 0499
Australia
Australia
Alexandria NSW 2015
Alexandria NSW 2015
Unit 16 33 Maddox St
PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC
Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Page 1 of 522-December-2016
SE160574 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
SE160574.001
Water
21 Dec 2016
WS1
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Date
Sample Name
pH in water Method: AN101 Tested: 22/12/2016
pH** pH Units - 5.8
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: AN106 Tested: 22/12/2016
Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 5400
Resistivity* ohm m - 2
Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: AN245 Tested: 22/12/2016
Chloride mg/L 1 1600
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 390
Page 2 of 522-December-2016
SE160574 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Chloride LB116519 mg/L 1 <1.0 1% 95%
Sulphate, SO4 LB116519 mg/L 1 <1.0 1% 98%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
MB LCS
%Recovery
Conductivity @ 25 C LB116540 µS/cm 2 <2 NA
Resistivity* LB116540 ohm m - NA
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
pH in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
pH** LB116540 pH Units - 6.8 0% 101%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 3 of 522-December-2016
SE160574 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode (glass plus
reference electrode) and is calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, an extract with water is
made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA 4500-H+.
AN101
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is
calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos/cm or
µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on
the extract, or calculated back to the as-received sample. Total Dissolved Salts can be estimated from conductivity
using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. SGS use 0.6. Reference APHA
2510 B.
AN106
Anions by Ion Chromatography: A water sample is injected into an eluent stream that passes through the ion
chromatographic system where the anions of interest ie Br, Cl, NO2, NO3 and SO4 are separated on their relative
affinities for the active sites on the column packing material . Changes to the conductivity and the UV-visible
absorbance of the eluent enable identification and quantitation of the anions based on their retention time and
peak height or area. APHA 4110 B
AN245
Page 4 of 522-December-2016
SE160574 R0
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues
defined therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only
and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to
a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
IS
LNR
*
**
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
NATA accreditation does not cover the
performance of this service.
Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.
DOWN TO EARTH GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PTY LTD
Nathan Smith
Samples
Order Number
Project
Email
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
22 Dec 2016
STATEMENT OF QA/QC
PERFORMANCE
SE160574 R0
COMMENTS
21 Dec 2016Date Received
All the laboratory data for each environmental matrix was compared to SGS' stated Data Quality Objectives (DQO). Comments
arising from the comparison were made and are reported below.
The data relating to sampling was taken from the Chain of Custody document and was supplied by the Client.
This QA/QC Statement must be read in conjunction with the referenced Analytical Report.
The Statement and the Analytical Report must not be reproduced except in full.
All Data Quality Objectives were met (within the SGS Alexandria Environmental laboratory).
Sample counts by matrix 1 Water Type of documentation received COCDate documentation received 21/12/2016 Samples received in good order YesSamples received without headspace Yes Sample temperature upon receipt 7.2°CSample container provider SGS Turnaround time requested Next DaySamples received in correct containers Yes Sufficient sample for analysis YesSample cooling method Ice Bricks Samples clearly labelled YesComplete documentation received Yes
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Member of the SGS Group
www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400
f +61 2 8594 0499
Australia
Australia
Alexandria NSW 2015
Alexandria NSW 2015
Unit 16 33 Maddox St
PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC
Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Page 1 of 922/12/2016
SE160574 R0
SGS holding time criteria are drawn from current regulations and are highly dependent on sample container preservation as specified in the SGS “Field Sampling Guide for
Containers and Holding Time” (ref: GU-(AU)-ENV.001). Soil samples guidelines are derived from NEPM "Schedule B(3) Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially
Contaminated Soils". Water sample guidelines are derived from "AS/NZS 5667.1 : 1998 Water Quality - sampling part 1" and APHA "Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater" 21st edition 2005.
Extraction and analysis holding time due dates listed are calculated from the date sampled, although holding times may be extended after laboratory extraction for some
analytes. The due dates are the suggested dates that samples may be held before extraction or analysis and still be considered valid.
Extraction and analysis dates are shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria. If the sampled
date is not supplied then compliance with criteria cannot be determined. If the received date is after one or both due dates then holding time will fail by default.
HOLDING TIME SUMMARY
Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water
Sample No.Sample Name QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
WS1 SE160574.001 LB116519 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016
Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water
Sample No.Sample Name QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
WS1 SE160574.001 LB116540 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016 18 Jan 2017 22 Dec 2016
Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101pH in water
Sample No.Sample Name QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
WS1 SE160574.001 LB116540 21 Dec 2016 21 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016 22 Dec 2016
22/12/2016 Page 2 of 9
SE160574 R0
Surrogate results are evaluated against upper and lower limit criteria established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). At least two of three routine level soil
sample surrogate spike recoveries for BTEX/VOC are to be within 70-130% where control charts have not been developed and within the established control limits for charted
surrogates. Matrix effects may void this as an acceptance criterion. Water sample surrogate spike recoveries are to be within 40-130%. The presence of emulsions,
surfactants and particulates may void this as an acceptance criterion.
Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end
of this report for failure reasons.
SURROGATES
No surrogates were required for this job.
22/12/2016 Page 3 of 9
SE160574 R0
Blank results are evaluated against the limit of reporting (LOR), for the chosen method and its associated instrumentation, typically 2.5 times the statistically determined
method detection limit (MDL).
Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.
METHOD BLANKS
Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB116519.001 Chloride mg/L 1 <1.0
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 <1.0
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB116540.001 Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 <2
22/12/2016 Page 4 of 9
SE160574 R0
Duplicates are calculated as Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean
The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit
(SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR
Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.
RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of
this report for failure reasons.
DUPLICATES
Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245
UnitsParameterOriginal LORDuplicate Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
UnitsParameterOriginal LORDuplicate Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
SE160587.001 LB116540.006 pH** pH Units - 9.13 9.142 16 0
22/12/2016 Page 5 of 9
SE160574 R0
Laboratory Control Standard (LCS) results are evaluated against an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into the control during the sample
preparation stage, producing a percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For
more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.
Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES
Anions by Ion Chromatography in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245
LORUnitsParameterSample Number Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB116519.002 Chloride mg/L 1 19 20 80 - 120 95
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 20 20 80 - 120 98
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
LORUnitsParameterSample Number Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
Matrix Spike (MS) results are evaluated as the percentage recovery of an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into a field sub -sample during the
sample preparation stage. The original sample 's result is subtracted from the sub-sample result before determining the percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the
percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA/QC plan (ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.
Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the
end of this report for failure reasons.
MATRIX SPIKES
QC Sample Parameter Units LORSample Number
22/12/2016 Page 7 of 9
SE160574 R0
Matrix spike duplicates are calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean
The original result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike. The Duplicate result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike duplicate.
The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit (SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR
Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.
RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of this report for failure reasons.
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES
No matrix spike duplicates were required for this job.
22/12/2016 Page 8 of 9
SE160574 R0FOOTNOTES
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QA/QC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
① At least 2 of 3 surrogates are within acceptance criteria.
② RPD failed acceptance criteria due to sample heterogeneity.
③ Results less than 5 times LOR preclude acceptance criteria for RPD.
④ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to matrix interference.
⑤ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to the presence of significant concentration of analyte (i.e. the
concentration of analyte exceeds the spike level).
⑥ LOR was raised due to sample matrix interference.
⑦ LOR was raised due to dilution of significantly high concentration of analyte in sample.
⑧ Reanalysis of sample in duplicate confirmed sample heterogeneity and inconsistency of results.
⑨ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to sample heterogeneity.
⑩ LOR was raised due to high conductivity of the sample (required dilution).
† Refer to Analytical Report comments for further information.
*
-
IS
LNR
LOR
QFH
QFL
NATA accreditation does not cover tthe performance of this service .
Sample not analysed for this analyte.
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
Limit of reporting.
QC result is above the upper tolerance.
QC result is below the lower tolerance.
This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service, available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined
therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained herein reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and
within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a
transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full.
In making an assessment of a site from a limited number of boreholes or test pits there is the
possibility that variations may occur between testing locations. Site exploration identifies specific
subsurface conditions only at those points from which samples have been taken. The risk that
variations will not be detected can be reduced by increasing the frequency of testing locations. The
investigation program undertaken is a professional estimate of the scope of investigation required
to provide a general profile of the subsurface conditions. The data derived from the site
investigation program and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated across the site to form an
inferred geological model and an engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface
conditions and their likely behaviour with regard to the proposed development. Despite
investigation the actual conditions at the site might differ from those inferred to exist, since no
subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all subsurface details and anomalies.
The borehole/test pit logs are the subjective interpretation of subsurface conditions at a particular
location, made by trained personnel. The interpretation may be limited by the method of investigation, and cannot always be definitive.
Subsurface conditions
Subsurface conditions may be modified by changing natural forces or man-made influences. A geotechnical report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site, and natural events such as rainfall events, floods,
or groundwater fluctuations, may also affect subsurface conditions, and thus the continuing
adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept appraised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
Assessment and interpretation
A geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design professionals
explaining relevant geotechnical findings and in reviewing the adequacy of their drawings/plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues.
Information and documentations
Final logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation of field
description and laboratory results of field samples. Customarily, only the final logs are included in
geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. To minimise the likelihood of bore/profile log
misinterpretation, contractors should be given access to the complete geotechnical engineering
report prepared or authorised for their use. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems.
Construction phase service (CPS)
During construction, excavation is frequently undertaken which exposes the actual subsurface
conditions. For this reason geotechnical consultants should be retained through the construction
stage, to identify variations if they are exposed and to conduct additional tests which may be
required and to deal quickly with geotechnical problems if they arise.
ESWNMAN PTY LTD ABN 70 603 089 630
Limitations of Geotechnical Investigation
2 | P a g e
Report
The report has been prepared for the benefit of the client and no other parties. ESWNMAN PTY
LTD assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to any other person or organisation for or in
relation to any matter dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report, or for any loss or damage
suffered by any other person or organisation arising from matters dealt with or conclusions
expressed in the report (including without limitation matters arising from any negligent act or
omission of ESWNMAN PTY LTD or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying
upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report). Other parties should not rely
upon the report or the accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should make their own enquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to such matters.
Other limitations
ESWNMAN PTY LTD will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any
events or emergent circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.