R G I R 401-405 R S NSW · Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) desktop search for underground services, Visual appraisal of the site conditions and locality, ... engineer, and comprised: The

Paramount Property Group

C/- Ghazi Al Ali Architect

Unit 2, Level 2

14 Railway Parade

Burwood NSW 2134

29 July 2016

RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

401-405 LIVERPOOL ROAD, STRATHFIELD NSW

Report ID: G16089STR-R01F

Dear Darren,

Please find below a report on the geotechnical investigation carried out at 401-405 Liverpool

Road, Strathfield, New South Wales (herein referred to as the ‘site’).

1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Geo-Environmental Engineering Pty Ltd (GEE) was commissioned by Ghazi Al Ali

Architect, on behalf of Paramount Property Group, to complete a geotechnical

investigation at the site which relates to the proposed construction of a new multi-

storey residential development.

GEE understands that the investigation was required to support a Development

Application with Council and to assist with the preliminary design and construction of

the development, which comprises two detached, multi-storey residential

developments, constructed over a single level basement. Currently, the site is occupied

by a medium density development, operating as a motel.

The report presents the factual results of the field investigations and provides

interpretation and recommendations regarding the ground conditions at the site in

accordance with client requirements and the agreed scope of work.

Geotechnical Investigation Report

401-405 Liverpool Road, Strathfield NSW

G16089STR-R01F Page 2 of 18

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

As previously mentioned, the proposed development will comprise the construction of

two detached, three storey developments over a lower ground floor level and a single

level basement. The finished floor level of the basement level is expected to be 33.10

above Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the eastern portion and 33.75m at the

western portion of the site. Taking into account the existing surface level across the

site and the necessary over excavation to accommodate the basement floor slab, a

maximum depth of excavation of between approximately 2.0m to 5.0m below ground

surface (bgs) is anticipated for the western portion of the basement while an

excavation depth of between 4.7m and 7.3m bgs is expected for the eastern portion.

The excavation for the basement is also expected to extend to the northern site

boundary and approximately 5.0m, 6.0m and 8.5m from the eastern, southern and

western site boundaries, respectively.

A copy of the architectural plans is provided for reference in Appendix A.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work undertaken by GEE, to satisfy the above objectives, was as follows:

Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) desktop search for underground services,

Visual appraisal of the site conditions and locality,

Review of published geological and acid sulphate maps for the area,

The drilling of boreholes and the performance Standard Penetrometer Tests

(SPTs) to assess the subsurface conditions,

The installation of a monitoring well to assess presence and depth of stabilised

groundwater within the site, and

Engineering assessment and reporting.




2 SITE INFORMATION

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is bounded by Liverpool Road to the east, and by low to medium residential

dwellings elsewhere. Further to the south lies the Australian International Academy.

The site covers an area of approximately 4,350m2 and comprises three allotments

which are legally referred to as:

Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 784561



At the time of the investigation, the site operated as a motel, with rooms running along

the northern and southern site boundaries. A structure operating as a reception was

located along the eastern boundary whilst an in-ground swimming pool occupied the

centre portion of the site. The remaining site surface was predominantly concrete, with

the exception of some garden beds and large trees.

Of particular significance to the proposed development is the presence of a Sydney

Water Sewer Line which crosses the north-western portion of the site (Appendix B).

Based on information from Sydney Water, the sewer comprises a 225mm vitrified clay

pipe with an invert depth of between approximately 1.2m and 1.3m. Considering the

extent and depth of the proposed basement, this section of sewer will require re-

alignment and discussions with Sydney Water are recommended.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY

During the field investigation, it was noted that the site surface was highest in elevation

at the eastern site boundary, dipping down towards the west at approximately 10% in

gradient. A review of the regional topographical maps, available on the NSW Land and

Property Information’s SIXmaps (https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au), indicates that the

surface elevation is between 30m and 40m AHD.

2.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOILS

A review of the regional geological map (reference 1) indicates that the site underlain

by the Triassic aged Bringelly Shale formation of the Wianamatta Group which typically

consists of “…shale, carbonaceous claystone, lamininte, fine to medium-grained lithic

sandstone, rare coal”.




A review of the regional soils map indicates that the site is located within the Blacktown

Soil Landscape Group (reference 2), recognised by gently undulating rises on the

underlying shale formation. Local reliefs are up to 30m and slopes are usually less than

5% in gradient. Soils of the Blacktown Group typically comprise heavy clays that have

been derived from the weathering process of shale bedrock, have low fertility and are

often strongly acidic.

2.4 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY

The regional and permanent groundwater in the vicinity of the site is expected to be

confined or partly confined, discrete, water-bearing zones within the bedrock

formation. However, intermittent ‘perched’ water seepage is likely to occur at the soil /

bedrock interface following heavy and prolonged rainfall events.

Permanent groundwater associated with the Wianamatta group of Shale bedrock is

characterised by high salinity (reference 2 and 4) and high ammonia concentrations

(>10 mg/L, reference 5). In this regard, groundwater within the shale formation is not

extracted for potable use and rarely extracted for any commercial / industrial purposes.

The rate of groundwater movement is likely to be low as a result of low relief, low

altitude (approximately 35m AHD) and the low permeability of the Bringelly Shale

(between 10-13 and 10-9 m/sec – reference 6). Groundwater flow is dominated by water

movement through fractures (or joints), where stress has caused partial loss of

cohesion in the rock and evidence of potential water bearing fractures is usually the

presence of clay or iron-staining along the face of the joints.

2.5 ACID SULFATE SOIL RISK

Acid Sulfate Soil is naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides

(principally iron sulfide, iron disulfide or their precursors). Oxidation of these soils

through exposure to the atmosphere or through lowering of groundwater levels results

in the generation of sulfuric acid.

Land that may contain potential acid sulfate soils was mapped by the NSW Department

of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) and based on these maps local Councils

produced their own acid sulfate soil maps to be used for planning purposes.

The DLWC ‘Botany Bay’ Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map (reference 7), indicates that the site

lies within an area with no known occurrences of acid sulphate soil and land activities

within this area are “...not likely to be affected by acid sulphate soil materials”.




The Acid Sulfate Soils Map produced by the NSW Department of Planning and

Environment, via interactive online mapping, indicates that the site lies within an area

defined as “Class 5”. In accordance with Clause 6.1 of Strathfield City Council’s LEP

(reference 8), a preliminary assessment of acid sulphate soil and potentially a

management plan, is required for “…works within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4

land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the watertable is

likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or

4 land”.

Firstly, the surface elevation is greater than 5m AHD (at approximately 35-40m AHD).

Secondly, the maximum depth of proposed excavation is expected to be 7.3m below

the ground surface (bgs) which equates to a bulk excavation level which is significantly

greater than 1m AHD. In this regard, there is no need for an acid sulphate soil

assessment or management plan.

Additionally, as mentioned in Section 2.4, groundwater in this part of Sydney exists

within the discrete natural fractures and defects of the bedrock formation and therefore

any water seepage will be able to be controlled by pumping from a sump excavated

into the base of the excavation. Such pumping will not reduce the water table in

surrounding Class 1 to 4 acid sulphate areas below 1m AHD, which according to the

online interactive maps produced by the NSW Department of Planning and

Environment, is over 500m south of the site.




3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS

3.1 FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

Fieldwork was undertaken on the 7th of July 2016 by Andy Chiem, a geotechnical

engineer, and comprised:

The drilling and logging of three boreholes (BH1 to BH3) in accessible areas of

the site to assess the soil conditions and depth to bedrock,

The performance of SPTs within each borehole to assess the consistency and/or

relative density of the soil profile and to assist with determining the depth to

bedrock, and

The installation of a groundwater monitoring well within a borehole to assess the

presence and depth of stabilised groundwater at the site, and to monitor the rate

of groundwater inflow.

The boreholes were drilled using a Nissan ute-mounted drill rig, owned and operated

by FICO Group, using solid flight augers (SFA) and equipped with a tungsten-carbide

drill bit (TC-bit). Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3 were advanced through any surface

filling and the natural (i.e. undisturbed) soil profile before terminating within the

underlying shale bedrock formation at depths of 2.60m, 0.85m and 1.15m bgs

respectively. Termination of each borehole was caused by practical TC-bit refusal.

The SPT tests were performed within the boreholes throughout the soil profile and in

accordance with Australian Standard 1289.6.3.1 (reference 9).

The monitoring well was installed within BH1, where the site elevation appeared to be

lower. The well was installed using a 50mm diameter uPVC pipe with a machine slotted

screen section, 2mm sand filter pack and a bentonite seal. Construction details of the

well are provided in the borehole logs (Appendix B).

The location of the boreholes was estimated using measurements from existing

features and is shown on Figure 1. A copy of the borehole is provided in Appendix

B.




3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The site stratigraphy, as observed in the boreholes, typically comprised fill material,

underlain by natural silty clay soil which graded into weathered siltstone bedrock.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions on site are provided in the borehole

logs provided in Appendix B, while the soil profile is also summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Layer /

Unit Description

Depth to Base of Layer

(m)1 Consistency /

Relative

Density1

BH1 BH2 BH3

FILL /

TOPSOIL

Gravelly SAND / Clayey GRAVEL: brown /

orange / grey, fine to coarse sand, fine to

coarse gravel, brick, cobble

1.1 0.2 0.2 Loose

Silty CLAY: grey / brown, low to medium

plasticity, some fine to coarse gravel -- 0.6 0.4 Firm

NATURAL

SOIL

SILT: grey-brown 1.3 -- -- Soft

Silty CLAY: light grey mottled orange,

medium to high plasticity 2.4 0.75 1.0 Stiff

BEDROCK SILTSTONE: weathered >2.6 >0.85 >1.15 --

Note 1: Determined from the borehole and SPT observations

3.2.1 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of the boreholes and the short

time in which they remained open (<10mins). However, water did eventually seep

into the monitoring well installed within borehole BH1 and a stabilised groundwater

level of 1.04m bgs was observed on the 15th of July, which was 8 days after installing

the well. The water in the well is considered to be perched water flowing along the

soil/bedrock interface which is recharged by rainfall and therefore its presence is

intermittent.




4 DISCUSSION

4.1 SITE PREPARATION

Following demolition of the existing structures and prior to bulk excavation works, all

topsoil with organic matter and any pavement materials, should be removed from the

proposed building and pavement areas. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled for re-

use as landscape material, or disposed off-site.

Material removed from site will need to be managed in accordance with the provisions

of current legislation and may include segregation by material type classification in

accordance with NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines (reference 10) and

disposal at facilities appropriately licensed to receive the particular materials. GEE notes

that the natural soil and bedrock may be classified as Virgin Excavated Natural Material

(VENM) and re-used on other sites rather than disposed at a landfill, although it must

be proven to be free of contamination.

GEE notes that the natural silty clay soil profile is expected to be susceptible to loss of

strength when wet. In this regard, it may be necessary to construct a working platform

above the prepared sub-grade in areas of high construction vehicle traffic, comprising a

minimum of 150 mm of gravel or recycled concrete.

4.2 EARTHWORKS

As mentioned in Section 1.2, earthworks at the site are expected to comprise

excavation of between approximately 2.0m to 5.0m for the western portion of the and

between 4.7m and 7.3m bgs for the eastern portion. The excavation for the basement

is also expected to extend to the northern site boundary and approximately 5.0m, 6.0m

and 8.5m from the eastern, southern and western site boundaries, respectively.

4.2.1 EXCAVATION

Based on the fieldwork undertaken as part of this investigation, the excavation will

encounter fill material, underlain by natural silty clay soil before grading into weathered

siltstone bedrock at depths between 0.75m and 2.4m bgs. GEE notes that the strength

of the bedrock has not been assessed as part of this geotechnical investigation,

however, based on local knowledge, it is likely to be to low strength, becoming medium

to high strength within the depth of the proposed basement excavation. To confirm the

strength of the bedrock within the depth of proposed excavation, a more detailed

investigation would be required (preferably following demolition of the existing

dwellings) and would need to include the coring and strength testing of the bedrock




formation. Considering that the site is adjacent to a major road transport infrastructure

(Liverpool Road), coring and strength testing will likely be required by the Road and

Maritime Services (RMS) to satisfy their geotechnical technical direction (GTD

2012/001) entitled Excavation adjacent to RMS Infrastructure.

The excavation of the soil profile, and any extremely low to very low strength siltstone

is expected to be readily excavated using standard equipment such as excavators.

However, the use of an impact hammer is expected to be required upon encountering

low to medium strength (or better) bedrock, especially when combined with

unfavourable rock-defect geometry. When using an impact hammer the effects of

vibration should be considered and are discussed further in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.2 GROUNDWATER INFLOW

Permanent groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of the boreholes,

though a stabilised groundwater level of 1.04m bgs was observed within the monitoring

well on the 15th of July. Such water is considered to be perched groundwater,

recharged by rainfall events and therefore its presence is often intermittent. The

seepage is expected to be sufficiently managed during the earthworks phase by

pumping from a sump at the base of the excavation. Additionally, conventional

techniques such as strip drains behind basement walls and ag-lines will need to be

incorporated into the design of the basement, along with a sump and pump system

linked to the regional stormwater system.

4.2.3 CONSTRUCTION / EXCAVATION INDUCED VIBRATION

When using a hydraulic hammer, vibrations will be transmitted through the ground and

potentially impact on adjoining structures. Where possible, the use of other techniques

not involving impact (e.g. rock saws), should be adopted as they would reduce or

possibly eliminate risks of damage due to vibrations.

The structures on the adjacent properties (and nearby services) are sensitive to

vibrations above certain threshold levels (regarding potential for cracking). Given that

the proposed basement excavation will extend to within close proximity of the

boundaries and adjoining development, close controls by the excavation contractor

over the rock excavation are necessary, and are recommended, so that excessive

vibration effects are not generated.

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is usually the adopted measure of ground vibration and the

safe limits depend on the sensitivity of the adjoining structures and services. There is a




number of Australian and overseas publications which provide vibration velocity

guideline levels (or safe limits) including:

Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006 Explosives - Storage and use - Use of

explosives - Appendix J: Ground Vibrations and Airblast Overpressure (reference

11).

Australian Standard AS2670.2-1990 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body

vibration - Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80

Hz) (reference 12).

DIN 4150 – Part 3 – 1999. Effects if Vibration on Structures (reference 13).

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2006. Assessing Vibration: a

technical guideline (reference 14).

British Standard BS 7385-1:1990. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on

buildings (reference 15).

British Standard BS 7385-2:1993. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration (reference 16).

The most appropriate guidelines levels for the proposed excavation work are provided

in AS2187.2-2006, which refers to guideline values from BS7385-2 for the prevention of

minor or cosmetic damage occurring in structures from ground vibration. Additionally,

the guideline levels provided in DIN 4150 Part 3 is considered an appropriate source for

guideline levels.

Ideally, safe limits should be determined by a specialist vibration consultant. However,

as a preliminary and conservative guide, and considering the above guidelines and the

type of adjoining structures present, GEE recommend that excavation methods should

be adopted which limit ground vibrations at the adjoining developments to not more

than 10mm/sec. Vibration monitoring will be required to verify that this is achieved.

However, if the contractor adopts methods and/or equipment which limit ground

vibration to 5mm/sec, vibration monitoring may not be required.

The PPV limits of 5mm/sec and 10mm/sec are expected to be achievable if rock

breaker equipment or other excavation methods are restricted as indicated in Table 2.




Table 2: Recommendations for Rock Hammer Equipment

Distance

from

adjoining

structure

(m)

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

5mm/sec

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

10mm/sec*

Equipment Operating Limit

(% of

Maximum

Capacity)

Equipment Operating

Limit (% of

Maximum

Capacity)

1.0 to 2.0 Hand operated

jackhammer only

100 300 kg rock hammer 50

2.0 to 5.0 300 kg rock hammer 50 300 kg rock hammer

or

600 kg rock hammer

100

50

5.0 to 10.0 300 kg rock hammer 100 600 kg rock hammer 100

or or

600 kg rock hammer 50 900 kg rock hammer 50

* Vibration monitoring is recommended for 10mm/sec vibration limit.

GEE notes human discomfort levels caused by vibration are typically less than the levels

that are likely to cause cosmetic or structural damage to structures. Therefore,

complaints may be lodged by neighbours before any cosmetic or structural damage

occurs. In this regard, consideration may be given to adopting more stringent vibration

limits recommended for human amenity or, as a minimum, ensuring that vibration

monitoring is undertaken as reassurance to confirm that vibrations are within safe

limits. Acceptable vibration limits for human comfort caused by construction and

excavation equipment are provided in DEC (2006) (reference 14). Specifically

maximum acceleration limits as specified in Table 2.2 of the guideline should be

adopted.

Finally, at all times, the excavation equipment should be operated by experienced

personnel, according to the manufactures instructions, and in a manner consistent with

minimising vibration effects. Measures which may be used to minimise vibration

include:

Progressive breakage from open excavated faces,

Selective breakage along open joints, where present,

Use of rock hammers in short bursts to prevent generation of resonant

frequencies,




Orientation of the rock hammer pick away from property boundaries and into the

existing open excavation,

Commencement of excavation as far away from other structures as possible, and

The use of a rock sawing or grinder adjacent to the site boundaries. GEE notes

that this equipment also reduces the possibility of overbreak and loosening of the

rock mass.

4.2.4 EXCAVATION SUPPORT

Based on the proposed development plans (Appendix A), the excavation for the lower

ground floor is expected to extend to the northern site boundary, while excavation for

the basement level will encroach on the zone of influence of a major transport

infrastructure. Therefore, either temporary shoring or the early construction of

permanent walls designed to shore up these boundaries, will be required. For

consistency, and taking into account the existing terrain, GEE recommends that the

southern and western excavation faces also be supported by either temporary shoring

or permanent walls.

At this preliminary stage, options for shoring include the use of evenly spaced mass

concrete piles (soldier piles), or contiguous piling combined with a pile cap. Open bored

piles or CFA piles are considered feasible and should be designed by a suitably

experienced structural engineer in accordance with AS 4678-2002 Earth Retaining

Structures (reference 17) and should consider the short and long term configurations.

In the short term, should the shoring walls be cantilevered or supported by a single

row of anchors and some wall movements can be tolerated (flexible wall), the pressure

acting on the wall can be estimated on the basis of a triangular earth pressure

distribution.

When internal props, such as the ground floor slab, restrain retaining wall movement,

or where significant movements cannot be tolerated (rigid wall), an ‘at-rest’ earth

pressure coefficient (Ko) should be adopted with either a uniform or trapezoidal

pressure distribution. This may also include the lengths of wall immediately adjacent to

adjoining structures that bound the site. It should be noted that shoring which is

designed for this ‘at rest’ coefficient will still undergo some lateral movements,

depending on the final configuration of the wall and construction sequence.

The design of any retaining structures should make allowance for all applicable

surcharge loadings including construction activities around the perimeter of the




excavation and adjacent buildings. Consideration should be given to the possibility of a

hydrostatic pressure due to build-up of water behind the wall (e.g. from broken

services), unless permanent subsurface drainage can be provided.

Finally, computer aided analysis may be carried out to assess potential ground

movements based on different wall designs and construction sequence, so as to control

deflections to within tolerable limits. It is also considered prudent to carry out surveys

before and after installation to measure the actual movement of the wall or soil.

Preliminary geotechnical parameters for the soil and bedrock profile encountered at the

site are provided in Table 3 and it is recommended that further investigation, including

the coring of the bedrock throughout the full depth of the basement level be

undertaken to confirm these parameters and provide more information on the various

strength characteristics of the bedrock formation.

Table 3: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters – Retaining Walls

Units

Depth to

Top of

Layer

(m)

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Active Lateral

Earth Pressure

(Ka)

Lateral

Earth

Pressure

at Rest

(Ko)

Passive

Lateral

Earth

Pressure

(Kp) Short-

Term

Long-

Term

Soil Profile and EL

strength SILTSTONE 0.0 18 0.35 0.4 0.50 --

SILSTONE: VL to L

strength (or better) 0.75 – 2.4 22 0.20 0.25 0.40 4.0

4.2.5 DILAPIDATION REPORT

GEE suggests that a dilapidation report be carried out on neighboring buildings prior to

commencing excavation. The purpose of a dilapidation report is to confirm that

construction works, in particular excavation works, are not causing damage and

therefore may prevent future claims of damage arising from the works. Preferably

these surveys should be agreed to, and the report signed, by the owners of the

adjacent building prior to work commencing.

4.2.6 TEMPORARY ANCHORS

Temporary ground anchors are likely to be required for the lateral restraint of boundary

shoring walls until such time that the walls are permanently strutted by the

building floor slabs. Suggested allowable bond stresses for the design of




temporary ground anchors in very low to low strength sandstone or shale is 150kPa.

Ground anchors should be designed to have a free length that extends beyond

an imaginary line drawn upwards at an angle of 45° from the toe of the wall, to cater

for possible 45° faults or joints behind the wall. The minimum free length should be 3

m. After installation, each anchor should be proof loaded to 125% of the design

working load and locked-off at about 80% of the working load. Periodic checks

should be carried out during the construction phase to ensure that the lock-off load is

maintained and not lost due to creep effects or other causes. The above parameters

are based on the assumption that the anchor holes are clean and thoroughly flushed,

with grouting and other installation procedures carried out carefully and in

accordance with normal good anchoring practice. The successful anchoring

contractor should be required to demonstrate that the above bond values are

achievable with the proposed anchor construction method.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

Following excavation of the basement, the bulk excavation level will predominately

comprise siltstone/shale bedrock, although silty clay soil is also expected at the western

end of the proposed excavation. For consistency, and to minimise the potential for

differential settlement, GEE recommends that all footings be founded on the underlying

siltstone bedrock, which at this preliminary stage is assessed as being capable of

providing an allowable bearing capacity of 700kPa (Pells et al - reference 18). Should

higher bearing capacity be required, further geotechnical investigation will be required

to assess the strength and quality of the bedrock formation. This could be done at

Construction Certificate stage and be combined with any additional work required to

satisfy RMS technical direction GTD 2012/001.

Footing systems should be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced structural

engineer and GEE recommends that inspection by a geotechnical engineer is

undertaken during the footing excavation stage, to confirm that the design founding

conditions have been achieved.




5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEE considers that sufficient information has been gained to be confident of the

subsurface conditions across the site, to assist with design of the proposed

development and to provide Council with assurances regarding the geotechnical

feasibility of the proposed development.

Based on the results of the investigation, the proposed development is considered

feasible. Additionally, GEE concludes that the existing rock formation is capable of

withstanding the proposed loads to be imposed, and standard shoring works (provided

they are designed by a structural engineer), will ensure the stability of the excavation

and provide protection and support of the adjoining properties. However, further

investigation (preferably post demolition) is recommended to more accurately define

the strength of the bedrock which will minimise the uncertainty for earthworks

contractors and structural design engineers when planning and designing the proposed

excavation and foundations. This is also likely to be required by RMS because of the

proximity of the development to a road of state significance.

The geotechnical issues associated with the proposed development have been

addressed by the investigation and are discussed in this report. If, during construction,

any conditions are encountered that vary significantly from those described or inferred

in the above report, it is a condition of the report that we be advised so that those

conditions, and the conclusions discussed in the report, can be reviewed and

alternative recommendations assessed, if appropriate.

GEE will be pleased to assist with any further advice or geotechnical services required

in regard to the proposed development.




6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

Soil and rock formations are variable. The logs or other information presented as part

of this report indicate the approximate subsurface conditions only at the specific test

locations. Boundaries between zones on the logs or stratigraphic sections are often not

distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted.

The precision with which subsurface conditions are indicated depends largely on the

frequency and method of sampling, and on the uniformity of subsurface conditions.

The spacing of test sites also usually reflects budget and schedule constraints.

Groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the

place and under circumstances noted in the report. The conditions may vary seasonally

or as a consequence of construction activities on the site or adjacent sites.

Where ground conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those

anticipated in the report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or

construction activities, it is a condition of this report that GEE be notified of any

variations and be provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this

report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is

recommended that a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer be engaged to visit

the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.

The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the design

engineer, or for other purposes specifically noted in the report. The number of

boreholes or test excavations necessary to determine all relevant underground

conditions which may affect construction costs, techniques and equipment choice,

scheduling, and sequence of operations would normally be greater than has been

carried out for design purposes. Contractors should therefore rely on their own

additional investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the borehole data in

this report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work.




If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Stephen McCormack

Principal

REFERENCES

1. Department of Mineral Resources, 1983: Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Map Sheet

9130 (Edition 1).

2. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, 1989: Sydney 1:100,000 Soil Landscape Series Sheet

9130.

3. Wooley, D.R., 1983: Groundwater. In Herbert, C., (Ed), Geology of the Sydney

1:100,000 Sheet 9130, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral

Resources, pp. 145-148.

4. Krumins, H., Bradd, J., and McKibbon, D., 1998: Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment

Groundwater Availability Map: Map Notes. Department of Land and Water Conversation,

December, 1998, Parramatta, 12 pp.

5. Old, A. N., 1942: The Wianamatta Shale Waters of the Sydney District. Agricultural

Gazette of New South Wales, Miscellaneous Publication 3225.

6. Cook P.G., 2003: A Guide to Regional Groundwater Flow in Fractured Rock Aquifers.

Seaview Press, Henley Beach (South Australia), 108pp.

7. DLWC, 1997: Department of Land and Water Conservation of NSW, 1997: Botany Bay

Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map – Edition Two.

8. Strathfield City Council, 2012. Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

9. Australian Standards, 2004. AS1289.6.3.1 Methods of testing soils for engineering

purposes - Soil strength and consolidation tests – Determination of the penetration

resistance of a soil – Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

10. New South Wales Environment Protection authority (NSW EPA), 2014: Waste

classification guidelines – Part 1 classifying waste. November 2014.

11. Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006 Explosives - Storage and use - Use of explosives -

Appendix J: Ground Vibrations and Airblast Overpressure.




12. Australian Standard AS2670.2-1990: Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body

vibration - Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz).

13. DIN 4150 – Part 3 – 1999. Effects if Vibration on Structures.

14. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2006. Assessing Vibration: a

technical guideline.

15. British Standard BS 7385-1:1990. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on

buildings.

16. British Standard BS 7385-2:1993. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration.

17. Australian Standard AS4678-2002: Australian Standard, 2002: Earth Retaining

Structures.

18. Pells et al, 1998: Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the Sydney Region, Australian

Geomechanics Society, 1998.



FIGURE 1

SITE PLAN

SITE PLAN401 - 405 Liverpool Road, Strathfield NSW

Aerial Image Source: provided by Nearmap Ltd (www.nearmap.com) - image dated 05/05/2016

A

182 BRIDGE STREETLANE COVE NSW 2066P - 61 (2) 9420 3361E - [email protected]

DRAWN:

DATE:SCALE:

JOB No.: REVISION:

N.T.S

A. Chiem

TITLE: FIGURE No.:29 Jul 2016

G16089STR

North

Approximate Site Boundary

Approximate Extent of Proposed Basement

BH1

BH2

Approximate Location of Sydney Water Sewer Line

BH3

Approximate Extent of Proposed Lower Ground Parking



APPENDIX A

Survey and Architectural Plans (6 Sheets)

GSPublisherVersion 38.31.48.77

ARCHITECTPROJECT

401-405 LIVERPOOL RD, STRATHFIELDCLIENT

PARAMOUNT PROPERTY GROUPSCALE DATE

DRAWN PROJECT ARCHITECT PROJECT DIRECTOR

1:200

DRAWING NAME

BASEMENT 01 PLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1201

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA

ACCESS & BCA TRAFFIC ACOUSTIC HYDRAULIC PLANNING

LANDSCAPINGGEOTECHNICALQUANTITY SURVEY WASTE MANAGEMENTBASIX

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A2 © COPYRIGHTFOR DAPURPOSES ONLY

NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA

DO NOT SCALE DWGS. USEDIMENSIONS ONLY. REFERANY DISCREPANCIES TOARCHITECT PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.

THESE DRAWINGS ARESUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT.

FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A

LEVEL 2 UNIT 2 14 RAILWAY PARADEBURWOOD NSW 2134

T. +612 9744 7035 | E. [email protected]: 67167131848

SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542

NAME: Design Right ConsultantTEL: 0405 295 978E: [email protected]

NAME: MMDCCTEL: 9633 9233E: [email protected]

NAME: TTM TrafficTEL: 9418 3033E: [email protected]

NAME: STS ConsultantTEL: 0420 312 721E: [email protected]

NAME: Acoustic ConsultingEngineersTEL: 8006 5560E: [email protected]

NAME: GeoenvironmentalTEL: 9420 3361E: [email protected]

NAME: SGCETEL: 8883 4239E: [email protected]

NAME: CONZEPTTEL: 9922 5312E: [email protected]

NAME: WILLANATEL: 9399 6500E:[email protected]

NAME: ELEPHANTS FOOTTEL: 9707 2588E: [email protected]

18/07/ 2016

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %

15 x 173 = 2,600

121314

15 x 173 = 2,600

12 13 14

5152

5354

5556

5758

5960

6162

6364

65

6667

6869

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

70 71 72

15

x 17

3 =

2,60

0

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

15

x 18

3 =

2,75

0 123456789

1011121314

49 50 15

x 17

3 =

2,60

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

91011121314

73747576777879

8081

33.10

33.75 33.7533.10

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BASEMENT 01 PARKING

LIFT

LIFT

LIFT

RAMP13M @ 1/20

BULKBIN

AREACLEANERS

ROOM

STVS

VE

AA1 AA1

BASEMENT 01 FLOOR PLAN 1:200 @ A2


ARCHITECTPROJECT




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LOWER GROUNDFLOOR PLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1202

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA



N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA



FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A



SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542











18/07/ 2016

17.01 m2

24.16 m2

350 850

350 850

350

850

350 850

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %

15 x 173 = 2,600

12 13 14

15

x 18

3 =

2,75

0 123456789

1011121314

15 x 173 = 2,600

121314

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

1617

1550

1550

1550

1000

1000

1550

16

x 19

1 =

3,05

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415

21 x 183 = 3,850

12345678910

4 x 200 = 800

123

1550 4 x 200 = 800

123

1550

16

x 18

8 =

3,00

0

123456789

101112131415

17 x 184 = 3,130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

17 x 184 = 3,135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1550

1550

1550

14 15

2,00

0

1,800

36.42

36.50

35.70

36.50

36.42

36.50

38.9036.2035.70

36.5035.70

36.00

40.14

39.36

36.42

35.96 36.42

35.96

36.42

39.55

19.83 m2

19.30 m2

22.02 m2

15.00 m2

20.45 m2

17.81 m2

23.49 m2

18.10 m2

800-

1000

mmAD

JUST

ABLE

BEN

CHCO

MPLY

WIT

H AS

4299

LIVE

RPO

OL

RO

AD A

BOVE

SERVICE TRUCK PATH

LIFT

LOADINGAREA

LIFT LIFT

B2 GL

LOADING/WAITING AREA

AIRLOCK

SPRINKLERALARMVALVEPUMP

BULKAREA

RAMP TO GROUND LEVEL14.3M@ 1 / 5

RAMP4M@ 1 / 8

BOUNDARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

CHAIRLIFT

CLEANERSROOM

VS

VE

STEP

DO

WN

REFER TOGROUND

FLOOR PLAN

LOWER GROUND PARKING

COMMUNALOPENSPACE

TO GROUND LEVEL

1 BED+SLG04

58.37 m21 BEDLG03

60.15 m2

1 BEDLG09

57.33 m2

3 BEDLG10

93.44 m2

1 BEDLG07

52.55 m2

2 BEDLG01

75.00 m2

1 BEDLG05

51.11 m22 BEDLG02

75.00 m2

3 BEDLG06

96.28 m2

3 BEDLG08

94.53 m2

AA1 AA1

9,00

0

26,6571,800

20,583 12,000 10,061 37,335 6,379

2,412

800

RAMP7.7M@ 1 / 14

RAMP6.3M@ 1 / 14

RAMP6.3M@ 1 / 14

1550

12,000

9,000

6,00

0

6,00

0

1,60

0

4,28

312

,811

2,24

79,

000

36.42

36.95

37.59

38.23

38.88

HIGHLIGHT WINDOW

ABOVE GROUNDOSD BASIN

ABOVE GROUNDOSD BACIN

SLOPINGDOWN

STEP

DO

WN

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

35.25

35.96 36.42

17.81 m2

BOU

ND

ARY

2 BEDLG01

75.00 m2

26,657

RAMP6.3M@ 1 / 14

9,000

2,24

79,

000

ABOVE GROUNDOSD BASIN

LOWER GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:200 @ A2NORTH WEST CORNER DETAIL


ARCHITECTPROJECT




1:200

DRAWING NAME

GROUND FLOORPLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1203

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA



N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA



FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A



SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542











18/07/ 2016

14.58 m2

356.23 m2

350

85035

085

0

350

850

350

850

27.73 m2

36.99 m2

16 x 191 = 3,050

12131415

16

x 18

8 =

3,00

0

101112131415

17 x 184 = 3,130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 x 184 = 3,135

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1550

1550

1550

1000

1000

1550

1550

16

x 19

1 =

3,05

0

1 2 3

4

56789101112131415 16

x 19

1 =

3,05

0

123

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1550

1550

1550

1550

16 x 191 = 3,050

1234567

8

9101112131415

11,487 15,1701,800

20,583 12,000 17,629 12,000 17,866 6,281

2,12

713

,706

2,00

011

,166

5,50

0

9,00

0

9,000

6,00

0

2,412

3,95

81,

150

11,9

872,

247

9,00

0

800

6,00

0

800

2,00

0

1,800

6,032

8002,000

800

2,00

0

2,00

0

39.55

39.47

39.4539.1538.90

40.14

40.15

39.55 39.55

39.55

36.41

36.2035.70

39.55

AA1 AA110.11 m2

15.86 m2

13.04 m2

10.85 m210.70 m2

8.00 m2

8.50 m2

19.79 m2 27.60 m2

24.88 m2

8.74 m2 24.59 m2

13.55 m2

13.41 m2

20.05 m218.72 m2

27.84 m2

800-

1000

mmAD

JUST

ABLE

BEN

CHCO

MPLY

WIT

H AS

4299

800-1000mmADJUSTABLE BENCH

COMPLY WITH AS4299

ANG

LED LO

UVR

E

H/S

BO

OST

ER

LETTER BOX MAIN ENTRY

LIVE

RPO

OL

RO

AD

NO. 407-4132-STOREYBLOCK OFBRICK UNITS

NO. 61/2-STOREY

BRICK HOUSE

NO. 5

1-STOREY

BRICK HOUSE

NO. 7 GEES AVEBACKYARD

BRICK GARAGE

LIFT

LIFTLIFT

B1

L1

EGRESS

B1

L1

EGRESS

RAMP2M@ 1 / 8

RAMP6M@ 1 / 20

RAMP13.5M@ 1 / 5

RAMP4M@ 1 / 8

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

COMMUNALOPENSPACE

REFER TO LG PLAN

VS

VE

REFER TO LOWER GROUND PLAN

REFER TO LOWER GROUND PLAN

BACKYARDOF NO. 16

NO. 5 GEES AVEBACKYARD

NO. 3 GEES AVEBACKYARDNO. 1 GEES AVEBACKYARD

STEP

DO

WN

max.1 / 20

1 BEDG04

60.41 m2

1 BEDG03

60.15 m2

2 BEDG18

75.39 m2

1 BEDG13

52.85 m2

2 BEDG14

75.98 m2

1 BEDG07

52.55 m2

2 BEDG01

75.00 m2

2 BEDG05

78.96 m22 BEDG02

75.00 m2

2 BEDG20

76.51 m2

1 BEDG19

58.63 m2

2 BEDG16

75.39 m2

2 BEDG15

75.43 m2

STUDIOG17

40.62 m2

2 BEDG09

76.32 m2

2 BEDG08

75.50 m2

2 BEDG11

79.75 m2

STUDIOG10

37.68 m2

2 BEDG12

81.64 m2

2 BEDG06

75.89 m2

1550

1000

1000

1550

1550

15501550

1550

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

6,00

0

8,210

6,10

824

,193

8,20

0

12,000

3,600

6,568

5,374

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

RAMP9M@ 1 / 14

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:200 @ A2


ARCHITECTPROJECT




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 01 PLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1204

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA



N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA



FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A



SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542











18/07/ 2016

14.58 m2

16

x 19

1 =

3,05

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415

16 x 191 = 3,050

12131415

16 x 191 = 3,050

12 13 14 15

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

1000

1550

16

x 19

1 =

3,05

0 1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1550

16 x 191 = 3,050

1234567

8

9101112131415

1550

1550

1550

AA1 AA1

6,00

0

6,00

0

6,031

11,487 15,1701,800

20,583 12,000 17,629 12,000 17,740 6,407

9,00

012,000

9,000

6,00

0

15,1701,800

20,583

2,000

12,8

112,

247

800800

800

800

800

12,000

4,200 3,600 3,004

16,2

322,

000

11,1

665,

500

6,10

824

,393

8,00

0

6,00

0

42.60 42.60

42.60

8.83 m2

15.44 m2

8.74 m2

10.00 m210.00 m2

15.86 m2

12.97 m213.42 m2

10.85 m2

8.36 m2

8.00 m2

10.70 m28.00 m2

15.95 m2

8.50 m2

14.57 m2

13.41 m2

13.04 m2

13.55 m2

800-1000mmADJUSTABLE BENCHCOMPLY WITH AS4299

800-

1000

mmAD

JUST

ABLE

BEN

CHCO

MPLY

WIT

H AS

4299


COMPLY WITH AS4299


HIGHLIGHT WINDOWAN

GLED

LOU

VRE

HIG

HLI

GH

T W

IND

OW

LIFT LIFT

LIFT

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

VS

VE

1 BED113

52.85 m2

1 BED104

60.41 m2

1 BED103

60.15 m2

2 BED118

84.10 m2

2 BED114

75.98 m2

2 BED116

75.00 m2

2 BED115

76.89 m2

1 BED117

63.30 m2

2 BED109

76.32 m2

2 BED108

75.50 m2

2 BED111

88.97 m2

1 BED110

55.04 m2

2 BED112

81.02 m2

1 BED107

52.55 m2

2 BED101

75.00 m2

2 BED105

78.96 m22 BED102

75.00 m2

2 BED106

75.89 m2

2 BED120

78.11 m2

1 BED119

58.63 m2

1550

1000

1000

1000

1000

1550

1000

1000

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN 1:200 @ A2


ARCHITECTPROJECT




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 02 PLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1205

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA



N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA



FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A



SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542











18/07/ 2016

16

x 19

1 =

3,05

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9101112131415 16

x 19

1 =

3,05

0 1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 x 191 = 3,050

1234567

8

9101112131415

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

AA1 AA1

3,00

09,

000 6,

000

12,000

3,000

9,000

6,00

0

6,00

0

12,000

2,52

613

,706

2,00

011

,016

5,65

0

6,98

212

,784

3,00

09,

000

2,412

4,200 3,600 3,004

12,0

583,

000

3,00

06,

000

800 800

800

11,487 15,1701,800

20,583 12,000 17,629 12,000 17,740 6,407

6,00

0

45.65 45.65

45.65

15.58 m2

33.86 m2

8.74 m2

10.00 m210.00 m2

8.00 m2

8.50 m2

14.57 m2

8.36 m2

13.41 m2

15.44 m213.55 m2 12.97 m213.42 m2

13.24 m2



COMPLY WITH AS4299


ANG

LED LO

UVR

E

HIG

HLI

GH

T W

IND

OW

SIMPLE PERGOLA STRUCTURENON-TRAFFICABLE AREA NON-TRAFFICABLE AREA

NON-TRAFFICABLE AREA LIFT LIFT

LIFT

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

VS

VE

1 BED208

52.85 m2

2 BED213

84.10 m2

2 BED209

75.98 m2

2 BED211

75.00 m2

2 BED210

76.89 m2

2 BED204

76.32 m2

2 BED203

75.50 m2

2 BED206

88.97 m2

1 BED205

55.04 m2

2 BED207

81.64 m2

2 BED215

78.11 m2

1 BED214

58.63 m2

1 BED212

63.66 m2

3 BED202

96.53 m2

3 BED201

96.45 m2

1000

1000

1550

1550

1000

1000

1000

1000

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

1550

VEGEGARDEN



ARCHITECTPROJECT




1:200

DRAWING NAME

ROOF PLAN

PRO

JEC

T N

UM

BER

ISSUE

AA 1206

DRAWING NUMBER

DALL JU

26.1

5

GA



N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

DA



FOR

DA

18/0

7/20

16A



SCALE 1:200 @ A2

0 1 5 10M2

NSW reg. no. 7542











18/07/ 2016

AA1 AA1

6,00

0

6,00

0

25,857 18,667 16,516 17,629 12,000 17,866 6,039

2,32

713

,506

2,00

010

,666

4,200 3,600 3,004

12,8

572,

000

23,6

65

6000

3,600

48.70 48.70

48.70

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

BOUNDARY

BOU

ND

ARY

LIVE

RPO

OL

RO

AD




APPENDIX B

Sydney Water DBYD

HIG

HF

IELD

GEES

AVE

CR

OS

S

B

A

CP

6

1

2

18

19

20

16

15

4

14

13

12

22

7

6

5

11

10

5

4

3

50

3

4

2

1

1

4

9

8

7

27

29

2

6

4

CP

CP

16

3

11

12

13

14

15

17

2

1

18

1

2

1

1

386

389-

391

2

1

3

10

1214

1315

1719

21

2022

24

2325

16

46

5

18

18

7

5

3

413

141

5

4

2

2729

2628

30

393-

395

397-

399

401-

405

401-

405

388

390

394

392

396

398

400

402401-

405

404

406

408

43.22

7.5

21.9 29.8

14.6

21.9

15.8

18.5

31.6

42.6

15.5

30.7

45.4

32.9

24.6 33.235.3

47.0

50.5

61.5

6.7

8.866.4

1.5

19.522.5

46.3

24.9

29.2

34.4

41.1

50.9

49.3

18.8

2.1

24.3

27.7

42.6

13.7

24.9

31.034.7

60.9

41.4

54.8

24.021.0

19.844.5

46.949.3

60.3

47.2

66.1

1.2

25.0

20.4

33.8

46.3

58.2

68.2

11.2

23.7

35.038.7

49.6

2.4

58.2

31.0

13.0

2.5

1.3

2.5

1.2

1.2

2.9

2.9

1.5

1.5

1.2

1.0

3.11.7

1.4

1.5

42.0

58.0

45.0

38.5

2.2

1.2

1.9

1.4

1.3

1.9

225 VC

225 VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225 VC

225 VC

225 VC

225

VC 225 VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

225

VC

2.8

2.3

5.3

2.0

5.2

2.4

150 o

PVC

100

CICL

600

DICL

100 CICL

250

PE

150 o

PVC

N0m 5m 10m 15m 20m

Plan 1 of 1Copyright Reserved Sydney Water 2016

Date of Production: 01/07/2016

A4

SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION

DBYD Address: 401 Liverpool RoadStrathfield NSW2135

DBYD Job No: 10902032

DBYD Sequence No: 53935965No warranty is given that the information shown is complete or accurate.

Scale: 1:1000



APPENDIX C

Borehole Logs (4 Sheets)

1.04

m15

/07/

2016

SPT terminated at 2.55m

Han

d A

uger

Sol

id F

light

Aug

er -

TC

bit

GC

ML

CH

FILL- Clayey Gravel With Sand, grey /brown / orange, fine to coarse gravel, brick,cobble.

SILT- grey-brown.

Silty CLAY- grey-brown, medium to highplasticty.

SILTSTONE- extremely weathered withestimated low to medium strength.

Practical refusal at 2.60mTC bit refusal on weathered siltstonebedrock

loose

soft

stiff

very stiff

Gro

utB

ento

nite

Coa

rse

San

d50

mm

Ø S

cree

nC

ave-

in

0.000.05

0.10

0.15

0.40

1.10

1.30

2.45

2.50

AC070716-010.1-0.2m

AC070716-020.4-0.5m

AC070716-031.1-1.4m

0.50.52

N=2

15

moist

moist

moist

Samples/ Tests

Wat

er L

evel

Surface: asphalt

Observations / Comments

Northing:

Sheet:

7/07/2016

BH1

G16089STR

1 of 1

Ute Mounted Drill Rig

Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:

Andy ChiemLogged By:

Wet

7/07/2016

7/07/2016

Hole Depth:

Dp

Geotechnical Investigation

Equipment:

Client:

----------

2.60 m

Drill Method:

Checked By:

DampSlightly Moist

Drilling Company:

Date Completed: Easting:

Very Moist

FICO Date Started:

Dry

Project Name:


SM

Date:

D

----------

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd

Moisture Additional Comments

M

Location / Site:

19/07/2016Date:Stephen McCormack

----------

Solid Flight Auger

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

Geo Environmental Engineering Pty Ltd

82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361D

epth

(m

)

1.0

2.0

3.0

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E D

AV

IES

BH

LO

G G

1608

9S

TR

.GP

J G

EE

.GD

T 2

9/7

/16

8:1

5:59

AM

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol

Material Description

Con

sist

ency

/D

ensi

ty

Wel

l Det

ails

Wel

l Con

stru

ctio

n

ID No. SPT

Moi

stur

e

Fill

Nat

ural

Bed

rock

Mat

eria

l Typ

e

borehole was dry upon completion

Han

d A

uger

SF

A

GP

CL

CH

FILL- Sandy Gravel, grey, fine to coarse gravel,fine to coarse grained.

FILL- Silty Clay, grey / brown, low to mediumplasticity, some fine to coarse gravel.

Silty CLAY- light grey mottled orange, medium tohigh plasticty.

SILTSTONE- orange-brown, extremely weatheredwith estimated low to medium strength.

Practical refusal at 0.85mTC bit refusal on weathered siltstone bedrock

loose

stiff

stiff

AC070716-040.1-0.2m

AC070716-050.2-0.3m

AC070716-060.6-0.7m

moist

moist

moist

Samples/ Tests

Wat

er L

evel

Surface: asphalt


Northing:

Sheet:

7/07/2016

BH2

G16089STR

1 of 1


Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:


Wet

7/07/2016

7/07/2016

Hole Depth:

Dp


Equipment:

Client:

----------

0.85 m

Drill Method:

Checked By:

DampSlightly Moist

Drilling Company:


Very Moist

FICO Date Started:

Dry

Project Name:


SM

Date:

D

----------

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd


M

Location / Site:


----------

Solid Flight Auger



82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361D

epth

(m

)

1.0

2.0

3.0

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E D

AV

IES

BH

LO

G G

1608

9S

TR

.GP

J G

EE

.GD

T 2

9/7

/16

8:1

6:01

AM

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol


Con

sist

ency

/D

ensi

ty

ID No.

Moi

stur

e

Fill

Nat

.M

ater

ial T

ype

borehole was dry upon completionSPT terminated at 1.14m

Han

d A

uger

Sol

id F

light

Aug

er -

TC

bit

GP

CL

CH

FILL- Gravelly Sand, grey / brown, fine tocoarse gravel, fine to coarse grained.

FILL- Silty Clay, dark grey, low to mediumplasticity.

Silty CLAY- orange / brown.

SILTSTONE- light grey, ironstained,extremely weathered with estimated low tomedium strength.

Practical refusal at 1.15mTC bit refusal on weathered siltstonebedrock

loose

firm

stiff

AC070716-070.1-0.2m

AC070716-080.2-0.3m

AC070716-090.4-0.5m

20

moist

moist

moist

Samples/ Tests

Wat

er L

evel

Surface: asphalt


Northing:

Sheet:

7/07/2016

BH3

G16089STR

1 of 1


Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:


Wet

7/07/2016

7/07/2016

Hole Depth:

Dp


Equipment:

Client:

----------

1.15 m

Drill Method:

Checked By:

DampSlightly Moist

Drilling Company:


Very Moist

FICO Date Started:

Dry

Project Name:


SM

Date:

D

----------

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd


M

Location / Site:


----------

Solid Flight Auger



82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361D

epth

(m

)

1.0

2.0

3.0

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E D

AV

IES

BH

LO

G G

1608

9S

TR

.GP

J G

EE

.GD

T 2

9/7

/16

8:1

6:02

AM

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol


Con

sist

ency

/D

ensi

ty

ID No. SPT

Moi

stur

e

Fill

Nat

ural

Mat

eria

l Typ

e

ORGANICS

PushtubeSolid Flight Auger

PWSSFA

Hand AugerHA

WELL GRAPHICS

TOPSOILASPHALT

GE

E L

EG

EN

D *

* 2

9/10

/09

5:0

4:07

PM

ABBREVIATIONSPT

Standing Water

Encountered Water

Hollow Flight Auger

Percussion Window Sampler

WATER LEVELS

FILL

HFA

Gravel Pack

Cuttings

Grout

Screen

Cave-in

Bentonite

CONCRETE

ESTUARINE MUD

Sandy Silty CLAY

Silty Sandy CLAY

Silty Gravelly CLAY

Gravelly Silty CLAY

Sandy Gravelly CLAY

Gravelly Sandy CLAY

Sandy Clayey GRAVEL

Clayey Sandy GRAVEL

Clayey Silty GRAVEL

Sandy Silty GRAVEL

Silty Clayey GRAVEL

Silty Sandy GRAVEL

Sandy Clayey SILT

Clayey Sandy SILT

Sandy Gravelly SILT

Clayey Gravelly SILT

Gravelly Sandy SILT

Gravelly Clayey SILT

Silty Clayey SAND

Clayey Silty SAND

Gravelly Silty SAND

Clayey Gravelly SAND

Silty Gravelly SAND

Gravelly Clayey SAND

CLAY & SAND

CLAY & SILT

CLAY & GRAVEL

SAND & CLAY

SAND & SILT

SAND & GRAVEL

SILT & CLAY

SILT & SAND

SILT & GRAVEL

GRAVEL & SAND

GRAVEL & CLAY

GRAVEL & SILT

Gravelly CLAY

Silty CLAY

Sandy CLAY

CLAY GRAVEL

Clayey GRAVEL

Sandy GRAVEL

Silty GRAVELGravelly SILT

SILT

Clayey SILT

Sandy SILT

Gravelly SAND

Clayey SAND

SAND

Silty SAND

Log Report Legend

MUDSTONE /CLAYSTONE

SHALE /CLAYSTONE

SHALE /SILTSTONE

SHALE /SANDSTONE

CLAYSTONE

PORCELLANITE

SANDSTONE SHALE

GNEISS

GRANITE

MUDSTONE

BASALT

IRONSTONE

Geo Environmental Engineering82 Bridge Street Lane Cove NSW 2066E [email protected]

MATERIAL SYMBOL

R G I R 401-405 R S NSW · Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) desktop search for underground services, Visual appraisal of the site conditions and locality, ... engineer, and comprised: The

Documents