13 mount st, mount druitt nsw · 16th july 2019 ref: gs7665-1a 13 mount st, mount druitt nsw...

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

13 Mount St,

Mount Druitt NSW

Prepared for

Blue Fountain Trust

c/- Marchese Partners International

Report No. GS7665-1A

26th July 2019

26th July 2019

Ref: GS7665-1A 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW

Geotechnical Investigation Report

_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

Copy No. Custodian Location

_________________________________________________________________________

1 Shyam Ghimire Chameleon (Library)

2 Blue Fountain Trust

c/- Marchese Partners International

1/53 Walker St, North Sydney NSW

3 (Electronic) Concha Abascal [email protected]

Peter de Angelis [email protected]

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

document.

It is expected that these custodians would be responsible for:

The storage of the document.

Ensuring prompt incorporation of amendments.

Making the document available to pertinent personnel within the organisation.

Encouraging observance of the document by such personnel.

Making the document available for audit.

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Revision No. Issue Date Description

_____________________________________________________________________

0 25/07/2019 Draft

1 26/07/2019 Full report

Issued By:

Shyam Ghimire

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1

3. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................. 1

4. SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 2

6.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 2

6.2 Ground Profile .................................................................................................................................... 3

6.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 4

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 4

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 4

7.2 Excavation Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4

7.3 Vibration Control ............................................................................................................................... 5

7.4 Stability of Excavation ....................................................................................................................... 5

7.5 Earth Pressures .................................................................................................................................. 7

7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks ........................................................................................... 9

7.7 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................... 10

7.8 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................. 11

7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification .................................................................................. 12

8. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 12

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions 3

Table 2: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity 5

Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary) 6

Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 7

Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 8

Table 6: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Temporary Anchors 9

Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities 10

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

APPENDIX B SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1)

APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX D CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E POINT LOAD TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX F LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

REFERENCES

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

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

Earthquake actions in Australia.

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

Residential Developments.

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

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

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

Sydney Region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998.

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

Salinity”, 2002

16th July 2019


Geotechnical Investigation Report Page 1 of 13

1. INTRODUCTION

Chameleon Pty Ltd (Chameleon) has been commissioned by Blue Fountain Trust c/-

Marchese Partners International, to carry out a geotechnical site investigation at No. 13

Mount Street, Mt Druitt NSW. The site investigation was carried out on the 27th and 28th

June 2019 and was followed by geotechnical interpretation, assessment and preparation of a

geotechnical report.

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

geotechnical perspective, of the site for a proposed development.

This report presents results of the geotechnical site investigation, testing, interpretation, and

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

recommendations for design and construction of ground structures for the proposed

development.

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

Your Geotechnical Report” attached as Appendix A.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION

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

Chameleon:

Pre-DA plans produced by Marchese Partners, including site plan, floor plans,

sections, Project Number 18052, Drawing Numbers 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.01, 2.02,

2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 4.01, 4.02 & DA, Revision 2, issued March

2019.

Pre-Application Meeting minutes with Blacktown Council dated 14 May 2019, PAM

Number C19/13485.

3. SCOPE OF WORK

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

by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from Chameleon, following in general the

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

following:

A site walk-over inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer in order to determine the

overall surface conditions and to identify relevant site features.

Review of DBYD plans and service locating carried out using a specialist sub-

contractor to ensure that the investigation area is free from underground utilities.

Machine drilling of two boreholes to approximately 12.0m depth below ground

level. Each borehole was drilled to TC-bit refusal followed by NMLC coring.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were conducted in the boreholes at regular

intervals during drilling to assess the in-situ soil strength as practicable.

Installation of two standpipe piezometers for measurements of groundwater level

with one subsequent visit for measurement of the standing groundwater level.

Photographs of the rock samples were taken after placement of the samples into the

core boxes.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


Representative samples were taken during augering for subsequent laboratory

testing

Following the site investigation, laboratory testing on soil and rock core samples was carried

out, comprising;

Point Load Index Tests - 14 core samples

Salinity and Aggressivity Testing

The approximate location of the boreholes completed during the geotechnical site

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

Boreholes BH101, BH102, were augered to TC-bit refusal at depths of approximately 4.3m

and 6.0m below ground level (bgl), respectively, thence continued using NMLC rock coring

techniques to final depths of approximately 12.22m, 12.00m respectively.

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

geotechnical interpretation and assessment of the main potential geotechnical issues that may

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

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

relevant comments and recommendations relating to the proposed works.

4. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is a rectangular shaped lot of which an L-shaped part of the eastern half will be re-

developed for underground parking and three above ground levels for a commercial use

development. The part to be re-developed currently comprises an asphalt surfaced on grade

carpark and single storey commercial premises (part of Uncle Buck’s Hotel, and Pizza Hut).

The site is located within the Blacktown City Council area, approximately 240m east of the

main shopping precinct and approximately 500m north-east of the Mt Druitt train station.

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

Part of Uncle Buck’s Hotel and on grade carpark to the west,

Public land comprising grass, trees and a public walkway, to the south of the site;

17 Mount St to the north, and

Mount Street road reserve carriageway and road reserve to the east.

The site and local topography during the investigation was gently sloping towards the west.

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development will comprise a seven storey commercial building with three

basement levels for parking. Maximum excavation for the lowest basement level is to

RL47.3m AHD requiring an excavation depth of up to approximately 10.0m from the current

surface of RL56.90m AHD for construction of the proposed development.

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 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, indicates

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


that the site is located within a geological area underlain by Triassic Age Bringelly Shale

(Rwb) of the Wianamatta Group. The Bringelly Shale is described as “shale, carbonaceous

claystone, laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone, rare coal”.

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

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

from previous earthworks. The investigation confirms the published geology.

6.2 Ground Profile

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

detailed in the appendices as follows;

Appendix C - Engineering Borehole Logs,

Appendix D - Rock Core Photographs, and

Appendix E - Point Load Index Test Results.

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

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Unit Description BH101

(m)

BH102

(m)

Estimated Reduced Level (mAHD) RL 56.9 RL 56.9

Pavement Concrete. 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.3

Residual

Soil

CLAY to Silty CLAY, high plasticity, orange to red brown

+ grey shale gravel. 0.3 - 0.8 0.3 - 2.0

Bedrock

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, extremely low

strength, with clay seams.

Inferred Class V Shale1.

0.8 - 2.9 2.0 - 6.0

SHALE, weakly laminated, grey to olive brown to orange,

highly to moderately weathered, low estimated strength.

Class V Shale2.

2.9 - 4.25 -

SHALE/LAMINITE3, weakly laminated grey, pale grey,

black, olive brown, slightly weathered to fresh, medium

strength.

Class IV Shale/Laminite.

4.25 - 8.96 6.0 - 7.65,

10.31 - 12.00

SANDSTONE, fine grained, pale grey, slightly weathered

to fresh, medium strength.

Class IV Sandstone2.

- 9.50 - 10.31

SHALE, weakly laminated, dark grey, fresh, medium to

high strength.

Class III Shale2.

8.96 - 12.23 7.65 - 9.50

1Based on estimated strength only – to be confirmed during construction 2Rock classes based on the classification in Pells P.J.N, Mostyn G. & Walker B.F. Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in

the Sydney Region, Australian Geomechanics Journal, December 1998 (Reference 6). 3LAMINITE is interlaminated SANDSTONE, pale grey & SILTSTONE, dark grey, approximately 70% Siltstone..

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


6.3 Groundwater

Groundwater seepage was not encountered during augering in the boreholes. Two standpipe

piezometers (wells) were installed in the boreholes on completion of drilling.

Groundwater levels were measured on the 16th July 2019. The groundwater level in borehole

BH101 was at 4.20m bgl (approximate RL 52.7m AHD), and the groundwater level in

BH102 was at 5.40m bgl (approximate RL 51.5m AHD).

It is inferred that natural groundwater levels may be in the form of seepage along the soil

rock interface, joints, fissures and natural defects in the underlying weathered bedrock.

Further, it should be noted that groundwater levels may be subject to seasonal and daily

fluctuations influenced by factors such as rainfall and future development of the surrounding

lands. Soil moisture within the site may also be influenced by other events such as breakage

of water mains, or stormwater pipes.

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 General

Groundwater levels encountered within the piezometers indicate groundwater to be present

at a depth of approximately 4.20m to 5.40m bgl (approximate RL 52.7m to RL 51.5m AHD).

Based on maximum basement excavation depths of approximately 9.6m to achieve a

basement level of RL47.3m AHD, it is considered that groundwater levels may be up to 5.4m

below the lowest basement floor level, and would be within the underlying weathered

bedrock.

Consideration needs to be given to specific geotechnical issues including excavation

stability, foundation conditions, and temporary shoring. Geotechnical commentary regarding

these geotechnical constraints and recommendations for the proposed development is

presented in the following sections.

7.2 Excavation Conditions

Observations made during the investigation indicates that excavation is expected to be

through fill, residual soils, and then shale and sandstone bedrock of generally low and

medium strength becoming high strength in some areas.

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

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

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

where high strength bands are encountered.

For medium (or greater) strength rock, excavation will require the use of heavy ripping

and/or hydraulic rock hammers. Excavation for foundations or trenches will require the use

of hydraulic hammers and possibly a rock saw. Both noise and vibration will be generated

by the proposed excavation work within these bedrock materials.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


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

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

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

7.3 Vibration Control

It is recommended that a vibration monitoring plan be adopted and developed to monitor the

potential vibration effects on nearby existing buildings and infrastructures during excavation.

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

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

be complemented with saw cutting or other appropriate methods prior to excavation. Rock

saw cutting should be carried out using an excavator mounted rock saw, or similar, so as to

minimise transmission of vibrations to any adjoining properties that may be affected.

Hammering is not recommended and should be avoided. However, if necessary, hammering

should be carried out horizontally along bedding planes of (pre-cut) broken rock blocks or

boulders where possible and at the required operational limit to ensure noise levels are

restricted to limits acceptable to adjacent residents.

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

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

excavation should not be exceeded.

It is recommended that monitoring is carried out during excavation using a vibration

monitoring instrument (seismograph) or similar monitoring equipment and alarm levels

(being the appropriate PPV) selected in accordance with the type of structures present within

the zone of influence of the proposed excavation.

Table 2: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

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

Historical or structures in sensitive conditions 2

Residential and low rise buildings 5

Brick or unreinforced structures in good condition 10

Commercial and industrial buildings or structures of

reinforced concrete or steel construction. 25

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

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

contacted immediately for appropriate reviews.

7.4 Stability of Excavation

The following temporary batter slopes may be considered for areas where sufficient space

exists between the proposed basement and the boundaries, and where any adjacent buildings

(or infrastructure) are located outside a zone of influence obtained by drawing a line up at

45° from the toe of the proposed excavation. Recommended maximum slopes for temporary

batters are provided in Table 3 below.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


Table 3: Recommended Batter Slopes (Temporary)

Material Max. Batter Slope (H:V)

Fill and Residual Soils 1.5:1

Class V Shale 1:1

Class IV Shale/Sandstone 0.75:1

Class III Shale Semi-Vertical1 1Subject to inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess stability and provide recommendations as required.

As excavation of the proposed basement will be up to 9.6m below the ground level, and due

to the potential for the close proximity of the basement with the boundaries, the use of

temporary batter slopes may be unsuitable in some areas, and therefore temporary shoring

should be provided. Shoring design should consider both short term (construction) and

permanent conditions as well as the presence of adjacent buildings and roads.

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

development, excavation support may be achieved by adopting a soldier pile wall

arrangement with concrete infill panels and a pile spacing of approximately 1.0m to 2.0m.

Closer spaced piles may be required to prevent collapse of infill materials or reduce wall

movements particularly where retaining surcharged or sloping ground. The use of strip drains

behind the piles would be prudent in limiting the amount of groundwater water ingress.

In areas where a more robust system of retention is required (e.g. adjacent to buildings or to

limit lateral movement), consideration may be given to the use of a contiguous pile wall. The

use of contiguous pile walls allow a small gap between piles which could allow groundwater

inflow during excavation. The use of strip drains behind the piles and shot-creting in weak

areas susceptible to inflow during excavation, can limit the amount of groundwater ingress.

For the maximum retained height being considered, a temporary anchorage system is likely

to be required to provide lateral support during construction. Where the retained height is

such that tolerable wall movements can be achieved using a cantilevered wall arrangement

(up to 3.0m) or where only one row of anchors is required to provide lateral support, a

triangular pressure distribution may be adopted for derivation of active pressures. Where two

or more rows of anchors are required to support the shoring due to significant retained height

or where significant lateral movements cannot be tolerated (e.g. due to adjacent

infrastructure), the shoring/basement wall should be designed as a braced structure.

Anchor designs should be based on allowing effective bonding to be developed behind an

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

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

provide permanent restraint to the retaining walls where these are incorporated into the

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

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

anchors into the permanent works to control deflections.

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

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

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


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

options include the following:

Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged excavation.

Staged excavations and temporary partial berms in front of walls.

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

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

within the basement level underneath the floor slabs.

Detailed design of anchored or propped retaining walls should utilise commercial software

packages such as WALLAP or PLAXIS that can model the sequence of anchor installation

and excavation to ensure deflections are within tolerable limits. The design of retaining

structures should to take into account horizontal pressures due to surcharge loads from any

adjacent infrastructure. The shoring wall and anchors can be designed using the

recommended parameters provided in Section 7.5 below.

Detailed construction supervision, monitoring and inspections will be required during piling

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

Professional, in addition to inspection of the structural elements by the Project Structural

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

It is also recommended that monitoring of ground stability and settlement around the

perimeter of the excavation will be carried out during excavation using suitable monitoring

methods in accordance with the type of structures present within the zone of influence of the

proposed excavation.

7.5 Earth Pressures

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

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

zone of influence, including existing structures, traffic and construction related activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

horizons underlying the site are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls

Units

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Effective

Cohesion c’

(kPa)

Angle of

Friction

′()

Modulus of

Elasticity Esh

(MPa)

Residual Soils 19 5 24 7

Class V Shale 22 25 27 65

Class IV Shale/ Laminite/

Sandstone 22 50 28 150

Class III Shale. 24 100 32 400

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


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

rocks encountered during the geotechnical investigation. The coefficients provided are

based on horizontal ground surface and fully drained conditions.

Table 5: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Units

Coefficient of

Active Lateral

Earth Pressure

Ka

Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth

Pressure at Rest Ko

Coefficient of

Passive Lateral

Earth Pressure

Kp

Residual Soils 0.42 0.59 2.37

Class V Shale 0.3 0.5 3.0

Class IV Shale/Sandstone

Class III Shale 0.25 0.4 5.0

If present, adverse jointing systems in the rock may result in higher active earth

pressures than those outlined above. Potential areas of block or wedge failure should

therefore be identified during construction and appropriate stabilization measures

adopted.

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

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

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

Jacky’s equation.

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

prior to use in the design of retaining walls. Simplified calculations of lateral active (or at

rest) and passive earth pressures can be carried out for cantilever walls using Rankine’s

equation shown below:

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

= Bulk density (kN/m3)

K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)

Kp = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure

H = Retained height (m)

c = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)

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

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

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


Table 6: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Temporary Anchors

Units Allowable Bond Stress (kPa)

Class V Shale 50

Class IV Shale/ Laminite/Sandstone 100

Class III Shale 150

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

for the parameters recommended above providing:

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

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

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

should constitute as a “Hold Point”.

7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks

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

pavements:

Strip topsoil and remove any unsuitable material from site.

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

remove to spoil.

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

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

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

excavated and replaced with approved fill material.

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

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

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

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

material be removed and suitably conditioned to meet the design assumptions where

fill material is proposed to be used.

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

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

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

subgrade to achieve adequate strength for the proposed building platforms.

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

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

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

platforms of the proposed dwellings;

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

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

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

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

should constitute as “Hold Points”.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


7.7 Foundations

Bulk excavation is mainly likely to expose variable strength bedrock mainly comprising

medium strength to high strength Class IV/III Shale or Laminite

Suitable footings are therefore likely to comprise a reinforced concrete raft slab with pad and

strip footings achieved by slab thickening to support columns and walls respectively, where

suitable bedrock is exposed at bulk excavation level and piles to transfer loads to stronger

rock where suitable bedrock is not encountered at bulk excavation level.

It is recommended that all foundations be founded on consistent bedrock to minimise the

risk of long term differential settlement. This could be achieved by foundations constructed

on suitable bedrock where exposed at bulk excavation level and pile foundations where

higher bearing capacity is required. Installation of piles is expected to be required in cases

where axial loads on columns and walls, exceed the bearing pressure of the bedrock present

at bulk excavation level.

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

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

in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2870-2011 (Reference 4) and AS 2159-2009

(Reference 5), respectively.

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

foundations.

Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities

Unit

Allowable Capacity Values (kPa)

End Bearing

Pressure1

Shaft Adhesion

Compression

(Tension)2

Residual Soils 100 N/A3

Class V Shale 700 35 (15)

Class IV Shale 1,000 100 (50)

Class IV Sandstone 2,000 200 (100)

Class III Shale/Laminite 3,500 300 (150) 1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for deep foundations and 0.4m for shallow foundations. 2 Clean rock socket of roughness of at least grooves of depth 1mm to 4mm and width greater than 5mm at spacing of 50mm to 200mm.Shaft Adhesion in Tension is 50% of Compression, applicable to piles only. 3 N/A, Not Applicable, not recommended for the proposed building of this development. 4The actual depth of the underlying Class III Shale should be confirmed during construction if required to support foundations

Shaft adhesion may be applied to socketed piles adopted for foundations provided 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 bands is evident over socket lengths.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


Where the piles penetrate soils that are susceptible to shrinkage and swelling, we recommend

that the shaft adhesion be ignored in the zone of seasonal moisture variations due to the

potential of shrinkage cracking.

Due to expected groundwater levels, bored piles (if adopted) may require dewatering as well

as liners to support any overburden soils. Some over break and fretting should be allowed

for. Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles may be considered as a suitable alternative to bored

piles in the case of elevated groundwater levels which could occur as a result of seasonal

variations to groundwater levels, flooding, broken water mains, etc.

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should review footing designs to ensure compliance

with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and assess foundation excavations to

ensure suitable materials of appropriate bearing capacity have been reached. The presence

of water within foundation excavations may negate satisfactory examination of founding

surfaces and certification of founding materials quality. Foundation inspections should only

be undertaken under conditions satisfying WHS requirements.

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

required and inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.

7.8 Groundwater Management

Groundwater inflow is expected during excavation (based on groundwater depth of 4.2-

5.4m) and therefore consideration should be given to seepage flows through soils and

weathered bedrock during excavation and in the long term during the design life of the

building.

It would therefore be prudent to give consideration to precautionary drainage measures in

the design and construction of the proposed development. Such measures could include the

following:

Strip drains or drainage materials should be installed behind the shoring/retaining

walls in conjunction with collection trenches or pipes and pits connected to the

building stormwater system. A temporary storage tank and pump system may be

required.

Any groundwater seepage and surface water infiltration may be controlled by a sump

and pump methods during construction.

The provision of suitable basement drainage should mitigate against the need for

waterproofing of basement slabs and walls. It should be noted that groundwater behaviour

may be influenced by the seasonal variations in groundwater level resulting from heavy

rainfall, flooding, damaged services, etc.

It is also recommended that monitoring of the ground water table around the perimeter of the

excavation will be carried out during excavation using suitable monitoring methods. The

greater the drawdown of the water table, the higher the risk of settlement in the surrounding

area and potential damage to roads, buildings, underground services, etc.

A site specific Ground Water Management Plan needs to be prepared and implemented

during the excavation to minimise such risk.

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification

The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of topsoil overlying residual clay

soils to a depth of 2.0m (varying within the site), and underlain by variable strength shale

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

be classified as a “Rock” (Class Be) for design of foundations and retaining walls embedded

in the underlying bedrock. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Sydney in accordance with AS 1170.4-

2007 is considered to be 0.08.

7.10 Laboratory Test Results

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

Chloride, and Sulphate tests on three soil or extremely weathered shale samples collected

from boreholes BH101 and BH102, indicate that the soil samples collected are

non-aggressive to concrete piles or structures in low permeability soils, based on

the Chloride and Sulphate test results, but mild to moderately aggressive based on

the pH test results.

non-aggressive to steel piles or structures in low permeability soils, based on the

Chloride and pH test results, but mild to moderately aggressive based on the

Electrical Conductivity / Resistivity test results.

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

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

the lifetime of the pile.

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

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

– 2002 (Reference 7), the resultant electrical conductivity of saturated extracts (ECe) ranged

from approximately 3.6-6.6 dS/m , indicating a “slightly to moderately saline” environment.

8. LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical assessment of the subsurface profile and geotechnical conditions within

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

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

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

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

exploratory tests are made, but cannot be guaranteed.

It is recommended that should ground conditions including subsurface and groundwater

conditions, encountered during construction and excavation vary substantially from those

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

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

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

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

solely for the use of Blue Fountain Trust c/o Marchese Partners International and any

26th July 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________________


reliance assumed by third parties on this report shall be at such parties’ own risk. Any

ensuing liability resulting from use of the report by third parties cannot be transferred to

Chameleon Pty Ltd, directors or employees.

For and on behalf of

Chameleon Pty Ltd

Reviewed By

Rafael Furniss

Senior Engineering Geologist

Shyam Ghimire

Principal

APPENDIX A

______________________________ INFORMATION ABOUT GEOTECH REPORT

Chameleo

Page 1 of 2 March 2019

C HAM ELEON GEOSCIENCES

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

More construction problems are caused by site subsurface

conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as

subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have

been lessened considerably in recent years, due in large

measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The

Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the

Geosciences.

The following suggestions and observations are offered to

help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost-

overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a

construction project.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS

BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC

FACTORS

A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface

exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of

project-specific factors. These typically include the general

nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration,

the location of the structure on the site and its orientation,

physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and

underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which

the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the

exploratory program.

To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical

engineer to determine how any factors which change

subsequent to the date of the report may affect its

recommendations.

Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates

otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should NOT

be used:

➢ when the nature of the proposed structure is changed: for

example, if an office building will be erected instead of

a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be

built instead of an un-refrigerated one,

➢ when the size or configuration of the proposed

structure is altered.

➢ when the location or orientation of the proposed structure

is modified.

➢ when there is a change of ownership, or for application to

an adjacent site.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for

problems which may develop if they are not consulted

after factors considered in their report's development have

changed.

Geotechnical reports present the results of investigations

carried out for a specific project and usually for a specific

phase of the project. The report may not be relevant for

other phases of the project, or where project details change.

The advice herein relates only to this project and the scope of

works provided by the Client.

Soil and Rock Descriptions are based on AS1726- 1993,

using visual and tactile assessment except at discrete

locations where field and/or laboratory tests have been carried

out. Refer to the attached terms and symbols sheets for

definitions.

MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at

those points where samples are taken, when they are taken.

Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory

testing are extrapolated by geotechnical engineers who then

render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, their

likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and

appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal

circumstances actual conditions may differ from those

inferred to exist, because no geotechnical engineer, no matter

how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no

matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by

earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials

may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates.

Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from

predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the

unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize

their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners

retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction

stage, to identify variances, conduct additional tests which may

be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems

encountered on site.

SUB SURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE

Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly changing

natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineering report is

based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface

exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a

geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have

been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical

consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before

construction starts.

Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural

events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations

may also affect subsurface conditions, and thus, the continuing

adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer

should be kept apprised of any such events and should be

consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.

Subsurface conditions can change with time and can vary

between test locations. Construction activities at or adjacent to

the site and natural events such as flood, earthquake or

groundwater fluctuations can also affect the subsurface

conditions.

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR

SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS

Geotechnical engineers’ reports are prepared to meet the

specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for

a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a

construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil

engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared

expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes

indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any

purpose, or by the client for a different purpose, may result in

problems.

No individual other than the client should apply this report

for its intended purpose without first conferring with the

geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report

for any purpose other than that originally contemplated

without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION

Chameleo

Page 2 of 2 March 2019

C HAM ELEON GEOSCIENCES

Costly problems can occur when other design

professional develop their plans based on

misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report.

To help avoid these problems, the geotechnical

engineer should be retained to work with other

appropriate design professionals to explain relevant

geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of

their plans and specifications r e l a t i v e to geotechnical

i s s u e s .

The interpretation of the discussion and recommendations

contained in this report are based on

extrapolation/interpretation from data obtained at discrete

locations. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or

investigated may differ from those predicted

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM

THE ENGINEERING REPORT

Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical

engineers based upon their interpretation of field logs

(assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation

of field samples. Only final boring logs c u s t o m a r i l y

are included in geotechnical engineering reports.

These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn

for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings

because drafters may commit errors or omissions in

the transfer process. Although photographic

reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to

m i n i m i z e the possibility of contractors

misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When

this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are

the all-too-frequent result.

To minimize the likelihood of boring log

misinterpretation, give contractors ready access in the

complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or

a u t h o r i z e d for their use. Those who do not provide

such access may proceed under mistaken impression

that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy

of subsurface information always insulates them from

attendant liability. Providing the best available

i n f o r m a t i o n t o contractors helps prevent costly

construction problems and the adversarial attitudes

which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.

READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on

judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other

design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical

consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in written

transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed

to foist geotechnical engineers’ liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify

where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and

end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.

Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in

your geotechnical engineering report, and you are

encouraged to read them closely. Your geotechnical

engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to

your questions.

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to

discuss other techniques which can be employed to

mitigate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety

of materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for

a complimentary copy of its publication’s directory.

FURTHER GENERAL NOTES

Groundwater levels indicated on the logs are taken at the

time of measurement and may not reflect the actual

groundwater levels at those specific locations. It should be

noted that groundwater levels can fluctuate due to seasonal

and tidal activities.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be

reproduced either totally or in part without the express

permission of the Company. Where information from this

report is to be included in contract documents or engineering

specifications for the project, the entire report should be

included in order to minimize the likelihood of

misinterpretation.

APPENDIX B

_______________________________ SITE PLAN

Source: Demolition Plan issued by Marchese Partners (07/03/2019), Job No. 18052, Drawing No. DA 1.04, Revision 02.

Drawn by KX 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt, NSW

Geotechnical Investigation

Mixed Use Development

Blue Fountain Trust

Figure 1

Checked by RF

Title Borehole Locations Date 24/07/2019

Scale @ A3 NTS Job No. GS7665-1A

LEGEND

BH- Borehole and Well Location

BH101

BH-101

Boreholes

PRE-DA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

BH102

Approximate Area of the

Proposed Re-development

APPENDIX C

______________________________ ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS

AD

T PAVEMENT

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK

TC bit refusal at 4.25m.

SPT9, 13, 15

N=28

SPT10, R

CH

CONCRETE. 300mm.

Silty CLAY to CLAY, high plasticity, orange, red-brown. Moist, stiff.

SHALE, weakly laminated, pale grey, orange, with bands of stiff CLAY.

SHALE, laminated, pale grey, orange, extremely weathered, extremely lowestimated strength.

SHALE, laminated, pale grey, moderately weathered, low estimatedstrength.

SHALE, laminated, olive brown, orange, slightly weathered, mediumestimated strength

Borehole BH101 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er

Additional ObservationsSamples

TestsRemarks

BOREHOLE NUMBER BH101PAGE 1 OF 4

COMPLETED 27/6/19DATE STARTED 27/6/19

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling

LOGGED BY ST CHECKED BY RF

NOTES Depths and subsurface conditions are approximate.

HOLE LOCATION Refer to site mapEQUIPMENT Truck mounted rig

HOLE SIZE

R.L. SURFACE 56.9 DATUM m AHD

SLOPE 90° BEARING ---

CLIENT Blue Fountain Trust

PROJECT NUMBER GS 7665-1A

PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation

PROJECT LOCATION 13 Mount St, Mount Druitt NSW

BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1

9Aargus6 Cater StreetLidcombeTelephone: 1300137038

WellDetails

RL(m)

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

52.5

52.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log

Material Description

SW

EW

SW

EW

NM

LC

A0.4

D0.08

83

SHALE, laminated at 0-10°, olive, olive brown,orange.

Continued from non-cored borehole

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %







HOLE SIZE







CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails


RL(m)

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

52.5

52.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Gra

phic

Log

SWSW

FR

FRHWFREWSW

EWFR

FR

5.23m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN.

5.69m. JT, 80-90°, IR, RO, VN, iron oxides,discontinous5.8m, BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN

6.22m, BP, 0-10°, PL, RO, CN

6.57m, EW Seam, 0°, PL, 20mm6.64m. EW, Seam, 0°, PL, 10mm

6.97m. EW Seam, 0°, PL, 40mm

7.08m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN

7.16-7.29m. Defects are BP, 0-10°, PL,RO/SM, CN, ave. spacing 16mm

7.55m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN

7.94m. BP, 10-20°, PL, RO, PL, CO, clay.

8.15m. BP, 20°,PL, SM, CN8.22m. BP, 10-20°, PL, SM, VN, clay

8.51m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.54m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.57m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN8.67m. BP, 20°, PL, SM, CN8.75m. BP, 0-10°, IR, SM, CN

8.85m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN

8.96m. BP, 0-20°, IR, SM, CN

9.46-9.60m. Drilling breaks

NM

LC

A0.59

A1.6

A0.88

A0.77

A0.76

D0.12

D0.1

D0.3

D0.16

D0.12

8379

8279

16 J

uly

2019

SHALE, laminated at 0-10°, olive, olive brown,orange. (continued)

SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, olive green.

LAMINITE, interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.

NO CORE. 190mm.

LAMINITE, indistinctly bedded at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.

SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-10°, grey toblack.

NO CORE. 120mm.


Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %







HOLE SIZE







CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails


RL(m)

51.5

51.0

50.5

50.0

49.5

49.0

48.5

48.0

47.5

47.0

Depth(m)

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Gra

phic

Log

FR

10.86m. JT, 45-80°, UN, SM, CN

11.13m. BP, 0-20°, PL, RO, CN

11.24m. BP, 0-20°, PL, SM, CN

11.65m. BP, 0-5°, PL, SM, VN, clay

11.80m. BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN

NM

LC

A1.04

A0.88

A0.74

D0.24

D0.24

D0.2

9210

0

NO CORE. 120mm.


LAMINITE, indistinctly beddedd at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.

BH101 terminated at 12.23m

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %







HOLE SIZE







CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails


RL(m)

46.5

46.0

45.5

45.0

44.5

44.0

43.5

43.0

42.5

42.0

Depth(m)

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Gra

phic

Log

AD

T PAVEMENT

FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK

SPT10, 14, 16

N=30

SPT36/120mm, R

CH

CONCRETE. 300mm.

CLAY, high plasticity, with fine shale gravel. Moist.

CLAY, high plasticity. Moist, stiff.

SHALE, laminated, pale grey, with bands of clay, extremely weathered, verylow estimated strength.

SHALE, laminated, olive brown, extremely weathered, very low estimatedstrength.

Met

hod

Wat

er


TestsRemarks







HOLE SIZE







BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails

RL(m)

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

52.5

52.0

Depth(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T SHALE, laminated, pale grey to dark grey, extremely weathered, very lowestimated strength.

Borehole BH102 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er


TestsRemarks







HOLE SIZE







BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails

RL(m)

51.5

51.0

50.5

50.0

49.5

49.0

48.5

48.0

47.5

47.0

Depth(m)

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


SW

EWSWEWSWEWFR

EWFREWFR

FR

6.23m, BP, 0-10°, SM, RO6.25m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 20mm6.29m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 30mm6.39m.6.40-6.51m. EW zone comprising bands ofShale 5-10mm and clay seams 10-30mm

6.97-7.01m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 40mm7.04m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 30mm

7.42m. BP, 0-45°, CU, SM, CN

8.03m. BP, 0-10°, PL, RO, CN

8.55m, BP, 0-10°, PL, SM, CN

9.08m. JT, 80-90°, PL, SM,

9.2m, BP, 0-5°, PL, SM, CN

9.54m, JT, 0-45°, CU, RO, CN

9.92m, 0-30°, RO, CN

NM

LC A0.4

A0.59

A1.6

A0.88

D0.1

D0.1

D0.08

D0.36

8188

81

16 J

uly

2019

SHALE, weakly laminated at 0-5°, pale grey todark grey, trace (<10%) Sandstone laminations10-20mm at 6.58-6.85m.

SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey.

NO CORE. 160mm.


LAMINITE, indistinctly beddedd at0-10°interbedded SILTSTONE, black andSANDSTONE fine grained to pale grey,laminations mostly 1-50mm.

SANDSTONE, indistinctly bedded at 0°, finegrained, pale grey.

Continued from non-cored borehole

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %







HOLE SIZE







CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails


RL(m)

51.5

51.0

50.5

50.0

49.5

49.0

48.5

48.0

47.5

47.0

Depth(m)

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Gra

phic

Log

FR

EWFREW

FR

FR

10.39m. EW seam, 0°, PL, 10mm10.42-10.50m. EW SM, 0°, PL, 80mm

11.26m, BP, 0-15°, SM, CN

11.41m, BP, 0-20°, SM,CN

11.5m, BP, 0-30°, RO, UN, IR

NM

LC

A0.77

A0.76

A1.04

D0.64

D0.22

D0.26

8169

NO CORE. 90mm

SANDSTONE, indistinctly bedded at 0°, finegrained, pale grey.


NO CORE. 220mm.

SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey, trace(<10%) Sandstone laminations 10-20mm

NO CORE. 160mm.

SHALE, laminated at 0-5°, dark grey, trace(<10%) Sandstone laminations 10-20mm

BH102 terminated at 12m

Wea

ther

ing

diam-etralaxial

30 100

300

1000

3000

EstimatedStrength

EstimatedStrength

Wat

er

EL

VL

L M H VH

EH

Defect Description

DefectSpacing

mm

A-

D-

Met

hod

Is(50)

MPa

RQ

D %







HOLE SIZE







CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7665

MO

UN

T D

RU

ITT

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

25/

7/1


WellDetails


RL(m)

46.5

46.0

45.5

45.0

44.5

44.0

43.5

43.0

42.5

42.0

Depth(m)

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Gra

phic

Log

APPENDIX D

_______________________________ CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

Drawn RF

DHI Hotels Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Site Investigation

No. 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt NSW

Figure 2

Checked RF

Title Rock Core Photographs Date 16/07/2019

Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS7665-1A

Rock Core Photographs. BH101. 4.20m to 12.23m.

Drawn RF

DHI Hotels Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Site Investigation

No. 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt NSW

Figure 3

Checked RF

Title Rock Core Photographs Date 16/07/2019

Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS7665-1A

Rock Core Photographs. BH102. 6.00m to 12.00m. 1

0.0

9m

10

.50

m

APPENDIX E

______________________________ POINT LOAD TEST RESULTS

Chameleon POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX REPORT

Client Blue Fountain Trust Date Tested: 16/07/2019

Address 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt, NSW Job No: GS7665-1A

Borehole

ID

Depth

(m)

Sample

Description

Test

Type

Point Load

Index

Is(50)

UCS

(MPa) Notes

BH101 4.8 Shale Diametral 0.08 1.5 Sample Moist

Axial 0.40 8.0 Sample Moist

















Comments:

UCS –Unconfined Compressive Strength.

Multiplication Factor of 18 was used to calculate UCS.

Sheet 1 of

2

Tested By: ST

Checked By: RF

Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd

Australia (NSW, QLD, VIC, SA), South Korea, Greece, Spain, Lebanon

ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

Chameleon POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX REPORT

Client Blue Fountain Trust Date Tested: 16/07/2019

Address 13 Mount Street, Mount Druitt, NSW Job No: GS7665-1A

Borehole

ID

Depth

(m)

Sample

Description Test Type

Point Load

Index

Is(50)

UCS

(MPa) Notes





BH102 8.21 Laminite Diametral 0.08 1.5 Sample Moist


BH102 9.20 Laminite Diametral 0.36 7.1 Sample Moist


BH102 10.18 Sandstone Diametral 0.64 12.7 Sample Moist






Comments:

UCS –Unconfined Compressive Strength.

Multiplication Factor of 18 was used to calculate UCS.

Sheet

2 of 2

Tested By: ST

Checked By: RF

Chameleon Geosciences Pty Ltd

Australia (NSW, QLD, VIC, SA), South Korea, Greece, Spain, Lebanon ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

APPENDIX F

____________________________________________________________________________

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

3

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

GS7665

GS7665 Mt Druitt

[email protected]

61 1300 136 038

61 1300 137 038

(PO BOX 398, DRUMMOYNE, NSW 1470)

446 Parramatta Road

NSW 2049

AARGUS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Shyam Ghemire

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

25 Jul 2019

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE195437 R0

18 Jul 2019Date Received

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

COMMENTS

Shane McDermott

Inorganic/Metals Chemist

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 525-July-2019

SE195437 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE195437.001

Soil

27 Jun 2019

BH101 0.50-1.00

SE195437.002

Soil

27 Jun 2019

BH101 1.40-1.85

SE195437.003

Soil

27 Jun 2019

BH102 1.50-1.95

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography Method: AN245 Tested: 24/7/2019

Chloride mg/kg 0.25 370 470 730

Sulfate mg/kg 5 170 170 300

pH in soil (1:5) Method: AN101 Tested: 25/7/2019

pH pH Units 0.1 4.7 4.4 4.7

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil Method: AN106 Tested: 25/7/2019

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 as received) µS/cm 1 600 910 990

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) µS/cm 1 680 1000 1100

Moisture Content Method: AN002 Tested: 23/7/2019

% Moisture %w/w 1 11.8 12.1 11.3


SE195437 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.

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 as received) LB179329 µS/cm 1 <1 3% 98%

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) LB179329 µS/cm 1 3% 98%

LORUnits Parameter QC

Reference

Moisture Content Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN002

DUP %RPD

% Moisture LB179076 %w/w 1 8%


Reference

pH in soil (1:5) Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101

DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

pH LB179329 pH Units 0.1 2% 99%


Reference

Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN245

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Chloride LB179287 mg/kg 0.25 <0.25 1% 94%

Sulfate LB179287 mg/kg 5 <5.0 2% 94%


Reference


SE195437 R0

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

METHOD SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating basin.

After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode and is

calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, sediments and sludges, an extract with water (or

0.01M CaCl2) is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA

4500-H+.

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. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a

conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2510 B.

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


SE195437 R0

Unless it is reported that sampling has been performed by SGS, the samples have been 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 and MU criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be

found here: www.sgs.com.au.pv.sgsvr/en-gb/environment.

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

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.

FOOTNOTES

LOR

↑↓

QFH

QFL

-

NVL

Limit of Reporting

Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting

QC result is above the upper tolerance

QC result is below the lower tolerance

The sample was not analysed for this analyte

Not Validated


13 mount st, mount druitt nsw · 16th july 2019 ref: gs7665-1a 13 mount st, mount druitt nsw...

Documents