geotechnical report for 19 holbeche road, arndell …

Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd | ABN 42 605 892 126 PO Box 4069, Carlton NSW 2218

P: 0405 843 933 | E: [email protected]

Geot

echn

ical

Inve

stig

atio

n Re

port

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR

19 HOLBECHE ROAD, ARNDELL PARK NSW

Prepared for:

HOLBECHE RD PTY LTD

Reference: P1426_ 01 rev3

16 August 2018

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd has undertaken a Geotechnical Investigation to provide geotechnical advice and recommendations for the proposed development at 19 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSW (the site).

The site comprises a rectangular block, bounded to the north by Bungarribee Creek and currently used for market gardening with a dam near the northern site boundary.

1.1 Proposed Development Indicative Architectural Plans for the site have been prepared by Nordon-Jago Architecture for project no. ORL00118 dated 29 January 2018. From the drawings provided, Morrow Geotechnics understands that the proposed development involves an industrial development comprising up to 30 industrial units at or near existing grade as well as associated pavements and hardstand parking.

1.2 Investigation Intent The purpose of the investigation is to provide geotechnical advice and recommendations specific to the ground conditions observed at site for the proposed development. These recommendations include:

• Building foundation options, including design parameters. • Lateral earth pressures and pile design parameters. • Lot classification in accordance with AS2870. • Earthquake site classification in accordance with AS1170.4. • Advice on groundwater level if encountered within the depth of investigation. • Advice on geotechnical construction constraints. • Salinity assessment and salinity management plan. • Pavement design parameters (subgrade CBR, MDD, OMC and modulus of subgrade reaction).

1.3 Published Geological Mapping Information on regional sub-surface conditions, referenced from the Department of Mineral Resources Geological Map Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 (DMR 1991), indicates that the site overlies Bringelly Shale of the Wianamatta Group, generally comprising siltstone, claystone, shale, rare coal, lithic sandstone and tuff.

1.4 Published Soil Landscapes The Soil Conservation Service of NSW Penrith 1:100,000 Soil Landscapes Series Sheet 9030 (1st Edition) indicates that the residual landscape at the site likely comprises the Blacktown Landscape. This landscape type typically includes gently undulating rises with broad rounded crests and ridges with gently inclined slopes of typically < 5 %. Soils of the Blacktown Landscape generally comprises shallow to moderately deep (< 1.5 m) red and brown podzolic soils on upper slopes. These soils are noted to be typically moderately reactive and highly plastic.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

2 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Investigation Methods

Fieldwork was undertaken by Morrow Geotechnics on 7 March and 7 August 2018. Work carried out as part of this investigation includes:

• Review of publicly available information from previous reports in the project area, published geological and soil mapping and government agency websites;

• Site walkover inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess topographical features, condition of surrounding structures and site conditions;

• Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) services search of proposed borehole locations; • Drilling of eleven boreholes (BH1 to BH11), drilled by a ute mounted drill rig using solid flight augers

equipped with a tungsten-carbide bit (TC bit). Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) tests were carried out adjacent to borehole locations to assess soil consistency and infer top of rock. Borehole locations are shown on Figure 1 and borehole logs are presented in Appendix A;

• Groundwater observations within boreholes during drilling.

2.2 Subsurface Conditions The stratigraphy at the site is characterised by fill overlying residual clay and shale bedrock. Observations taken during the investigation have been used to produce a stratigraphic model of the site. The observed stratigraphy has been divided into five geotechnical units.

A summary of the subsurface conditions across the site, interpreted from the investigation results, is presented in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions at the test locations are available in the borehole logs presented in Appendix A. The details of the method of soil and rock classification, explanatory notes and abbreviations adopted in the borehole logs are also presented in Appendix A.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INFERRED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Uni

t Material Comments

1 Fill Generally low to medium platicity silt topsoil and silty clay fill associated with the existing dam wall within BH 9 and 10. Unit 1 fill is inferred to be uncontrolled and poorly compacted.

2 Natural Clay Medium to high plasticity silty clay with trace of fine to medium ironstone gravel. Unit 2 is generally of very stiff to hard consistency.

3 Extremely Weathered Shale

Generally extremely weathered, extremely low to very low strength shale.

4 Class IV Shale Generally highly weathered, very low strength shale.

5 Class III Shale Generally moderately weathered, low to medium strength shale grading stronger with depth.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

TABLE 2 ENCOUNTERED GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

Uni

t Material Approx. Depth Range of Unit 1 mBGL

BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5 BH6 BH7 BH8 BH9 BH10 BH11

1 Fill 0.0 to

0.2 0.0 to

0.3 0.0 to

0.4 0.0 to 0.4

0.0 to 0.3

0.0 to 0.4

0.0 to 0.3

0.0 to 0.4

0.0 to 2.2

0.0 to 2.0

0.0 to 1.0

2 Residual Soil

0.2 to 1.1

0.3 to 1.1

0.4 to 3.5

0.4 to 4.0

0.3 to 3.9

0.4 to 4.5

0.3 to 4.5

0.4 to 5.1

2.2 to 5.0

2.0 to 7.8

1.0 to 6.9

3 Class V Shale

1.1 to 2.9

1.1 to 1.4

3.5 to 4.0

- - 4.5 to

5.9 - -

5.0 to 6.1

7.8 to 9.5

6.9 to 8.0

4 Class IV Shale

2.9 to 3.8

1.4 to 1.9

4.0 to 4.5

4.0 to 5.3

3.9 to 5.5

5.9 to 6.5

4.5 to 5.5

5.1 to 6.2

6.1 to 8.2

- 8.0 to

9.5

5 Class III Shale

3.8 + 1.9 + 4.5 + 5.3 + 5.5 + 6.5 + 5.5 + 6.2 + 8.2 + - -

Notes: 1 Depths shown are based on material observed within test locations and will vary across the site.

2.3 Groundwater Observations Groundwater seepage was not noted within the boreholes drilled as part of the current investigation. It is likely that the relatively low permeability of silty clay soils at the site has masked the presence of seepage water within the soil profile, particularly adjacent to the creek on the northern site boundary. As soil permeability is low and excavation is not proposed for basements at the site the proposed development is not anticipated to impact on groundwater.

2.4 Laboratory Test Results Eleven soil samples were selected for salinity testing. A summary of test results is provided in Table 3 and Table 4.

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Sample ID BH1 DS1

BH5 DS1

BH5 DS2

BH5 DS3

BH7 DS1

BH7 DS2

BH7 DS3

Unit

pH - 5.5 6.0 5.2 7.6 8.0 8.1

Conductivity (μS/cm) - 377 220 435 174 179 253

Sulfate (mg/kg) - 1640 770 - 400 310 -

Chloride (mg/kg) - 330 230 - 400 510 -

Exchangeable Sodium % 31.3 - 30.9 - - 26.8 -

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

Sample ID BH1 DS1

BH5 DS1

BH5 DS2

BH5 DS3

BH7 DS1

BH7 DS2

BH7 DS3

Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100g) 19.4 - 23.2 - - 20.8 -

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT DESIGN LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Test/ Sample ID BDS BH1

0.2 to 0.4 mBGL BDS BH5

0.3 to 0.5 mBGL BDS BH7

0.4 to 0.7 mBGL

Material Description 1 Silty CLAY Silty CLAY Silty CLAY

Moisture Content (%) 19.9 18.8 14.4

Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) 1.65 1.75 1.83

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 20.3 19.3 14.8

Swell (%) 3.5 2.0 1.0

California Bearing Ratio (%) 1.5 2.5 4.5

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Excavation Retention

Minor excavation may be necessary for site regrading and services trenches. Temporary batters may be considered for retention during basement excavation only where adequate room for full batter construction is available. Temporary batter slopes of 1V:1H will be possible for all units above the water table provided that surface water is diverted away from the batter faces and batter heights are kept to less than 4m. Where batters extend beyond 4 m height benching may be required and further advice should be sought from a qualified geotechnical engineer. Permanent batters of 2H:1V may be employed for excavation design above the water table. Permanent batters will require surface protection or revegetation to prevent erosion and slaking.

For design of flexible shoring systems a triangular pressure distribution may be employed using the parameters provided in Table 5. For design of rigid anchored or braced walls, a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution should be used with a maximum pressure of 0.65.Ka.γ.H (kPa), where ‘H’ is the effective vertical height of the wall in metres.

TABLE 5 EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS

Material Unit 1 Fill

Unit 2 Residual Soil

Unit 3 Class V Shale

Unit 4 Class IV Shale

Unit 5 Class III Shale

Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)

16 18 22 23 24

Eart

h Pr

essu

re

Coef

ficie

nts

At rest, Ko

0.55 0.50 0.30 0.20 -

Passive, Kp 2.66 3.00 4.00 4.50

700 kPa ultimate stress

block Active,

Ka 0.38 0.33 0.20 0.15 -

Notes: 1 Unit Weight is based on visual assessment only, order of accuracy is approximately ±10%. 2 Earth pressures are provided on the assumption that the ground behind the retaining wall is flat and drained.

In addition, design of retaining walls should consider the following:

• Appropriate surcharge loading from construction equipment, vehicular traffic and neighbouring structures at finished surface level should be taken into account in the retention design. Surcharge loads on retention structures may be calculated using a rectangular stress block with an earth pressure coefficient of 0.5 applied to surcharge loads at ground surface level.

• Anchor design should ignore the contribution of any bonded length within a wedge which extends upwards at 45⁰ from the top of Unit 4 material to account for a failure wedge forming behind the shoring system.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

3.2 Foundation Design The parameters given in Table 6 may be used for the design of pad footings and bored piles. Morrow Geotechnics recommends that a Preliminary Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (GSRF) of 0.4 is used for the design of piles in accordance with AS 2159:2009 if no allowance is made for pile testing during construction. Should pile testing be nominated, the GSRF may be reviewed and a value of 0.55 to 0.65 may be expected.

Ultimate geotechnical strengths are provided for use in limit state design. Allowable bearing pressures are provide for serviceability checks. These values have been determined to limit settlements to an acceptable level for conventional building structures, typically less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension.

TABLE 6 PAD FOOTING AND PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS

Material Unit 1 Fill

Unit 2 Residual

Soil

Unit 3 Class V Shale

Unit 4 Class IV Shale

Unit 5 Class III Shale

Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa)

N/A 200 700 1000 1500

Ultimate Vertical End Bearing Pressure (kPa) N/A 600 2100 3000 4500

Elastic Modulus (MPa) 3 12 50 80 150

Allowable Shaft Adhesion (kPa)

In Compression 0 20 70 100 150

In Tension 0 10 35 50 75

Susceptibility to Liquefaction during an Earthquake

Medium Low Low Low Low

Notes: 1 Side adhesion values given assume there is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material. Design

engineer to check both ‘piston’ pull-out and ‘cone’ pull-out mechanics in accordance with AS4678-2002 Earth Retaining Structures.

2 Susceptibility to liquefaction during an earthquake is based on the following definition: Low - Medium to very dense sands, stiff to hard clays, and rock Medium - Loose to medium dense sands, soft to firm clays, or uncontrolled fill below the water table High - Very loose sands or very soft clays below the water table

To adopt these parameters we have assumed that the bases of all pile excavations are cleaned of loose debris and water and inspected by a suitably qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to pile construction to verify that ground conditions meet design assumptions. Where groundwater ingress is encountered during pile excavation, concrete is to be placed as soon as possible upon completion of pile excavation. Pile excavations should be pumped dry of water prior to pouring concrete, or alternatively a tremmie system could be used.

Selection of footing types and founding depth will need to consider the risk of adverse differential ground movements within the foundation footprint and between high level and deeper footings. Unless an

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

allowance for such movement is included in the design of the proposed development we recommend that all new structures found on natural materials with comparable end bearing capacities and elastic moduli.

3.3 AS1170 Earthquake Site Risk Classification Assessment of the material encountered during the investigation in accordance with the guidelines provided in AS1170.4-2007 indicates an earthquake subsoil class of Class Ce – Shallow Soil for the site.

3.4 Soil Aggressivity Analysis of the pH, chloride & sulfate content and electrical conductivity of the soil against the guidelines provided in AS2159-2009 indicates:

• ‘mildly aggressive’ to buried concrete structural elements; and

• ‘non-aggressive’ to buried steel structural elements.

Laboratory test certificates for aggressivity testing are included in Appendix B.

3.5 Design Subgrade CBR Samples for laboratory testing were chosen to be representative of the natural subgrade material which will be encountered beneath pavement areas. The results of soaked CBR testing conducted on two subgrade samples indicated CBR values of between 1.5 % and 4.5 %. Morrow Geotechnics recommends a design subgrade CBR of 2 % is adopted for pavement design.

For controlled filling depths of less than or equal to 1m, the Japan Road Association method of assessing a weighted subgrade strength can be used, as follows:

CBRW = (DF x CBRF0.33 + (1-DF) x CBRS0.33)3

where: CBRW = weighted subgrade CBR (%) DF = depth of filling (m) CBRF = CBR of filling material (%) CBRS = CBR of subgrade (%)

For example, if a 250 mm deep layer of controlled filling using CBR 30% material is placed over a subgrade with a CBR value of 2%, then a weighted subgrade CBR of 5% can be adopted for design.

3.6 Soil Salinity A soil salinity assessment in accordance with the recommendations of Department of Land and Water Conservation, Site Investigations for Urban Salinity, 2002 has been carried out at the site. The laboratory Electrical Conductivity (EC) has multiplied by a factor varying from 7, based on the texture of the soil samples obtained, to obtain Corrected Electrical Conductivity designated as ECe as presented in Table 7 below. In addition to this Exchangeable Sodium Percentage and Cation Exchange Capacity results have been compared with criteria within the guidelines.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

TABLE 7 SOIL SALINITY / SODICITY INTERPRETATION

Sample ID BH1 DS1

BH5 DS1

BH5 DS2

BH5 DS3

BH7 DS1

BH7 DS2

BH7 DS3

Conductivity (μS/cm) - 377 220 435 174 179 253

Corrected Electrical Conductivity (dS/m)

- 2.64 1.54 3.05 1.22 1.25 1.77

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (%)

31.3 - 30.9 - - 26.8 -

Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100g)

19.4 - 23.2 - - 20.8 -

Assessed Sodicity / Salinity

Highly Sodic

Slightly Saline

Non-Saline/ Highly Sodic

Slightly Saline

Non-Saline

Non-Saline/ Highly Sodic

Non-Saline

On the basis of laboratory testing undertaken as part of this investigation the site is assessed to be highly sodic.

When wet, sodic soils lose their structure and disperse into very small particles, the small particles fill the pore spaces in the soil effectively blocking them. This impermeable layer can severely impede water movement. Excessive water entering the profile may be prevented from draining further by the sodic layer and result in tunnelling soil erosion. Gullying or tunnelling can be an issue if the sodic subsoil is exposed to rainfall, or construction leads to an outlet developing for water ponded above a sodic layer. With a sodic layer near the surface erosion can be an issue. Plants may have problems establishing if erosion has removed the nutrients and the sodic crust is preventing air and water entering the soil profile. Stability for structures may also be an issue especially if the layer is thick. Calcium, mostly in the form of gypsum, is often added to sodic soil to address the balance between sodium and calcium in the soil.

To minimise the impact of the development on the water and salt processes on the site, possible management options might include:

• minimising water infiltration; • the use of landscaping using native plants; • sealing stormwater detention ponds; • retention of deep rooted vegetation; or • minimising soil disturbance such as compaction and cut and fill.

To minimise the impact of the water and salt processes on the development, possible management options may include:

• careful installation of damp proof courses; • water proofing the slab; • good site drainage; or • the use of higher strength concrete with thicker cover and exposure class masonry.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

Further geotechnical inspections should be carried out during construction to confirm the geotechnical and hydrogeological model. These should include:

• All excavated material transported off site should be classified in accordance with NSW EPA 2014 - Waste Classification Guideline Part 1; Classifying Waste.

• A suitably qualified geotechnical engineer is to assess the condition of exposed material at foundation or subgrade level to assess the ability of the prepared surface to act as a foundation or as a subgrade.

• Regular inspections of battered and unsupported excavations, where proposed, to confirm geotechnical conditions and to assess the suitability of design assumptions and to provide further advice with regards to excavation retention/ support and proposed construction methodologies, if required.

5 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS The adopted investigation scope was limited by the investigation intent. Further geotechnical inspections should be carried out during construction to confirm both the geotechnical model and the design parameters provided in this report.

Your attention is drawn to the document “Important Information”, which is included in Appendix B of this report. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Morrow Geotechnics, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

P1426_01 rev3 16/08/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

19 H

olbe

che

Road

, Arn

dell

Park

NSW

6 REFERENCES AS1726:1993, Geotechnical Site Investigations, Standards Australia.

AS2159:2009, Piling – Design and Installation, Standards Australia.

AS2870:2011, Residential Slabs and Footings, Standards Australia.

AS3798:2007, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments, Standards Australia.

Chapman, G.A. and Murphy, C.L. (1989), Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100000 sheet. Soil Conservation Services of NSW, Sydney.

NSW Department of Finance and Service, Spatial Information Viewer, maps.six.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Department of Mineral Resources (1985) Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Edition 1). Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources.

Pells (2004) Substance and Mass Properties for the Design of Engineering Structures in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol 39 No 3

7 CLOSURE Please do not hesitate to contact Morrow Geotechnics if you have any questions about the contents of this report. For and on behalf of Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd, Alan Morrow Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Project: P1426

Figure:

1Orlani Property Group

19 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSWGeotechnical InvestigationBorehole Location PlanPO Box 4069, Carlton NSW 2218

P: 0405 843 933 | E: [email protected] ScaleDate

ApprovedDrawn JB

AM08‐08‐18

NTS

Plan Source: maps.six.nsw.gov.au, August 2018

BH1

BH2BH3

BH4

BH10

BH5

BH7

BH6

BH8BH9

BH11

Appe

ndix

A

BOREHOLE LOGS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

5 10 15 20

Contractor:Drill Rig:

SheetLogged:

Project No: P1426 Lithos GeotechnicalUte‐mounted rig

JB

Holbeche Rd Pty LtdResidential DevelopmentProject:

Client:

19 Holbeche RoadArndell Park NSW

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

1.0

1.5

Depth

1 of 1

FILL ‐ SILT, medium plasticity, dark brown, with fine tomedium sub‐rounded gravel, and root fibres presentSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, brown mottled grey

‐ becoming pale grey from 0.9m

SHALE, brown, with clay bands, extremely weathered, inferredextremely low strength

BH1Date: 07‐03‐18

DCP (blows per 100 mm)

Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture

Stratigraphy (Additional Observations)

8.0

0.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

End BH1 at 3.8mPractical Auger Refusal on Weathered Shale

L

MI

CI‐CH

SHALE, dark grey, with ironstone bands, distinctly weathered,

M<PL

inferred very low to low strength

‐ inferred low strength from 3.7m

M

ADT

GWNE

H

‐ ‐‐

VSt

VSt‐H

BDS1‐10.2‐0.4m

Project: Residential Development19 Holbeche Road Sheet 1 of 1

Project No: P1426 Contractor: Lithos GeotechnicalClient: Holbeche Rd Pty Ltd Drill Rig: Ute‐mounted rig

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth

BH2Arndell Park NSW Logged: JBDate: 07‐03‐18


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

FILL ‐ SILT, low to medium plasticity, dark brown, with rootfibres present

M<PL

1.5 ‐

2.5

3.0

3.5

5.0

4.5

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

4.0

1.0

0.5Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, dark brown, (RESIDUALSOIL)‐ becoming brown mottled grey from 0.4m

SHALE, brown, with clay bands, extremely weathered, inferredvery low strength

SHALE, dark brown, distinctly weathered, inferred low strength


ADT

LM

H

GWNE

ML‐MI

CI‐CH

‐

2.0

DS5‐10.9‐1.0m



Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

FILL ‐ SILT, medium plasticity, dark brown, with trace of fineto medium angular gravel H

VSt

2.0

VSt‐H

M<PL

5.0

‐

‐

5.5

7.0

8.0

7.5

6.0

1.0

4.5

4.0

2.5

6.5

0.5

Practical Auger Refusal on Weathered Shale

ADT

LL‐M

MH

GWNE

MI

CI‐CH

‐

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, brown mottled grey,(RESIDUAL SOIL)

‐ becoming grey mottled brown from 0.9m

‐ ironstone band at 1.9m

‐ bands of shale from 3.4m

SHALE, dark brown, extremely weathered, inferred verylow strength


End BH3 at 5.2m

3.5

3.0

1.5



Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

FILL ‐ SILT, medium plasticity, dark brown, with fine tomedium sub‐rounded gravel, and root fibres present

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

1.0

0.5


M<PL

‐

ADT

LM

H

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange‐brown, (RESIDUALSOIL)

‐ becoming grey mottled orange‐brown from 0.8m

‐ becoming predominantly pale grey from 2.5m

SHALE, grey‐brown, with ironstone bands, extremelyweathered, inferred very low strength

SHALE, dark brown, distinctly weathered, inferred extremelylow to very low strength




Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

StM<PL

0.5

2.5

VSt‐H

M<PL

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.5

‐

M~PL

M<PL

‐

5.0

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

DS5‐10.9‐1.0m

DS5‐2

8.0


Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange mottled grey,(RESIDUAL SOIL)

‐ becoming grey mottled orange from 1.5m

1.9‐2.0m

DS5‐32.9‐3.0m

Practical Auger Refusal on Weathered Shale

ADT

LM

H

GWNE

ML‐MI

CI‐CH

‐

‐ becoming brown from 2.2m

‐ becoming brown mottled grey, with fine sub‐angularironstone gravel from 3.0m

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, inferred very lowstrength

‐ distinctly weathered, inferred low strength from 5.0m

2.0

1.5

1.0

End BH5 at 5.5m

BDS5‐10.3‐0.5 m



Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

M<PL

M>PL

2.5

3.0‐ becoming orange‐brown mottled grey, with fine to medium

M<PL

St

VSt‐H

6.5

‐

‐

6.0

7.0

7.5


8.0



‐ becoming brown from 1.5m

ADT

LL‐M

M

GWNE

ML‐MI

CI‐CH

‐

sub‐angular ironstone gravel, from 3.0m

‐ bands of shale from 4.5m

SHALE, dark brown, extremely weathered, inferred verylow strength

2.0

1.5

1.0

5.5

5.0

0.5

4.5

4.0

3.5



Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

FILL ‐ SILT, medium plasticity, dark brown, with trace of fine

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.5

M<PL

M>PL

M~PL

St

VSt

St

VSt

VSt‐H

4.0

5.5

‐

‐

5.0

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

to medium sub‐angular gravel


‐ becoming orange‐brown mottled pale grey, with trace offine to medium sub‐angular ironstone gravel from 2.4m

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, inferred extremely lowto very low strength


ADT

LM‐H

GWNE

BDS7‐10.4‐0.7 m

DS7‐10.9‐1.0m

DS7‐21.9‐2.0m

DS7‐32.9‐3.0m

MI

CI‐CH

‐





Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth

1.0

2.5

VSt‐H

2.0

1.5

0.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

M

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

FILL ‐ SILT, medium plasticity, dark brown, with trace of fineto medium sub‐angular gravel

End BH8 at 6.2 mPractical Auger Refusal on Weathered Shale

ADT

GWNE

SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, inferred extremely lowto very low strength

M‐H

L


‐ becoming orange mottled pale grey, with trace offine to medium sub‐angular ironstone gravel from 1.9m

CI‐CH

‐

CI

M<PL

M~PL

‐

St

VSt‐H

‐

ADT

L‐M

M‐H

GWNE

fine grained sand, (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

SHALE, brown, extremely weathered, inferred extremely lowstrength, with bands of very low strength shale

‐ becoming grey from 6.0 m

SHALE, grey, distinctly weathered, inferred very low stregnth

rounded gravel (ironstone), (RESIDUAL SOIL)

FILL ‐ Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown, with fine grainedsand

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, orange‐brown mottled grey, with

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red‐brown mottled grey, with

2.0

1.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5 trace of fine grained sand, trace of fine to medium sub‐

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

0.5

1.0


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth



Project No: P1426 Contractor: HartGeoClient: Holbeche Rd Pty Ltd Drill Rig: Ute‐mounted rig

ADT

M‐H

H GWNE

‐ ‐‐

16.0

15.0

14.5

13.0

12.5

SHALE, as above

SHALE, grey, distinctly weathered, inferred low to medium strength

End BH4 at 2.0 mReached Target Depth

15.5

14.0

13.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth




ADT

L‐M

MM‐H

GWNE

CL‐CI

ML‐MI

CI

‐ becoming red‐brown mottled grey from 3.5 m

‐ with fine to medium grained sand, and trace of fine sub‐angular gravel (shale fragments) from 5.5 m

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red‐brown mottled grey, with trace of fine grained sand, trace of fine to medium sub‐rounded gravel (ironstone), (RESIDUAL SOIL)

8.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

‐ SHALE, brown, extremely weathered, inferred extremely lowstrength, with bands of very low strength shale

FILL ‐ Silty CLAY, low to medium plasticity, brown, with finegrained sand

FILL ‐ SILT, low to medium plasticity, grey / pale brown

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, red‐brown, with trace of finegrained sand, (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

7.5

‐

M<PL

‐

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

St‐VSt

D

3.0

2.5

0.5

StM<PL


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth




ADT

‐

GWNE

M‐H ‐ ‐

16.0

15.0

14.5

13.0

SHALE, as above


15.5

14.0

13.5

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth




CI‐CH

CL‐CI

CI‐CH

‐

Mod

erate Seep

age

6.9m

D

M<PL

M~PL

‐

‐

CL‐CI

‐ becoming grey from 6.5 m

to very low strength

1.0

ADT

L

VSt‐H

H

VSt

St‐VSt

L‐M

M

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, red‐brown, with fine tomedium rounded gravel (ironstone), (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

Silty CLAY, low to medium plasticity, red‐brown mottled grey,with fine to medium grained sand, (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, brown / dark brown, withtrace of fine sub‐angular gravel (ironstone), (RESIDUAL SOIL)

FILL ‐ Silty CLAY, low to medium plasticity, orange‐brown, withtrace of fine grained sand, (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

Sandy CLAY, low to medium plasticity, fine grained sand, orange‐brown mottled grey, with trace of fine sub‐roundedgravel (ironstone), (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

Silty CLAY, low to medium plasticity, orange‐brown, with fine

8.0

6.5

2.0

1.5

FILL ‐ SILT, low to medium plasticity, pale brown, with rootspresent

7.5 ‐

7.0 SHALE, grey, extremely weathered, inferred extremely low

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5grained sand, (ALLUVIAL SOIL)

0.5


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth




ADT

‐ ‐‐H

16.0

15.0

14.5

13.0

SHALE, grey, distinctly weathered, inferred very low to lowstrength


15.5

14.0

13.5

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5


Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture


5 10 15 20

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Depth




Soil

and

Rock

Log

ging

Exp

lana

tory

Not

es

GENERAL

Information obtained from site investigations is recorded on log sheets. The “Cored Drill Hole Log” presents data from an operation where a core barrel has been used to recover material - commonly rock. The “Non-Core Drill Hole - Geological Log” presents data from an operation where coring has not been used and information is based on a combination of regular sampling and insitu testing. The material penetrated in non-core drilling is commonly soil but may include rock. The “Excavation - Geological Log” presents data and drawings from exposures of soil and rock resulting from excavation of pits, trenches, etc.

The heading of the log sheets contains information on Project Identification, Hole or Pit Identification, Location and Elevation. The main section of the logs contains information on methods and conditions, material substance description and structure presented as a series of columns in relation to depth below the ground surface which is plotted on the left side of the log sheet. The common depth scale is 8m per drill log sheet and about 3-5m for excavation logs sheets.

As far as is practicable the data contained on the log sheets is factual. Some interpretation is inevitable in the identification of material boundaries in areas of partial sampling, the location of areas of core loss, description and classification of material, estimation of strength and identification of drilling induced fractures. Material description and classifications are based on SAA Site Investigation Code AS 1726 - 1993 with some modifications as defined below.

These notes contain an explanation of the terms and abbreviations commonly used on the log sheets.

DRILLING

Drilling & Casing

ADV Auger Drilling with V-Bit ADT Auger Drilling with TC Bit WB Wash-bore drilling RR Rock Roller NMLC NMLC core barrel NQ NQ core barrel HMLC HMLC core barrel HQ HQ core barrel

Drilling Fluid/Water

The drilling fluid used is identified and loss of return to the surface estimated as a percentage.

Drilling Penetration/Drill Depth

Core lifts are identified by a line and depth with core loss per run as a percentage. Ease of penetration in non-core drilling is abbreviated as follows:

VE Very Easy E Easy M Medium H High VH Very High

Groundwater Levels

Date of measurement is shown.

Standing water level measured in completed borehole

Level taken during or immediately after drilling

D Disturbed B Bulk U Undisturbed SPT Standard Penetration Test N Result of SPT (sample taken) PBT Plate Bearing Test PZ Piezometer Installation HP Hand Penetrometer Test

EXCAVATION LOGS

Explanatory notes are provided at the bottom of drill log sheets. Information about the origin, geology and pedology may be entered in the “Structure and other Observations” column. The depth of the base of excavation (for the logged section) at the appropriate depth in the “Material Description” column. Refusal of excavation plant is noted should it occur. A sketch of the exposure may be added.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SOIL

Classification Symbol - In accordance with the Unified Classification System (AS 1726-1993, Appendix A, Table A1)

Material Description - In accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.3

Moisture Condition

D Dry, looks and feels dry M Moist, No free water on remoulding W Wet, free water on remoulding

Consistency - In accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.5

VS Very Soft < 12.5 kPa S Soft 12.5 – 25 kPa F Firm 25 – 50 kPa St Stiff 50 – 100 kPa VSt Very Stiff 100 – 200 kPa H Hard > 200 kPa

Strength figures quoted are the approximate range of undrained shear strength for each class.

Density Index. (%) is estimated or is based on SPT results.

VL Very Loose < 15 % L Loose 15 – 35 % MD Medium Dense 35 – 65 % D Dense 65 – 85 % VD Very Dense > 85 %

Soil

and

Rock

Log

ging

Exp

lana

tory

Not

es

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -ROCK

Material Description

Identification of rock type, composition and texture based on visual features in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A3.1-A3.3 and Tables A6a, A6b and A7.

Core Loss

Is shown at the bottom of the run unless otherwise indicated.

Bedding

Thinly Laminated < 6 mm Laminated 6 - 20 Very Thinly Bedded 20 - 60 Thinly Bedded 60 - 200 Medium Bedded 200 – 600 Thickly Bedded 600 – 2000 Very Thickly Bedded > 2000

Weathering - No distinction is made between weathering and alteration. Weathering classification assists in identification but does not imply engineering properties.

Fresh (F) Rock substance unaffected by weathering Slightly Weathered (SW)

Rock substance partly stained or discoloured. Colour and texture of fresh rock recognisable.

Moderately Weathered (MW)

Staining or discolouration extends throughout rock substance. Fresh rock colour not recognisable.

Highly Weathered (HW)

Stained or discoloured throughout. Signs of chemical or physical alteration. Rock texture retained.

Extremely Weathered (EW)

Rock texture evident but material has soil properties and can be remoulded.

Strength - The following terms are used to described rock strength:

Rock Strength Class

Abbreviation Point Load Strength Index, Is(50) (MPa)

Extremely Low EL < 0.03 Very Low VL 0.03 to 0.1 Low L 0.1 to 0.3 Medium M 0.3 to 1 High H 1 to 3 Very High VH 3 to 10 Extremely High EH ≥ 10

Strengths are estimated and where possible supported by Point Load Index Testing of representative samples. Test results are plotted on the graphical estimated strength by using:

° Diametral Point Load Test

Axial Point Load Test

Where the estimated strength log covers more than one range it indicates the rock strength varies between the limits shown.

MATERIALS STRUCTURE/FRACTURES

ROCK

Natural Fracture Spacing - A plot of average fracture spacing excluding defects known or suspected to be due to drilling, core boxing or testing. Closed or cemented joints, drilling breaks and handling breaks are not included in the Natural Fracture Spacing.

Visual Log - A diagrammatic plot of defects showing type, spacing and orientation in relation to core axis.

Defects Defects open in-situ or clay sealed Defects closed in-situ Breaks through rock substance

Additional Data - Description of individual defects by type, orientation, in-filling, shape and roughness in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A Table A10, notes and Figure A2.

Orientation - angle relative to the plane normal to the core axis.

Type BP JT SM FZ SZ VN FL CL DL HB DB

Bedding Parting Joint Seam Fracture Zone Shear Zone Vein Foliation Cleavage Drill Lift Handling Break Drilling Break

Infilling CN X Clay KT CA Fe Qz MS MU

Clean Carbonaceous Clay Chlorite Calcite Iron Oxide Quartz Secondary Mineral Unidentified Mineral

Shape PR CU UN ST IR DIS

Planar Curved Undulose Stepped Irregular Discontinuous

Rougness POL SL S RF VR

Polished Slickensided Smooth Rough Very Rough

SOIL

Structures - Fissuring and other defects are described in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.6, using the terminology for rock defects.

Origin - Where practicable an assessment is provided of the probable origin of the soil, eg fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, residual soil.

Appe

ndix

B

LABORATORY CERTIFICATES

ABN: 25 131 532 020

Sydney: 12/1 Boden Road Seven Hills NSW 2147 | PO Box 45 Pendle Hill NSW 2145

Ph: (02) 9674 7711 | Fax: (02) 9674 7755 | Email: [email protected]

Customer: Job number: 18-0028

Project: P1426 Report number: 1

Location: Page: 1 of 1

Sampling method: Samples tested as received Test method(s):

14425 14426 14427

BDS BH1 BDS BH5 BDS BH7 #N/A

07/03/2018 07/03/2018 07/03/2018 #N/A

silty CLAY, mottled

red/grey

silty CLAY, trace

of gravel, mottled

yellow-brown/red

silty CLAY, with

sand, pale brown

mottled yellow-

brown/grey

#N/A

1.65 1.75 1.83

20.3 19.3 14.8

n/a n/a n/a

0 0 0

168 96 48

1.63 1.73 1.80

1.58 1.69 1.78

19.9 18.8 14.4

23.2 21.6 17.1

30.4 26.1 18.5

22.6 21.2 16.4

98.5 98.5 98.5

98.0 97.5 97.5

4 4 4

Standard Standard Standard

4.5 4.5 4.5

3.5 2.0 1.0

2.5 2.5 5.0

1.5 2.5 4.5

Approved Signatory: C. Greely Date: 27/03/2018

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 17062

R20.v8 / 1 of 1

Arndell Park

AS 1289.1.1, 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 6.1.1

CBR Value (%)

Compactive effort

Swell after soaking (%)

Penetration (mm)

Dry density after soak (t/m3)

Period of soaking (days)

Mass of surcharge applied (kg)

Density ratio before soaking (%)

Moisture ratio before soaking (%)

Moisture content after soak (%)

Moisture content after test - remaining depth (%)

Moisture content after test - top 30mm (%)

Moisture content before soak (%)

Notes: Specified LDR: 98 ±1%

Method of establishing plasticity level - Visual / tactile

Test Report

California Bearing Ratio

Material description

Dry density before soak (t/m3)

Laboratory sample no.

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

Optimum moisture content (%)

Oversize retained on 19.0mm sieve (%)

Field moisture content (%)

Minimum curing time (hours)

Customer sample no.

Date sampled

Results

Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd

http://www.resourcelab.com.au/

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 4ES1807964

:: LaboratoryClient RESOURCE LABORATORIES Environmental Division Sydney

: :ContactContact CHRIS GREELY Customer Services ES

:: AddressAddress RESOURCE LABORATORIES PTY LTD P.O.BOX 45

PENDLE HILL NSW 2145

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

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

:Project P1426-ARNDELL PARK Date Samples Received : 15-Mar-2018 14:00

:Order number 18-0082 Date Analysis Commenced : 19-Mar-2018

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 22-Mar-2018 18:11

Sampler : ----

Site : ----

Quote number : EN/222/17

7:No. of samples received

7:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

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

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

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

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Edwandy Fadjar Organic Coordinator Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Ivan Taylor Analyst Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Wisam Marassa Inorganics Coordinator Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

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

2 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1807964

P1426-ARNDELL PARK:Project

RESOURCE LABORATORIES

General Comments

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

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

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

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

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

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

purposes.

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

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

LOR = Limit of reporting

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

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

ED007 and ED008: When Exchangeable Al is reported from these methods, it should be noted that Rayment & Lyons (2011) suggests Exchange Acidity by 1M KCl - Method 15G1 (ED005) is a more suitable method

for the determination of exchange acidity (H+ + Al3+).

l

3 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1807964



Analytical Results

14445

DS7-1

14444

DS5-3

14443

DS5-2

14442

DS5-1

14441

DS2-1

Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

07-Mar-2018 00:0007-Mar-2018 00:0007-Mar-2018 00:0007-Mar-2018 00:0007-Mar-2018 00:00Client sampling date / time

ES1807964-005ES1807964-004ES1807964-003ES1807964-002ES1807964-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result Result

EA002 : pH (Soils)

---- 5.5 6.0 5.2 7.6pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity

---- 377 220 435 174µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

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

---- 16.6 15.9 ---- 13.3%1.0----Moisture Content

ED007: Exchangeable Cations

0.4 ---- <0.1 ---- ----meq/100g0.1----Exchangeable Calcium

12.5 ---- 15.7 ---- ----meq/100g0.1----Exchangeable Magnesium

0.4 ---- 0.3 ---- ----meq/100g0.1----Exchangeable Potassium

6.1 ---- 7.2 ---- ----meq/100g0.1----Exchangeable Sodium

19.4 ---- 23.2 ---- ----meq/100g0.1----Cation Exchange Capacity

31.3 ---- 30.9 ---- ----%0.1----Exchangeable Sodium Percent

ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2-

----Sulfate as SO4 2- 1640 770 ---- 400mg/kg10014808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

----Chloride 330 230 ---- 400mg/kg1016887-00-6

4 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1807964



Analytical Results

------------14447

DS7-3

14446

DS7-2

Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

------------07-Mar-2018 00:0007-Mar-2018 00:00Client sampling date / time

------------------------ES1807964-007ES1807964-006UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

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

EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.0 8.1 ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity

179 253 ---- ---- ----µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

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

16.4 ---- ---- ---- ----%1.0----Moisture Content

ED006: Exchangeable Cations on Alkaline Soils

<0.2 ---- ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.2----Exchangeable Calcium

15.2 ---- ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.2----Exchangeable Magnesium

<0.2 ---- ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.2----Exchangeable Potassium

5.6 ---- ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.2----Exchangeable Sodium

20.8 ---- ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.2----Cation Exchange Capacity

26.8 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.2----Exchangeable Sodium Percent

ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2-

310Sulfate as SO4 2- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg10014808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

510Chloride ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg1016887-00-6

A ppen

dix C

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Impo

rtant

Info

rmat

ion This Document has been provided by Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd subject to the following limitations:

This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Morrow Geotechnics’ proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.

The scope and the period of Morrow Geotechnics’ Services are as described in Morrow Geotechnics’ proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Morrow Geotechnics did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. The scope of services may have been limited by such factors as time, budget, site access or other site conditions. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Morrow Geotechnics in regards to it. Any advice given within this document is limited to geotechnical considerations only. Other constraints particular to the project, including but not limited to architectural, environment, heritage and planning matters may apply and should be assessed independently of this advice.

Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Morrow Geotechnics was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. No geotechnical investigation can provide a full understanding of all possible subsurface details and anomalies at a site.

In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Morrow Geotechnics’ opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Morrow Geotechnics to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.

Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Morrow Geotechnics for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

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 the report that Morrow Geotechnics be notified of any variations and be provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this report.

This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Morrow Geotechnics accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document.

geotechnical report for 19 holbeche road, arndell …

Documents