pioneer st development · 1pells p.j.n, mostyn g. & walker b.f. foundations on sandstone and...

25th September 2015

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

Geotechnical Investigation Report of 18

_______________________________________________________________________________________

© Aargus Pty Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

Nos. 8-16 Pioneer Street,

Seven Hills, NSW 2147

Prepared for

Pioneer St Development

Report No. GS7005-1A

29th

August 2017

29th August 2017

Ref: GS7005-1A Nos. 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147


_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION AND REVISION REGISTER

Copy No. Custodian Location

_________________________________________________________________________

1 Nick Kariotoglou Aargus (Library)

2 (Electronic) Chris Bazouni [email protected]

29 Walker Street,

Merrylands, NSW 2160

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 29/08/2017 Initial Issue

Issued By:

Ken Burgess

mailto:[email protected]

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

4. SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 6

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 Aggressivity and Salinity ............................................................................................................. 8

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 9

7.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 9

7.2 Excavation Conditions ............................................................................................................... 10

7.3 Vibration Control ...................................................................................................................... 10

7.4 Stability of Excavation ............................................................................................................... 11

7.5 Earth Pressures .......................................................................................................................... 13

7.6 Subgrade Preparation and Earthworks .................................................................................... 14

7.7 Foundations ................................................................................................................................ 15

7.8 Groundwater Management........................................................................................................ 17

7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification .............................................................................. 17

7.10 Aggressivity and Salinity ........................................................................................................... 17

8. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................18

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions 8

Table 2: Soil pH, Chloride and Sulphate Test Results 9

Table 3: Electrical Conductivity Test Results 9

Table 4: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity for Structures 11

Table 5: Recommended Batter Slopes 11

Table 6: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls 13

Table 7: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure 13

Table 8: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Rock Anchors 14

Table 9: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities 16

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

APPENDIX B SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1)

APPENDIX C ENGINEERING BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX D ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E REPORT OF POINT LOAD INDEX TEST

APPENDIX F LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

REFERENCES

1. Australian Standard – AS 1726-1993 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. Australian Standard – AS 1289 5.4.1-2007 Soil Compaction and Density Tests –

Compaction Control Test – Dry Density Ratio, Moisture Variation and Moisture

Ratio.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION

Aargus Pty Ltd (Aargus) has been commissioned by Pioneer St Development to carry out a

geotechnical site investigation for the Nos. 8 – 16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills. The site

investigation was carried out on the 28th August 2017 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, laboratory testing,

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

provide recommendations for design and construction of ground structures for the

proposed development.

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

About Your Geotechnical Report” attached as Appendix A.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION

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

Architectural Drawings titled “Development Application Proposed Residential

Units” prepared by Architex, referenced Job No. 2333, dated 26.07.17 and included

drawing Nos. 02 to 13 and 15 to 18, inclusive;

Site Survey Plan titled “Plan of Levels and Details at 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven

Hills for Saba Constructions”, prepared by W. Buxton Pty Ltd, referenced No.

204815 and dated 26/04/17; and

3. SCOPE OF WORK

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

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

guidelines provided in Australian Standard AS 1726-1993 (Reference 1) and comprised the

following:

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

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

to identify any relevant site features.

Service locating using electromagnetic detection equipment to ensure that the

investigation area is free from underground services.

Machine drilling of four (4) boreholes identified as borehole BH1 to BH4 inclusive

using a truck and track mounted drilling rig owned and operated by two separate

subcontractors.

Collection of rock core samples during drilling in BH3.

Installation of one (1) standpipe piezometer in borehole identified as GW1 within

the borehole BH3 to assess the groundwater conditions.

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

and excavation process.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

The approximate locations of the boreholes completed during the geotechnical site

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

Boreholes BH1, BH2, BH3 and BH4 were augered to Tungsten Carbide (TC) bit refusal at

approximately depths of 5.4m, 6.0m, 6.5m and 7.3m below ground level (bgl),

respectively. Drilling thence continued with coring using NMLC technique in borehole

BH3 to a final depth of approximately 10.09m.

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

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

Point Load Index testing on five (5) selected rock cores.

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

geotechnical interpretation and assessment of the main potential geotechnical issues that

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

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

comments and recommendations relating to:

Excavation conditions;

Stability of basement excavation;

Suitable foundations;

Allowable bearing pressure (and shaft adhesion for piles);

Lateral pressure for design of retaining walls;

Groundwater; and

Site earthquake classification.

4. SITE CONDITIONS

The site is a rectangular shaped land with an approximate area of 3094.5m2, and consists of

an amalgamation of properties, being No. 8, 10, 12, 14 and No. 16 Pioneer Street.

At the time of the investigation, a single storey dwelling was present within each of the

properties, covering the majority area of the properties. Remaining portion of the site is

being covered in associated concrete pavements, grassed area and a number of mature trees

scattered.

The site is located within the Blacktown City Council area. The site is also located north of

Blacktown Creek and Seven Hills Railway Station approximately 250m and 500m,

respectively. The site is bounded by the following properties, public roads and

infrastructure:

Pioneer Street carriageway and road reserve to the north of the site;

Single storey residential buildings to the south and west of the site; and

Vacant block comprising of property No. 6 Pioneer Street to the east of the site.

The site topography during the investigation was generally level with a gentle slope

towards the south-east. The local topography was also generally level with a gentle sloping

towards the south, south-west.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The architectural drawings (referenced in Section 2) indicate the proposed development

consists of the demolition of the existing buildings, and construction of a five (5) storey

building, overlying two basement levels.

The elevation of the proposed lower basement level within the front portion of the site is

Reduced Level (RL) 35.50m Australian Height Datum (AHD). Maximum excavation

depths of approximately 7.0m will be required for the proposed basement levels.

The proposed lift shafts within the building is expected to require a further 1.5m of

excavation below the basement Finished Floor Level (FFL).

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

the site is located within a geological area underlain by Triassic Age Ashfield Shale (Rwa)

of the Wianamatta Group. The Ashfield Shale is described as “dark-grey to black

claystone-siltstone and fine sandstone-siltstone laminite”.

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.

6.2 Ground Profile

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

detailed on the attached Engineering Borehole Logs presented in Appendix C with Core

Photographs and Results of Point Load Index Test in Appendix D and Appendix E,

respectively. It should be noted that reference should be made to the logs and/or specific

test results for design purposes.

6.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during augering in boreholes BH1 to BH4 inclusive.

Measurement of water levels during core drilling in boreholes below the depth achieved by

augering was not possible due to the introduction of water required for coring.

Groundwater measurements carried out on the 30th August 2017 indicated groundwater

was present in piezometer GW1 (BH3) at approximate depth of 4.9m (RL 36.3m AHD).

It should be noted that groundwater levels may be associated with infiltration through soils

and the fractured rock mass and may be subject to seasonal and daily fluctuations

influenced by factors such as heavy rainfall, broken services and future development of the

surrounding land. Soil moisture within the site may be influenced by events within the

adjacent infrastructure such as breakage of water mains, or stormwater pipes.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions

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

December 1998 (Reference 6). 2Approximate strength mainly based on increased drilling difficulty. Classification (Class IV) based on inferred strength only. To be

confirmed during excavation/construction.

6.4 Aggressivity and Salinity

Three soil samples recovered during drilling were tested by ALS Environmental, a NATA

accredited testing laboratory. The testing included determination of pH, Chloride, Sulphate

and Electrical Conductivity. Results of the laboratory testing are attached as Appendix F

of this report and are summarised in Table 2 and Table 3.

Unit Description BH1

(m)

BH2

(m)

BH3

(m)

BH4

(m)

Ground Surface Level (m AHD) RL41.3 RL41.2 RL41.2 RL42.5

Pavement Concrete 0.0 – 0.2 - 0.0 – 0.1 -

Topsoil/

Fill

Silty CLAY, highly plastic, dark

brown to brown, trace of fine sand,

some medium to coarse gravel, grass

rootlets, moist

0.2 – 0.5 0.0 – 0.2 0.1 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.2

Residual

Soils

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, dark

brown, pale brown laminations, with

some medium to coarse

ironstone/shale gravel, moist, stiff to

very stiff

0.5 – 1.2 0.2 – 1.7 0.3 – 3.0 0.2 – 1.7

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey to

pale grey, pale brown laminations,

trace of fine to medium gravel, moist,

stiff to very stiff

1.2 – 3.5 1.7 – 2.7 3.0 – 5.5 1.7 – 3.2

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, reddish

brown to pale brown, trace of

orange/brown gravel, very stiff

3.5 – 4.5 2.7 – 4.0 - 3.2 – 5.1

Bedrock

SHALE/SILTSTONE laminite, dark

grey to grey, extremely weathered,

extremely low strength

Class V Shale1

4.5 – 5.2 4.0 – 5.1 5.5 – 8.4 5.1 – 6.0

SHALE/SILTSTONE laminite, dark

grey to grey, highly weathered, very

low to medium strength2 Class IV

Shale1

5.2 –

5.4+

5.1 –

6.0+ -

6.0 –

7.3+

SHALE, moderately to slightly

weathered, medium to high strength

Class III Shale1

- - 8.4 -

10.1 -

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 2: Soil pH, Chloride and Sulphate Test Results

Borehole Depth (m) MC* (%) pH Chloride

(mg/kg)

Sulphate as

SO4 (mg/kg)

AS2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation

Reinforced

Concrete Piles

High PS Low PS

Mild Non > 5.5 < 5,000

Moderately Mild 4.5 – 5.5 5,000-10,000

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

Very severely Severely < 4.0 > 20,000

Steel Piles

High PS Low PS

Non Non > 5.0 < 5,000

Mild Non 4.0 – 5.0 5,000-20,000

Moderately Mid 3.0 – 4.0 20,000-50,000

Severely Moderately < 3.0 > 50,000

Note: MC * = Moisture Content PS = Permeability Soils

Table 3: Electrical Conductivity Test Results

Borehole Depth(m) Soil Type Multiplicatio

n Factor

Electrical Conductivity

EC

(dS/m)

Saturated

Extract

ECe (dS/m)

Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 1994 Saline > 4

Dryland Salinity (1993)

Non-Saline < 2

Slightly 2 - 4

Moderately 4 - 8

Very 8 - 16

Highly > 16

7. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 General

Based on a groundwater level of 4.9m (36.3m AHD) and a proposed bulk excavation depth

of 7.0m (35.5m AHD), it is considered that the basement level may be up to 0.8m below

groundwater level and would be within the underlying very low to medium strength

Shale/Siltstone bedrock.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Consideration needs to be given to specific geotechnical issues including excavation

support, groundwater and foundation conditions. Geotechnical commentary regarding these

geotechnical constraints and recommendations for the proposed development is presented

in the following sections.

7.2 Excavation Conditions

The observations made during the investigation indicate that excavation will be through fill

and residual soils followed by extremely low strength shale/siltstone and then into very low

to medium strength and possibly high strength shale/siltstone bedrock.

Excavation within soils and extremely low to very low strength shale/siltstone 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.

The rock classification system in Table 1 above are intended for use in design of

foundations and 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 is developed to monitor the potential

vibration effects from the excavation activities within adjoining properties and road

reserves and carriageways along the site boundaries.

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 4. Induced vibrations in structures adjacent to the

excavation should not exceed.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Table 4: Recommended Maximum Peak Particle Velocity for Structures

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

Historical or structures in sensitive conditions 2

Residential and low rise buildings 5

Brick or unreinforced structures in good condition 10

Commercial and industrial buildings or structures of reinforced

concrete or steel construction. 25

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

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

selected in accordance with the type of structures and places present within the zone of

influence of the proposed excavation.

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

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

be contacted immediately for appropriate reviews.

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

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

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

Points”.

7.4 Stability of Excavation

The use of temporary batter slopes may be considered in areas where sufficient space exists

between the basement excavation and the boundary 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 5 below.

Table 5: Recommended Batter Slopes

Material Max. Batter Slope (H:V)

Temporary Permanent

Fill 2:1 3:1

Residual Soil 1.5:1 2:1

Class V Shale/Siltstone 0.75:1 1.5:1

Class IV Shale/Siltstone 0.5:1 1:1

Class III Shale Sub-Vertical* Sub-Vertical* *Subject to inspection by geotechnical engineer to confirm stability or assess requirement for any stabilisation measures (e.g. shotcrete,

rock bolts, etc.), if required.

As excavation of the proposed basements will extend to approximately 7.0m depth and due

to the close proximity of the basement with the boundaries, the use of temporary batters

slopes is not considered to be suitable at some locations 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.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

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

development, we recommend a contiguous pile wall solution socketed into the underlying

bedrock to at least 1.0m below basement level to prevent ‘kick-out’ of pile toe. 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 shotcreting in weak

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

All vertical drains should be connected to a perimeter drain provided at the toe of the final

excavation, which should discharge to the site stormwater system to provide long term

drainage behind excavation walls.

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

to be required to provide lateral support during construction. As at least two or more rows

of anchors will be required to support the shoring piles and 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 impractical, consideration of other temporary support options would be necessary.

These options include the following:

Temporary solutions such as installation of props associated with staged

excavation; and

Staged excavations and temporary partial berms in front of walls.

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

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

within the basement level underneath the floor slabs.

The shoring wall and anchors can be designed using the recommended parameters

provided in Section 7.5 below.

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.

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

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

site.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Detailed construction supervision, monitoring and inspections will be required during

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

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

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

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 6.

Table 6: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls

Units Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

Effective

Cohesion c’

(kPa)

Angle of

Friction ′

()

Undrained Elastic

Modulus Esh

(MPa)

Fill 17 0 24 8

Residual Soils 20 5 24 14

Class V Shale/Siltstone 22 25 27 100

Class IV Shale/Siltstone 22 50 28 200

Class III Shale 24 100 30 500

Table 7 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 7: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Units

Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth

Pressure Ka

Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth Pressure

at Rest Ko

Coefficient of Passive

Lateral Earth Pressure

Kp

Fill 0.42 0.59 2.37

Residual Soils 0.42 0.59 2.37

Class V Shale/Siltstone 0.3 0.5 3.0

Class IV Shale/Siltstone

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

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

should therefore be identified during construction and appropriate stabilization

measures adopted.

Higher earth pressures (K=1) will apply for undrained (temporary) clay soils.

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) earth pressures can be carried out for braced retaining walls using a

uniform lateral earth pressure 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)

Anchors will require embedment in Class V to Class III Shale/Siltstone. The

recommended allowable bond stresses for anchors socketed within the rock horizons

underlying the site are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Preliminary Allowable Bond Stress for Rock Anchors

Unit Allowable Bond Stress (kPa)

Class V Shale/Siltstone 50

Class IV Shale/Siltstone 100

Class III Shale/Siltstone 150

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

for the parameters recommended above providing:

The bond (socket) length in the bedrock to be 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 fill and remove any unsuitable material from site.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

Excavate any 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. The inspections should constitute as “Hold Points”.

7.7 Foundations

Bulk excavation is mainly likely to expose variable strength Shale/Siltstone bedrock at the

lower basement level. Suitable footings are therefore likely to comprise cast in-situ

reinforced concrete raft foundation with slab thickening for pads and strip footings to

support internal columns and walls, respectively. A stiffened raft slab may be adopted to

distribute the applied load of the building over the bedrock underlying the slab.

It is recommended that all footings be founded on consistent bedrock. This could be

achieved by a pad and strip footings where suitable bedrock is exposed at bulk excavation

level and pile foundations elsewhere. A piled raft system should be considered where

working loads exceed the bearing capacity of the bedrock at basement level or where

predicted settlement exceeds tolerable limits.

Other cases where piles may also be required to increase the resistance against lateral

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

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

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

2009 (Reference 5), respectively.

Table 9 provides geotechnical parameters recommended for design of shallow and piled

foundations.

Table 9: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities

Unit

Allowable Capacity Values (kPa)

End Bearing Pressure1

Shaft Adhesion

Compression

(Tension)2

Fill N/A3 N/A3

Residual Soils 100 N/A3

Class V Shale 700 25 (15)

Class IV Shale1 1,000 50 (25)

Class III Shale1 2,000 200 (100) 1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for deep foundations and 0.4m for shallow foundations. 2 Clean rock socket of roughness of at least 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.

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

shaft lengths conform to appropriate classes of Shale/Siltstone and accepted levels of shaft

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

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

sidewall. Shaft adhesion should be reduced or ignored within socket lengths that are

smeared and fail to satisfy cleanliness requirements. Additional attention to cleanliness of

socket sidewalls may be required where presence of clay seams and weathered Shale bands

is evident over socket lengths. 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 the expected groundwater levels, bored piles may require dewatering as well as

liners to support overburden soils. Continuous flight auger (CFA) may be considered as a

suitable alternative to bored piles due to expected groundwater levels. The selection of a

suitable piling rig should consider its suitability in penetrating high strength rock, should

this be required for bearing capacity purposes.

The excavations should be dewatered prior to concrete pouring if groundwater seepages or

surface runoff is encountered within foundation excavations. Any loose debris and wet

soils should also be removed from excavations.

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should review foundation 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.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

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

As the proposed bulk excavation level is expected to be approximately 0.8m below

groundwater level with the potential for more elevated groundwater levels resulting from

heavy rainfall, flooding or damaged services, etc., consideration should be given to seepage

flows through soils and weathered bedrock during excavation or 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.

Depending on the groundwater inflow rate during excavation, groundwater seepage

and surface water infiltration may be controlled by sump and pump methods during

construction.

Waterproofing of basement floor slab and walls should be provided unless

appropriate drainage can be installed and maintained during the design life of the

building.

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.

7.9 Preliminary Site Earthquake Classification

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

to shallow depths, and underlain by variable strength bedrock. In accordance with

Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007 (Reference 2) the site may be classified as a “Shallow

soil site” (Class Ce) for design of foundations and retaining walls embedded in the

underlying soils and weathered bedrock. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Sydney, in accordance

with AS 1170.4-2007 is considered to be 0.08.

7.10 Aggressivity and Salinity

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

Chloride, and Sulphate tests on three soil samples collected from boreholes BH1 and BH3

inclusive, (as presented in Table 2), indicate soils samples collected are _ to steel and

concrete piles in low permeability soils.

Based on the results for electrical conductivity presented in Table 3, it is indicative that the

residual soils underlying the site to be generally “_”.

29th August 2017



_______________________________________________________________________________________ © Aargus Pty Ltd

8. LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical assessment of the subsurface profile and geotechnical conditions within

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

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

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

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

exploratory tests are made, but cannot be guaranteed.

It is recommended that should ground conditions including subsurface and groundwater

conditions, encountered during construction and excavation vary substantially from those

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

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

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

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

solely for the use of Pioneer St Development and any reliance assumed by third parties on

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

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

The conclusions and recommendations of this report should be read in conjunction with the

entire report.

For and on behalf of

Aargus Pty Ltd

Reviewed By

Rehan Bukhari

BScEng (Geological Engineering)

Geotechnical Engineer

Kenneth Burgess

B.Eng., Pg.Dip., MIEAust

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

National Engineering Manager

APPENDIX A

______________________________

IMPORTANT

INFORMATION ABOUT

YOUR GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOURGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

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

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

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET

OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS

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

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

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

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

when the size or configuration of the proposedstructure is altered,

when the location or orientation of the proposedstructure is modified,

when there is a change of ownership, or

for application to an adjacent site.

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

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

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

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

MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"

ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES

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

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

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

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN

CHANGE

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

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

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

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE

PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC

PURPOSES AND PERSONS

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

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS SUBJECT TO

MISINTERPRETATION

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

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

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE

SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING

REPORT

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

_______________________________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 3 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

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

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

CLAUSES CLOSELY

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

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO

REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineerwill be pleased to discuss other

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

FURTHER GENERAL NOTES

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

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

APPENDIX B

______________________________

SITE PLAN (FIGURE 1)

Image Source: Site Survey Plan titled “Plan of Levels and Details at 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills for Saba Constructions”, prepared by W. Buxton Pty Ltd, referenced No. 204815 and dated 26/04/17

Aargus ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

Drawn RB


Geotechnical Investigation

Nos. 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147

Figure

1

Checked KB

Title Site Plan Date 30/08/2017

Scale @ A3 NTS Job No GS7005-1A

LEGEND: (approximate)

Borehole Locations

Borehole/Piezometer Locations

BH4

BH2

BH3

BH1

APPENDIX C

______________________________

ENGINEERING

BOREHOLE LOGS

AD

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

CONCRETE

FILL

RESIDUAL SOILS

BEDROCK

''TC Bit Refusal'' at 5.4m bgl

SPT3, 7, 10N=17

SPT15/75mmbouncing

CH

CH

CH

CONCRETE PAVEMENT, 200mm.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, dark brown, trace of fine sand, with some medium to corasegrained gravel, moist.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, dark brown, pale brown laminations, with some medium tocoarse grained ironstone/shale gravel, moist.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey to pale grey, orange to brown/pale brown laminations,black mottled (organic coal), moist, very stiff.

becoming reddish brown to brown from 2.7m bgl.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, reddish brown to pale brown, trace of fine to mediumgrained orange/brown gravel, moist.

SHALE/SILTSTONE laminite, dark grey to grey, extremely weathered, extremely lowstrength, with some clay bands, moist.becoming medium strong, moderately weathered Siltstone and low strength,moderately weathered Shale from 4.7m bgl.

Borehole BH1 terminated at 5.4m

Met

hod

Wat

er

Additional ObservationsSamples

TestsRemarks

BOREHOLE NUMBER BH1PAGE 1 OF 1

COMPLETED 28/8/17DATE STARTED 28/8/17

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ivan Drilling Pty Ltd

LOGGED BY RB CHECKED BY RF

NOTES RL to the top of borehole and depths of the subsurface conditions are approximate

HOLE LOCATION Refer to Site Plan Figure 1EQUIPMENT Truck Mounted Drilling Rig

HOLE SIZE 100mm Diameter

R.L. SURFACE 41.3 DATUM m AHD

SLOPE 90° BEARING ---

CLIENT Pioner St Development

PROJECT NUMBER GS7005-1A

PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Site Investigation

PROJECT LOCATION 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147

BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2

9Aargus Pty Ltd446 Parramatta RoadPetersham NSW 2049Telephone: 1300 137 038

RL(m)

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log

Material Description

AD

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

FILL

RESIDUAL SOILS

BEDROCK


SPT5, 6, 9N=15

SPT7, 13, 12

N=25

CH

CH

CH

CH

Silty CLAY, high plastic, dark brown to brown, trace of fine sand, trace of fine tomedium grained gravel, moist.Silty CLAY, high plasticity, dark brown to brown, pale brown laminations, with fine tomedium grained gravel, moist, stiff to very stiff.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey to pale grey, pale brown laminations, trace of fine tomedium grained gravel, moist.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, reddish brown to brown, reddish grey laminations, trace offine to medium flaky shale gravel, moist, very stiff.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, pale grey to pale brown, with some fine to medium grainedgravel, moist.SHALE/SILTSTONE laminite, dark grey to grey, extremely weathered to moderatelyweathered, extremely low strength to low strength, moist.

becoming hard to drill at 4.6m bgl.

Borehole BH2 terminated at 6m

Met

hod

Wat

er


TestsRemarks



DRILLING CONTRACTOR BG Drilling Pty Ltd



HOLE LOCATION Refer to Site Plan Figure 1EQUIPMENT Track Mounted Drilling Rig








BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2


RL(m)

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


AD

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

CONCRETETOPSOIL/FILL

RESIDUAL SOILS

BEDROCK

"TC Bit Refusal" at 6.5m bgl

SPT5, 6, 7N=13

SPT8, 11, 16

N=27

SPT8, 22, 22

N=44

SPT8, 14, 11

N=25

SPT14, 24, 2/10mm

bouncing

SPT30/10mmbouncing

CH

CONCRETE, 100mm.Clayey SILT, brown, with some fine to coarse sand and fine gravel, moist.

CLAY, high plasticity, red to brown, with some fine ironstone gravel, andgrey shale gravel, moist, stiff to hard.

becoming orange, red to brown, pale grey from 2.0m bgl.

becoming grey to brown, pale grey, grey, with brown, ironstone gravel red tobrown.

Shaley CLAY, yellow brown, grey, with bands or pieces ofSHALE/SILTSTONE, yellow to brown, grey, highly weathered, very low tolow estimated strength, moist.

Borehole BH3 continued as cored hole

Met

hod

Wat

er


TestsRemarks














BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2


WellDetails

RL(m)

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


MW/HW

HW/EWMW

6.50m - 7.26m, Defects are Bedding (B),Planar (PL), Shear Zone (S), No Visible Infill(CN), 0-5 deg

7.28m, Joint (J), PL, S, CN, 15 deg7.29m, J, PL, S, CN, 30 deg7.36m, J, PL, S, CN, 70 deg7.41m, J, PL, S, CN, 30 deg7.48m, J, PL, S, CN, 30 deg7.54m, J, Irregular (IR), S, CN, 45 deg7.56m, J, PL, S, CN, 30 deg

NLM

C

A0.09

D0.04

00

LAMINITE, interbedded SILTSTONE andSHALE, brown, dark grey, laminated at1-30mm.

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 %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2


WellDetails


RL(m)

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Gra

phic

Log

MW

FR

7.60m, J, PL, S, CN, 30 deg7.61m - 8.10m, Defects are B, PL, S, CN, 0-5deg8.10m, Crushed Zone (C), 350mm

8.66m, Mechanical Break (MB)/ B8.68m, (MB)/ B8.70m, (MB)/ B8.86m, B, PL, S, CN, 0 deg9.07m, B, PL, S, CN, 0 deg

NLM

C

A1.41

A0.98

A1.06

A1.46

D0.4

D0.42

D0.88

D0.76

010

0

LAMINITE, interbedded SILTSTONE andSHALE, brown, dark grey, laminated at1-30mm. (continued)

LAMINITE, interbedded SHALE andSILTSTONE, fine grained sandstone (30%) anddark grey to black siltstone (70%), laminated at0-5%, 1-30mm.

BH3 terminated at 10.09m

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 %














CO

RE

D B

OR

EH

OLE

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2


WellDetails


RL(m)

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

Depth(m)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Gra

phic

Log

AD

T

NO

T E

NC

OU

NT

ER

ED

TOPSOIL/FILL

RESIDUAL SOILS

BEDROCK


SPT7, 9, 12N=21

SPT7, 11, 16

N=27

SPT8, 13, 16

N=29

CL

CH

CH

CH

CH

Clayey SILTY, pale brown, with some fine gravel, grass rootlets, moist.

Silty CLAY, low plasticity, yellow to brown, trace of fine gravel, moist.

CLAY, high plasticity, red brown, with some fine grained sand and fine ironstonegravel, moist, very stiff.

CLAY, high plasticity, pale grey and yellow brown, with some fine to medium dark redironstone gravel, moist, very stiff.

CLAY, high plasticity, grey, moist, very stiff.

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, reddish brown to grey, yellow brown laminations, trace offine to medium grained gravel, moist, very stiff.

SHALE/SILTSTONE laminite, dark grey to grey, extremely weathered, extremely lowstrength, with clay seams, moist.

becoiming highly to moderately weathered, very low to low strength, moist after 5.5mbgl.

Borehole BH4 terminated at 7.3m

Met

hod

Wat

er


TestsRemarks














BO

RE

HO

LE /

TE

ST

PIT

GS

7005

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D A

US

TR

ALI

A.G

DT

17/

8/2


RL(m)

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cla

ssifi

catio

nS

ymbo

l

Gra

phic

Log


APPENDIX D

____________________________

ROCK CORE

PHOTOGRAPHS

BH3: 6.50m to 10.09m

Aargus ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

Core Box Photographs


Geotechnical Investigation

Nos. 8-16 Pioneer Street,

Seven Hills, NSW 2147

Sheet 1 of 1 Prepared By: RB

Date: 30/08/2017

Job No: GS7005-1A

APPENDIX E

______________________________

REPORT OF POINT

LOAD INDEX TEST

Aargus POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX REPORT

Client: Pioneer St Development Date Tested: 30/08/2017

Address: Nos. 8-16 Pioneer Street, Seven Hills, NSW 2147 Job No: GS7005-1A

Borehole

ID

Depth

(m)

Sample

Description Test Type

Point Load

Index

Is(50)

UCS

(MPa) Notes

BH3 7.85 Shale/Siltstone Diametral 0.04 0.6 Sample Dry

Axial 0.09 1.6 Sample Dry









Comments:

UCS –Unconfined Compressive Test.

Multiplication Factor of 18 was used to calculate UCS.

Sheet

1 of 1

Tested By: RB

Checked By: KB

Aargus Pty Ltd

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

ENVIRONMENTAL - ENGINEERING - DRILLING - LABORATORIES - ASBESTOS

APPENDIX F

______________________________

LABORATORY TEST

RESULTS

pioneer st development · 1pells p.j.n, mostyn g. & walker b.f. foundations on sandstone and...

Documents