yarra one development - melbourne real estate

Report on Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation

Yarra One Development 16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra

Prepared for Eco World - Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd

c/o Webber Design Pty Ltd

Project :79681.00 R.003.Rev0

14 February 2018

Report on Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation, Yarra One Development 79681.0.R.003.Rev0 16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra 14 February 2018

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................ 1

3. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2

4. Building at 12 – 14 Claremont Street ............................................................................................. 2

5. Geological Setting .......................................................................................................................... 2

6. Field Work Methods ....................................................................................................................... 3

7. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 3

7.1 Field Work Results ............................................................................................................... 3

7.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 5 7.3 Hydraulic Conductivity ......................................................................................................... 5

8. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 6

8.1 Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................ 6

8.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 6

9. Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 7

10. Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations ......................................................................... 7

10.1 Appreciation of Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 7

10.2 Basement Design and Construction .................................................................................... 8 10.2.1 General ................................................................................................................... 8 10.2.2 Soldier Pile Wall ...................................................................................................... 9 10.2.3 Secant Pile Wall ....................................................................................................10 10.2.4 Diaphragm Wall.....................................................................................................10 10.2.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................10

10.3 Ground Anchor Design ......................................................................................................11

10.4 Excavation Conditions .......................................................................................................12

10.5 Excavation Batters .............................................................................................................13

10.6 Effects on Surrounding Ground .........................................................................................14 10.7 Groundwater Management ................................................................................................15

10.8 Groundwater Modelling ......................................................................................................15 10.8.1 Method of Analysis ................................................................................................15 10.8.2 Model Geometry....................................................................................................15 10.8.3 Boundary Conditions and Aquifer Parameters .....................................................16 10.8.4 Basement Dewatering – Drain Cells .....................................................................16 10.8.5 Groundwater Modelling Simulations .....................................................................16


10.8.6 Results of Predictive Groundwater Modelling .......................................................17 10.8.7 Groundwater Modelling Conclusions ....................................................................17 10.8.8 Groundwater Contamination Testing ....................................................................17

10.9 Groundwater Control..........................................................................................................18

10.10 Foundations .......................................................................................................................18 10.10.1 General .................................................................................................................18 10.10.2 Spread Footings ....................................................................................................19

10.11 Piles ..............................................................................................................................19 10.11.1 General Comments ...............................................................................................19 10.11.2 Pile Design ............................................................................................................19 10.11.3 Pile Construction and Verification .........................................................................21

10.12 Earthquake Classification ..................................................................................................22

10.13 Basement Floor Slabs........................................................................................................23

10.14 Groundwater Aggressivity ..................................................................................................23 10.15 Noise and Vibrations ..........................................................................................................23

10.16 Further Investigation ..........................................................................................................24

11. References ................................................................................................................................... 24

12. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A: About This Report

Appendix B: Drawing Site Photograph Preliminary Structural Drawings

Appendix C: Borehole Logs Core Photographs

Standpipe Construction Details

Appendix D: Laboratory Test Certificates Hydraulic Conductivity Results

of 25


Report on Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation Yarra One Development 16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra 1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Phase 1 geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) for a proposed multi-storey residential development at 16 – 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra. The proposed development comprises a 27 storey tower with a 4 level basement car park. The work was carried out for Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd (Eco World) in accordance with DP’s proposal MEL170180.P001.Rev0 dated 8 May 2017 with authorisation received on 9 November 2017. Webber Design Pty Ltd are the structural engineers and agent for the project. The investigation is divided into two phases; with Phase 1 comprising two boreholes drilled in the existing car park on the north side of the site prior to demolition works, and Phase 2 comprising a further two boreholes drilled within the existing building footprint on the south side of the site after demolition works. A preliminary contamination assessment was undertaken concurrently with the geotechnical investigation and the results are presented in a separate report. The aims of the geotechnical investigation were to assess the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical advice regarding design and construction of the building. 2. Scope of Work

The agreed scope of work for Phase 1 geotechnical investigation may be summarised as:

• Drill and sample two boreholes to 25 m to 30 m depth or 15 m into sound rock below the proposed lowest basement level, whichever is shallower;

• Log the subsurface conditions;

• Install two standpipes in the boreholes;

• Undertake geotechnical laboratory testing to evaluate relevant engineering properties of the rock;

• Undertake groundwater modelling to assess the potential inflow rates into the proposed basement;

• Undertake numerical modelling to assess the impact of the proposed basement construction on the adjacent existing building at 12 – 14 Claremont Street, and to assist in the design of the basement retaining walls (subject of separate report); and

• Prepare a report presenting the factual data of the investigation together with comments relating to design and construction of the proposed works.

The numerical modelling of the basement wall is currently being carried out and once completed the results will be presented in a separate report.

of 25


3. Site Description

The site is located at 16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra as shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The site is rectangular with plan dimensions of 40 m by 50 m and covers an area of about 2000 m2, and is bounded by Claremont Street to the west, an existing two storey brick building to the north, and multi-storey towers to the south (12 – 14 Claremont Street) and east (4 - 10 Daly Street). Further details on the multi-storey tower at 12 – 14 Claremont Street are given in Section 4. At the time of the investigation the southern portion of the site was occupied by a three storey building while the northern portion of the site was a concrete paved at grade car park. The site sloped towards the northwest with a level difference of about 1 m across the car park. Site photographs taken during the investigation are shown in Appendix B. 4. Building at 12 – 14 Claremont Street

The existing building at 12 – 14 Claremont Street has 17 above ground levels with no basement. Based on the supplied foundation and footing plan (Drawing 08037-S020 RevC4), a copy of which is attached in Appendix B, the building is supported on pad footings with the exception of the northern end of the building where the columns are supported on bored piles. The drawings indicate two rows of piles parallel to the north boundary (i.e. 16 – 22 Claremont Street), with each row comprising five 900 – 1050 mm diameter piles at 8 m centre to centre spacing. The two rows of piles are setback 3.5 m and 5.3 m from the proposed basement wall, noting that these setbacks are measured from the pile centres. The piles are indicated to be 8.5 m deep with working column loads of 5500 kN to 6500 kN as advised by the structural engineer. 5. Geological Setting

The relevant geological maps of the area published by the Geological Survey of Victoria, 1:31,680 scale Melbourne and Suburbs and the 1:63,360 scale Melbourne map, indicate that the site is underlain by Quaternary age colluvium deposits comprising poorly sorted gravelly sand and sand silt over Silurian age siltstone bedrock. The bedrock unit typically comprises residual clay grading to variably weathered siltstone and sandstone. The 1:63,360 scale map also indicate a zone of contact metamorphism close to the site due to the proximity of a sizeable igneous intrusion, forming high strength indurated hornfels rock or a gradation of stronger siltstone. Emplacement of the intrusion is likely to have resulted in dykes or dyke swarms penetrating into the siltstone.

of 25


6. Field Work Methods

The Phase 1 investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of two boreholes (BH1 & BH2) terminating at 27.4 m and 27.6 m below the ground surface. A further two boreholes (BH1A and BH2A) were drilled several metres away from boreholes BH1 and BH2 to 15 m depth for standpipe installation. The field work was undertaken from 21 to 24 November 2017. The locations of the boreholes are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The boreholes were drilled using solid flight augers through the soil strata and NMLC coring techniques in weathered rock. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were undertaken at regular intervals in the soil. The recovered rock core was stored in boxes and photographed prior to transport to DP’s Melbourne office. Selected rock core samples were tested for saturated moisture content and point load strength index in DP Melbourne’s NATA accredited soil laboratory. The boreholes were backfilled and surface plugged. Drilling waste was stored in steel drums and disposed of by a licenced waste removal contractor. Two PVC standpipes were installed in boreholes BH1A and BH2A to the bottom of the holes (approximately 15 m deep). The standpipes were purged and developed prior to dipping on subsequent visits. Construction details of the standpipes are given in Appendix C. Borehole coordinates were established using a hand held GPS unit (datum WGS84, UTM Zone 55H) with an estimated accuracy ± 5 m. The surface levels of the test sites were interpolated from a survey drawing provided by Webber Design Pty Ltd (Breese Pitt Dixon Drawing BPD REF: 9715). The field work was supervised by a DP engineer who was responsible for field work coordination, logging of the strata encountered and handling the samples collected. 7. Field Work Results

7.1 Field Work Results

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are presented on the logs given in Appendix C. These logs should be read in conjunction with the standard “Notes About This Report” and notes on the descriptions and classification of soils and rocks in Appendix A. Photographs of the retrieved rock cores are in Appendix C. The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are considered to be generally consistent with the anticipated geological setting. The boreholes encountered filling (concrete, crushed rock and sandy clay) between 0.8 m and 1.2 m thick, overlying natural firm to stiff silty clay to a depth of up to 2.5 m where it was underlain by extremely weathered and extremely low strength (i.e. hard clay) sandstone. The sandstone became less weathered and stronger with depth, and was generally highly weathered and low strength from between 3 m and 5.2 m depth, and then moderately weathered and medium strength from between 6.7 m and 8.9 m depth. Slightly weathered and fresh sandstone/siltstone were generally encountered from between 17.7 m and 19 m depth and continued to the borehole termination depths.

of 25


The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values in the sandstone/siltstone ranged between 0% and 100%, but mostly between 40% and 80%. Core loss of 0.15 m to 0.85 m was encountered in both boreholes. Igneous intrusions or dykes are often encountered within the siltstone and sandstone of the Melbourne area, although no dyke materials were evident from the boreholes. However, such intrusions are often sub-vertically orientated and can be relatively thin (i.e. several metres wide) and as such may still be present between the boreholes. Dykes typically have soil properties and where encountered within the rock profile can present difficulties with regard to the stability of excavations and foundations, possibly requiring modifications to the retention and foundation system design during construction. A summary of the conditions encountered in the boreholes is presented in Table 1. Table 1 : Stratigraphy Encountered in Boreholes

Unit Inferred

Geological Unit

Typical Description Depth Interval

(mBGL*)

BH1 BH2

1 Fill

Concrete 0 – 0.15 0 – 0.11

Crushed Rock 0.15 – 0.20 0.11 – 0.15

Filling: Sandy CLAY 0.2 – 0.8 0.15 – 1.2

2 Residual Soil

Silty CLAY (CH): Firm to stiff, dark grey, orange brown (Residual Soil)

0.8 – 2.3 1.2 – 2.5

3a

Silurian Siltstone

Sandstone (EW, EW-HW): Extremely low (hard clay), extremely low (hard clay) to very low strength, brown, grey brown

2.3 – 5.2 2.5 – 3.0

3b Sandstone (HW): Low strength, highly fractured to fractured, orange brown, grey, pale brown

5.2 – 6.7 3.0 – 8.9

3c Sandstone (MW): Medium to high strength, highly fractured to slightly fractured, grey brown

6.7 – 13.15 &

16.35 – 19.0 8.9 – 17.7

3d Sandstone (SW): Medium to high strength, fractured to slightly fractured, blue grey

13.15 – 16.35 &

19.0 – 21.6 17.7 – 19.8

3e Siltstone/Sandstone (SW-FR): Medium to high, high strength, fractured to slightly fractured, dark blue grey

21.6 – 27.4^ 19.8 – 27.6^

*m BGL = metres below ground level ^Borehole termination depth Weathering grades: EW = extremely weathered HW = highly weathered MW = moderately weathered

SW = slightly weathered

of 25


7.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes to a depth of 2.5 m, which were drilled using solid flight augers. Below these depths water was used as drilling fluid, which obscured any further groundwater observations during drilling. Two standpipes were installed to allow the measurement of groundwater levels. Standpipe construction details are shown as Drawings 2 & 3 in Appendix C. The standpipes were initially purged of drilling fluids using a bailer and the water allowed to re-establish. The standpipes were then dipped approximately 1 week later on 29 November 2017 and again on 15 December 2017. The recorded standing water levels in the standpipes are shown in Table 2. Table 2 : Standpipe Groundwater Levels

Standpipe 29 November 2017 15 December 2017

m BGL m AHD m BGL m AHD

BH1A 6.67 -2.67 6.42 -2.42

BH2A 6.95 -2.75 6.66 -2.46

*m BGL = metres below ground level Groundwater levels can vary seasonally, following periods of rainfall and due to local factors, such as permeability of the rock, changes to drainage conditions and nearby underground services or basements. It is recommended that ongoing measurement of groundwater levels be undertaken. 7.3 Hydraulic Conductivity

Field permeability tests (or slug tests) were carried out in the monitoring bores BH1A and BH2A to obtain an estimate of the hydraulic conductivity or permeability of the aquifer material. Water level recovery data were analysed using the “Aquifer Test Version 2011.1” software package (Schlumberger Water Services, 2011) to estimate the hydraulic conductivity (permeability). Analysis results are summarised in Table 3 and plots of test data are provided in Appendix D. Table 3: Summary of Rising Head Permeability Test Results

Standpipe Slug Test Material Permeability

m/day

BH1A Rising head Sandstone 0.26 BH1A Falling head Sandstone 0.23 BH2A Rising head Sandstone 0.38 BH2A Falling head Sandstone 0.33

The rising head permeability test analysis indicates that the sandstone surrounding the proposed basement has an average hydraulic conductivity (permeability) value of approximately 0.3 m/day. The permeability of the sandstone surrounding the proposed basement will naturally vary in accordance with changes in the secondary structural features, such as joints and fractures.

of 25


8. Laboratory Testing

8.1 Geotechnical

Selected rock core samples were submitted to DP’s NATA accredited soil laboratory to determine point load strength index and saturated moisture content. The results are presented in Appendix D and on the borehole logs. A summary of the results is presented in Table 4. Table 4: Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Borehole No. Sample Depth (m)

Sandstone Weathering

Grade

Point Load Index Is(50)

(MPa)

Saturated Moisture Content

(%)

BH 1

6.9 MW 0.17 5.8

10.9 MW 1.17 4.3

15.0 SW 2.00 3.1

19.0 SW 0.22 3.7

22.2 SW-FR 2.51 2.4

26.9 SW-FR 1.80 1.3

BH 2

4.5 HW 0.86 7.7

8.9 MW 1.46 7.2

11.2 MW 0.55 7.0

15.0 MW 0.94 5.0

19.0 SW 0.35 2.7

23.6 SW-FR 4.23 1.0 Notes : Sandstone weathering inferred from observed condition of rock core HW = highly weathered MW = moderately weathered SW = slightly weathered FR = fresh

8.2 Groundwater

Groundwater samples were collected from both standpipes on 14 December 2017 and submitted to a NATA accredited laboratory for assessment of water quality parameters relating to potential aggressivity towards buried concrete and steel. The results of the water testing are summarised in Table 5 and the laboratory certificates are presented in Appendix D. Table 5: Result of Groundwater Analysis

Standpipe pH Sulfate Concentration SO4 (mg/L)

Chloride Concentration (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)

BH1A 7.2 63 46 500

BH2A 7.0 100 50 860

of 25


9. Proposed Development

The proposed development comprises a 27 storey tower with a 4 level basement car park. The floor level of the lowest basement is at RL-8.1 m AHD, or approximately 12.5 m below the road level. The lift overrun located at the centre of the basement will be set down a further 3.5 m. The structural engineers indicate the working column loads to be generally between 15,000 to 20,000 kN, with a maximum of 24,000 kN. Supplied preliminary design drawings indicate spread footings to support the columns. The drawings also indicate soldier pile walls for basement retention comprising 600 mm diameter piles at 1.8 m centre to centre spacing together with temporary ground anchors. Supplied drawings are attached in Appendix B. 10. Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations

10.1 Appreciation of Site Conditions

The results of the investigation have indicated that the site is underlain by a subsurface profile comprising filling and natural soil underlain by weathered sandstone from approximately 2.5 m depth, with the sandstone becoming less weathered and stronger with depth. The basement will be approximately 12.5 m deep, which is lower than the existing piles supporting the adjacent multi-storey tower. Considering the close proximity of the existing piles to the south boundary of the proposed basement, the potential impact of the proposed basement construction on the adjacent existing building at 12 – 14 Claremont Street would need to be assessed. At the time of writing this report, numerical modelling of the basement wall is being carried out and the results presented in a separate report. At the basement floor level (RL -8.1 m AHD), the subgrade condition is expected to comprise moderately weathered sandstone of generally medium to high strength. Depending on the applied loading and settlement tolerances, it is anticipated that the proposed building could be supported on spread footings founded in weathered sandstone. Alternatively, bored piles may be considered. Groundwater was measured between the depths of about 6.4 m and 7 m in the standpipe (RL -2.42 to RL -2.75 m AHD). The lowest basement floor level of RL -8.1 m AHD will be located about 5.5 m below the groundwater level. The management of groundwater both during construction and in the long term will need to be carefully considered, and particularly whether a ‘drained’ or ‘tanked’ basement system is to be adopted. A drained basement system will require a permanent drainage and pumping system to remove groundwater from the basement. Groundwater will need to be disposed of off site or managed on site. Contingency measures will need to be incorporated in the event of a failure of the pumping or drainage system.

of 25


A tanked basement system would remove the requirement for the disposal of groundwater in the long term, but would require the construction of a water tight floor and/or wall system. Hydrostatic pressures acting as uplift on the basement floor and laterally on the basement walls would need to be considered in the design of a fully tanked basement system. Given the potential for water from surface flows or leaking services to accumulate behind the basement walls above the groundwater table, the hydrostatic pressures adopted should account for a higher temporary water level for serviceability conditions. For ultimate conditions, hydrostatic pressures should be calculated over the full retained height of the basement wall, unless the basement walls are partially drained such that the potential for the accumulation of water from higher levels is removed. Management of groundwater seepage during construction would still be required with a tanked basement option. Consideration may also be given to the use of tanked or undrained basement walls and providing a drained floor system. This would relieve the hydrostatic uplift pressures on the basement floor slab expected of a fully tanked system and reduce the long term groundwater inflows over a fully drained basement. A continuous sub-slab drainage layer would be required, coupled with a grid of deeper ‘agi’ drains to keep the water level sufficiently below underside of slab. A plastic membrane layer to prevent wet spots developing on the slab is recommended. In summary, the factors to be considered in deciding on a drained or tanked basement include:

• The volume, quality, treatment and disposal of groundwater, including the associated costs;

• Maintenance requirements to ensure that pumps and the drainage system continue to operate for the required design life, including the implications of a system breakdown and appropriate contingent measures;

• The potential effect that any drawdown of the groundwater may have on settlement of the surrounding ground and nearby buildings and other assets such as underground services; and

• The likely maximum groundwater level which may apply uplift or buoyant forces to the basement floor slab and walls should a tanked basement be adopted.

Various basement retention systems can be considered, including a conventional soldier pile wall (drained system), secant piles (tanked system) or a diaphragm wall (tanked system). These wall systems are discussed further in the following sections of the report. 10.2 Basement Design and Construction

10.2.1 General

A soldier pile wall together with temporary ground anchors is considered a suitable option for basement retention. In this instance the ground anchors will be required to provide temporary support during construction and until the basement floor levels are installed. Numerical modelling is currently being undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed basement construction on the adjacent existing building to the south (12 – 14 Claremont Street), and to assist in the design of the basement retaining walls, and the result may have an influence on the basement wall system selected.

of 25


10.2.2 Soldier Pile Wall

A soldier pile wall is a drained wall system comprising closely spaced piles and shotcrete infill panels between piles. The piles could comprise cast in situ bored piles or possibly Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles. If CFA piles are to be considered in this application, advice should be sought from specialist contractors regarding the ability of the CFA piling rigs to penetrate the stronger weathered siltstone and sandstone. In addition, it is difficult to visually log the ground conditions encountered with CFA piles, and as such the use of conventional bored piles (with geotechnical logging) are likely to provide a better early indication of the presence of dyke intrusions and the need for additional retention measures. For soldier pile walls, there is potential for soils and rock between the piles to cave into the excavation if the pile spacing is set too wide. Soldier pile systems in the siltstone formation around Melbourne (away from adjacent buildings) are usually based on a maximum centre-to-centre pile spacing in the range of 3D to 4D, where D is the pile diameter. Closer spacing is generally required where existing buildings or other structures/assets are founded within the zone of influence of excavation should be the subject of detailed analysis based on the tolerable ground movements for the particular structure (i.e. shared boundary with 12 – 14 Claremont Street), but are typically not more than 2D centre to centre. Shotcrete infill will be needed for the full excavation depth between the soldier piles. The shotcrete panels should be constructed progressively, and as soon as practicable, as the excavation proceeds. It is recommended that the excavation and shotcreting be undertaken in lifts not exceeding 1.5 m. As the excavation proceeds, and depending on the observed performance, rock condition and groundwater inflows, consideration may be given to increasing the depth of the lifts, but lifts should not exceed 2.5 m. Temporary ground anchors will be required to support soldier pile retaining walls until the lateral loads can be resisted by the building itself. The anchors should be installed progressively and without delay as the excavation proceeds. Continuous prefabricated strip drains wrapped in geotextile fabric should be placed behind the infill panels to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressures. The drains should be connected to a subfloor drainage blanket. Groundwater inflows into the bulk excavation should be observed and if inflows are impeded, additional drainage measures may be required to ensure drained conditions occur. Consideration should also be given to contingent measures within the basement walls and floor in the event of a malfunction of the drainage or pumping system. The use of one way pressure relief valves, or similar, could be used within the floors and walls for this purpose. It is recommended that inspection and mapping of the excavated faces be carried out by an experienced engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to check for adversely oriented jointing and/or faulting. Local support for adversely oriented jointing is likely to take the form of individual rock bolts or additional temporary ground anchors. Inspection of the excavation should be carried out for each lift of shotcrete.

of 25


It should be noted that a “drained” soldier pile and infill panel wall under the groundwater table is unlikely to be completely dry, regardless of the extent of drainage provided behind the walls. Consequently, some moisture and water seepage should be expected at the basement walls. For aesthetic reasons and subject to space requirements, a false wall could be installed inside the external wall to mask such seepage. 10.2.3 Secant Pile Wall

Secant piles would form a low permeability vertical barrier for the basement excavation and would extend below basement slab level. This system would be used as an undrained (tanked) or partially drained structure. Secant pile walls with hard-hard piles provide greater watertightness relative to a hard-soft pile combination. However, hard-hard piles can be more difficult to construct and the risk of piles deflecting off vertical needs to be carefully addressed. The long term durability of the soft piles also needs to be carefully assessed if that approach is adopted. Allowance should be made for progressive grouting to seal any gaps during excavation in order to reduce the risk of sediment loss and water seepage through gaps between the piles, although, for a well-constructed secant pile wall where the piles are sufficiently overlapped, this risk is generally low. Similar to a soldier pile wall, piles will need to be supported laterally by ground anchors or props. Hydrostatic pressure will need to be considered in assessing lateral pressures behind a secant pile wall, and uplift pressures on the floor slab for a tanked basement unless under floor drainage is provided. 10.2.4 Diaphragm Wall

A tanked basement could also be constructed using a diaphragm wall, which comprises reinforced concrete wall panels that are cast insitu in a deep trench. The panels are keyed into each other forming a continuous water tight wall. The trenches are excavated in relatively short lengths using kelly-bar or cable mounted grabs, with excavation performed under a bentonite slurry, or similar. Depending on the details of the wall design, the use of ground anchors may or may not be required. A diaphragm wall offers a higher level of watertightness than a secant pile wall. If a diaphragm wall is to be considered for this project, it is recommended that advice be sought from a specialist design and construct contractor. Excavation through weak rock using mechanical grabs is expected to be slow and may be very difficult in the medium strength sandstone. Accordingly, this construction method is typically more expensive than piled walls. 10.2.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

The lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls will depend on several factors including the method of construction, rigidity of the retaining walls and the amount of ground movement that can be tolerated behind the walls. The design of retaining walls should be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4678-2000, or another similar method. The proposed basement excavation will require multi-anchored or multi-propped walls. PLAXIS modelling is currently being undertaken to assess lateral pressure distribution and deformations of the structure and surrounding ground.

of 25


For preliminary sizing and spacing of retention system elements, approximate estimates of lateral earth pressure for propped or anchored basement walls can be based on a uniform lateral earth pressure distribution, as follows below. It should be noted that these are stress envelopes to ensure that no individual anchor or prop is overstressed. The lateral earth pressures calculated using say PLAXIS will provide different values and distributions to those using the simplified approach below, particularly for the permanent retention condition. No adjacent structures / assets σH = 4H + 0.4 S (kPa) uniform distribution with depth Adjacent structures / assets that require a stiffer wall to limit movement σH = 6H + 0.6 S (kPa) uniform distribution with depth Where: σH = horizontal lateral pressure H = height of retained ground in metres S = uniform surface load or surcharge applied behind walls Where soldier pile spacing is within the range discussed above, arching effects between piles can be considered and a reduced lateral earth pressure can be adopted for the design of the shotcrete infill panels. For preliminary purposes, a 50% reduction to the lateral earth pressure distributions presented above can generally be applied for the infill panels. However, the minimum lateral pressure should not be less than 15 kPa. Soldier piles should be designed for the full lateral earth pressures as described above. Unless positive drainage measures are incorporated to prevent water pressure build up behind the walls, full hydrostatic head should be allowed for in design over the depth of the retained ground in addition to the above lateral earth pressure distributions. Rock sockets below the bulk excavation level for the purpose of passive restraint should have a minimum length of two pile diameters or 2 m below the lowest level of any nearby excavation, including any localised excavations, but subject to checking the required embedment. A low level anchor can be used to supplement the lateral toe support supplied by the embedment. 10.3 Ground Anchor Design

Installation of ground anchors is normally performed on a design and construct basis, since anchor capacity depends on the hole diameter and method of drilling and grouting, amongst other factors and this approach should be adopted on this project. The anchoring of shoring piles and diaphragm walls is likely to be accomplished by prestressed cable anchors. Typically, anchors are inclined at 10° to 15° to the horizontal, but can be steepened to avoid obstructions or services behind the walls. Inclined anchors should preferably not exceed 30°, as anchoring at more than 30° will significantly increase the vertical loading in the pile. Nevertheless, the vertical load component and the effects on the retaining wall should be taken into account.

of 25


The anchors should be designed to have a free length equal to their height above the excavation base and to have a minimum 3 m bond length. It is general practice to not have a bond length beyond 10 m, as experience indicates that that individual anchors longer than this are unlikely to increase load capacity due to progressive debonding of the grout from the tendon as load is increased. For preliminary assessment purposes, the design of temporary ground anchors for the support of shoring wall systems may be carried out using the allowable average bond stresses at the grout- rock interface given in Table 6. Table 6: Typical Allowable Bond Stresses for Anchor Design

Material Description Allowable Bond Stress (kPa)

Sandstone - extremely weathered 100

Sandstone - highly weathered 200

Sandstone – moderately or less weathered 300 After anchors have been installed, it is recommended that they be proof loaded to 125% of the design working load and then locked off at 100% of the design load. Periodic checks should be carried out during the construction phase to ensure that the lock-off load is maintained and not lost due to creep effects or other causes. The above allowable bond stress assume that the anchor holes are clean, suitably rough and free of any disturbed material along the shaft, and flushed to remove debris. It is preferable the holes are drilled using air flush or a light mist spray to remove the cuttings. Grouting and other installation procedures should be carried out in accordance with good anchoring practice. Careful installation, and close inspection by a geotechnical specialist, may allow increased bond stresses to be adopted during construction, subject to confirmatory testing. The bond length of anchors may intercept the groundwater table. While the anchor holes in natural strata are expected to be self supporting in the short term, the anchoring contractor should review the stability to accordingly select appropriate drilling techniques. The holes may require casing through any deep filling, if encountered. In normal circumstances the building floor slabs will restrain the basement excavation over the long term and therefore ground anchors are expected to be temporary only and de-stressed once the permanent floor supports are in place. It will be necessary to obtain permission from neighbouring landowners prior to installing anchors that will extend beyond the perimeter of the site. In addition, care should be taken to avoid damaging buried services, pipes, adjacent basements and other subsurface structures during anchor installation. 10.4 Excavation Conditions

It is understood that excavation up to 12.5 m deep basement is currently proposed, although localised deeper excavations are likely to be required for footings, trenches and lift overruns.

of 25


The bulk excavation will encounter filling, residual clay and weathered sandstone ranging from extremely weathered to moderately weathered. Rock strength ranging from extremely low to medium strength, with some high strength bands, is expected. The site filling, natural clay and extremely low to low strength weathered sandstone should be readily excavatable using conventional earthmoving plant such as hydraulic excavators and backhoes, although light ripping of the low strength sandstone may improve excavation productivity. The excavatability of the medium to high strength sandstone would depend on several variables with two key attributes being rock material strength and joint spacing. The medium strength sandstone has point load index strengths in the range of 0.55 to 2 and joint spacings typically between 0.05 m and 0.3 m. With reference to various published rippability charts (e.g. Pettifer & Fookes 1994, Braybrooke 1988) the rock mass is likely to require ripping and may be more difficult to rip for larger joint spacing. The assessment of rippability is not readily determined with accuracy in advance of field trials, hence a cautious assessment should be made. Considering the footprint of the proposed basement, ripping may not be practical for the size of plant required. Based on DP’s experience it is recommended that the method of excavation should be based on using hydraulic rock breaker equipment to facilitate fragmentation and removal of the weathered sandstone. Rock saws and rotary milling heads would reduce the amount of overbreak that may otherwise occur at the edge of the excavation. Experienced earthmoving contractors should be supplied with the available geotechnical information in order to make their own judgements with respect to the excavatability characteristics of the rock and the required equipment. Contractors should also inspect the rock cores from the boreholes. Regular inspections of the excavation works by experienced engineering geologists/geotechnical engineers are suggested as a means of identifying adversely oriented joints, other rock defects and dykes. Personnel should not enter any confined excavations that are in excess of 1.5 m deep, unless the excavations are appropriately battered or shored. 10.5 Excavation Batters

Temporary batter slopes may be used within the bulk excavation to create benches, access ramps and working platforms as the excavation proceeds. Temporary batter slopes, of up to 3 m high, excavated within the natural clay or weathered sandstone should not be steeper than 1H:1V (45°). Drainage should be provided at the top of all batter slopes to divert runoff away from the slope face. Batter slopes flatter than those discussed above may be required should deep uncontrolled fill be encountered, or if dykes or other defects are unfavourably orientated with respect to the batter. It is recommended that all batter slopes be inspected by a suitably experienced engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction. Such inspections are of particular importance in areas where works are to be undertaken close to the toe or crest of a batter.

of 25


In some circumstances, geotechnical inspection may allow the use of higher or steeper batter slopes within competent sandstone and depending on the orientation of bedding and defects within the rock. The use of batter slopes higher than 3 m may be required for access ramps to the site. The suitability of a particular batter arrangement will depend on the material used to form the ramp (i.e. natural ground or fill) and the specific risks and precautions that are able to be implemented to protect workers around the batter. In such circumstances, it is recommended that specific geotechnical advice be sought. Should zones of seepage, major fractures, clay seams or unfavourably orientated jointing be observed during excavation then the adopted batter slopes may need to be revised and remedial measures adopted. 10.6 Effects on Surrounding Ground

Major excavation works will inevitably cause lateral and vertical ground displacements outside of the excavation. Even though the soil and rock is effectively shored at the boundaries, the release of stresses in ground at depth is generally accompanied by lateral movement, which can give rise to observed displacement at the boundary. The amount of horizontal movement will diminish along the crest away from the midpoint, and down the excavated face away from the crest (but dependent on the retention method and wall stiffness). The movement is expected to occur progressively during excavation and should be completed shortly after excavation is complete. The amount of movement will be a function of the construction practice, earth pressure loads, and rigidity of the walls, and if critical, should be the subject of detailed analysis and modelling. Such modelling is currently being undertaken for the south basement wall. As a preliminary indication, the surface settlement of a well constructed tied back wall is anticipated to be approximately up to 0.3% H, where H is the depth of excavation, reducing to less than 0.1% H at a distance equal to H behind the excavation. Similarly, lateral displacements (into the excavation) are expected to be up to about 0.3% H at the top of the walls. However, the numerical modelling will allow refinement of the approximate estimates. The rock at the base of the excavation may also experience some minor vertical rebound when the overburden pressure is reduced due to the deep excavation. Close to the excavation, cracking in paved areas could occur but is not likely to impair serviceability of underground non-settlement sensitive services or pavements, although some rectification of surface pavements may be necessary. It is recommended that existing condition assessments be carried out on the buildings on the adjoining properties prior to commencement of excavation or other major site work. Monitoring of any existing cracks should be initiated. Any old, historic or poorly maintained buildings within the zone of influence of the excavation (say 50 m) of the site boundary should also be documented. If critical, movements could be monitored by the installation of inclinometers in addition to survey targets / pins immediately behind the excavation or within the perimeter soldier piles.

of 25


10.7 Groundwater Management

Based on the groundwater level measurements, it is considered that bulk excavation for the basement will extend several metres below the groundwater level. Irrespective of the final design, the basement excavation will require groundwater control and management measures during construction, and also in the long term unless a fully tanked basement is adopted. 10.8 Groundwater Modelling

On the basis of the preliminary groundwater measurement, it is considered that bulk excavation for the lower basement level (RL -8.4 m) will extend up to 6 m below the groundwater level and as such either a drained or tanked basement will need to be considered. Groundwater was measured at depths of between 6.4 m and 6.95 m in the standpipes (RL -2.42 m to RL -2.75 m AHD). 10.8.1 Method of Analysis

The purpose of developing the groundwater model was to assess the potential inflow rates into the proposed basement. Groundwater model simulations were conducted using MODFLOW (McDonald & Harbaugh, 1988) developed by the United States Geological Survey. Modflow is a three-dimensional groundwater head and flow model, which is widely used, and is accepted as an industry standard. The model was based on site-specific data where possible, as well as estimates of unknown parameters based on experience with similar environments. The model was developed using the pre-processor or graphical interface program Visual MODFLOW V2011.1 Pro (c) Schlumberger Water Services (SWS, 2011b). 10.8.2 Model Geometry

The aquifer surrounding the proposed development was simulated using a multi-layer numerical model to represent the subsurface conditions surrounding the site and to allow the vertical flow components to be simulated more effectively. The aquifer was subdivided into two layers for the numerical model to assess the potential groundwater inflow into the basement during construction. The aquifer boundaries of the model were extended approximately 500 m from the site boundaries so that they did not affect the simulation results. The overall finite difference model grid extended 1,000 m in the east-west and north-south directions. The top of the model, i.e. top of Layer 1, was set to approximate the average ground surface across the site. Layer 1 and 2 represent the sandstone surrounding the basement. Details of the layer specifications, together with the hydraulic parameters are provided in Table 7. All layers were assigned as MODFLOW (Type 3) layers (confined / unconfined).

of 25


Table 7: Model Layer Summary (Horizontal Permeability)

Model Layer Layer Represents

Base of Layer (m AHD)

Lower Permeability

(m/day)

Average Permeability

(m/day)

High Permeability

(m/day)

1 Sandstone -9 0.1 0.3 0.6

2 Sandstone -15 0.1 0.3 0.6

10.8.3 Boundary Conditions and Aquifer Parameters

The northern boundary of the model was aligned with the Yarra River and set as a constant head boundary. The south, east and west boundaries were generally set as no-flow boundaries. The measured groundwater level (or potentiometric head) on site was approximately RL -2.7 mAHD and was uniformly applied to the model as the initial hydraulic head. Aquifer parameters required for the multi-layer model included horizontal (Kh) and vertical (Kv) hydraulic conductivity, as well as specific yield or storage coefficient. Hydraulic conductivity values were based on results from in-situ hydraulic testing (slug tests). The in-situ permeability was approximately 0.3 m/d and was used as a basis for the permeability assigned to the model. The permeability or hydraulic conductivity of the sandstone will vary according to changes in the secondary structural features, such as joints and fractures, along which groundwater will flow. Changes in the clay content of the rock fractures, as well as their orientation and interconnection will cause changes in the rock mass permeability. For this reason, and to assess the potential range of inflow rates to the proposed basement, the model was run using a lower and higher permeability estimate for the sandstone. Vertical hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be 50% of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity. 10.8.4 Basement Dewatering – Drain Cells

The MODFLOW drain package is often used to simulate water loss from the groundwater which may occur due to dewatering operations. Drain cells set with a high conductance of 1,000 m2/day simulated the dewatering during construction of the basement. The drain cells represent the dewatering system (wells/pumps and sumps) within the excavation to dewater the site during construction. Drain cells were set to approximately the drainage layer of the proposed lower basement level at RL-8.4 mAHD. The inflows into the drain cells, representing the basement dewatering system, were monitored throughout the model simulation using the zone budget module of MODFLOW. 10.8.5 Groundwater Modelling Simulations

The model was run under transient conditions for a period of up to 200 days to assess the groundwater inflow rates into the basement. The model simulations comprised the following:

• Run 1 simulating the basement dewatering using the lower permeability estimate; and

• Run 2 simulating the basement dewatering and assuming a high permeability estimate.

of 25


10.8.6 Results of Predictive Groundwater Modelling

The simulated groundwater inflow to the drain cells was monitored throughout each model simulation and results are shown in Table 8. The inflow rates represent the estimated total rate of groundwater flowing into the basement and the volume (per unit time) required to be extracted from the basement dewatering system. Table 8: Predictive Model Simulated Inflow Rates

Model Run Permeability

Inflow Rate / Dewatering Flow Rate

Start of Construction (L/s)

End of Construction / Long-term

(L/s)

1 Low permeability 0.7 0.3

2 High permeability 2.8 1.2

3 Average permeability 1.6 0.7 The results indicate that the inflow rates are sensitive to the in-situ permeability of the subsurface profile of sandstone surrounding the basement. During the early stages of construction inflow rates will be higher and then will gradually decrease as the hydraulic gradient around the basement decreases, i.e. the cone of depression in the potentiometric surface expands out from the basement. 10.8.7 Groundwater Modelling Conclusions

Groundwater beneath the site flows through a semi-confined aquifer within the sandstone bedrock. The on-site permeability testing indicated that the aquifer has a medium permeability of approximately 0.3 m/day. However, this may vary according to changes in the clay content and interconnection of fractures and joints within the sandstone. The development of a numerical groundwater flow model and simulation of the basement during construction and in the long term allowed the groundwater inflow rates, or dewatering rates, to be assessed. Model simulations estimated that the early construction inflows are likely to be between approximately 0.7 L/s and 2.8 L/s. The long-term inflow rates are likely to be between approximately 0.3 L/s and 1.2 L/s. 10.8.8 Groundwater Contamination Testing

The results from the groundwater testing were compared to the limits prescribed by South East Water for trade waste discharge licences. Results and criteria are summarised in Table D1, Appendix D. All results were found to be within their acceptable limits. It was not possible to comment on the potential for groundwater to be discharged to the stormwater system as there are no readily acceptable criteria to which results can be compared. The client should make enquiries direct with the relevant authorities if disposal to the stormwater system is proposed. The salt load limit set by South East Water is 200 kg/day, at the maximum observed salinity of 860 mg/L, approximately 232KL of water per day would be able to be discharged before reaching the salt load limit.

of 25


It is recommended that if a drained basement construction is preferred, then a trade waste application be made with the applicable water authority as soon as practicable by the development team. As part of the permit application, the water authority will determine if any additional analysis is required but none is recommend by DP at this time. 10.9 Groundwater Control

Based on the rising head test results and experience from other excavations in the area, water seepage into the excavation is expected to be controllable by the use of perimeter drains and a series of pumps and sumps at the base of the excavation as the excavation progresses. Localised fractured zones within the rock may provide for more rapid flow paths that may need specific drainage measures. Such measures should be assessed at the time of excavation, and may include dewatering wells to lower the groundwater level below the base of the excavation. Sumps and under-slab drainage for long-term interception of groundwater would need to be installed progressively in order to avoid uplift on the newly-cast sections of the basement slab. The subfloor drainage should include a coarse grained single size no-fines crushed rock (minimum 20 mm size) drainage blanket and a series of deeper trenches with agi-drains to depress the water table and reduce the risk of developing local wet spots in the concrete slab. Excessive water ingress through zones of fractured rock may locally pose problems for the application of shotcrete to the sides of the excavation should a solider pile wall be adopted. Consequently, provision should be made for grouting in such areas, should the standard drainage measures prove to be insufficient. The groundwater is likely to have some salinity and concentrations of metals that may precipitate resulting in potential for the formation of sludge or corrosion within the system. This will need to be taken into account when designing drainage lines and pump out systems to prevent premature clogging and enable flushing of the systems. The proposed excavation works will drawdown the local groundwater table in the short term, and for a drained basement also in the long term. The drawdown of the groundwater table will extend beyond the perimeter of the excavation. Given that the drawdown would occur within the siltstone rock, ground settlements induced by such drawdown are likely to relatively small and are not expected to have any significant effect (in terms of surface settlement) on surrounding existing assets. 10.10 Foundations

10.10.1 General

The weathered sandstone encountered at the site is generally considered suitable for the adoption of spread footings or piles for building support, depending on the applied loading. Where bored piles are adopted, their length may need to be increased where more weathered zones are encountered, and logging by a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer during construction is recommended.

of 25


10.10.2 Spread Footings

Based on the boreholes, it is expected that the sandstone rock at bulk excavation level will predominantly comprise moderately weathered medium sandstone, or better. Spread footings founded within the weathered sandstone may be proportioned for maximum allowable bearing pressures presented in Table 9. Table 9 : Preliminary Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures for Spread Footings

Material Description Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure

(kPa)

Pad Footings Strip Footings

Moderately Weathered Sandstone Medium Strength or better

2,000 1,500

It is likely that there will be areas, the extent of which is currently unknown, of more weathered and weaker materials, which may require larger pad footing dimensions. Conversely, higher allowable bearing pressures may be possible in some areas where less weathered and stronger rock materials may be encountered. The Phase 2 investigation may provide greater confidence in rock conditions across the site and potentially allowing the adoption of higher allowable bearing pressures. Given the expected variability in sandstone, it is strongly recommended that footing excavations should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer during construction to verify the founding conditions. The estimated settlement of individual footings and differential settlements between adjacent footings should be assessed once details of the loading are known. However, for preliminary assessment purposes, total settlements are expected to be in the order of 0.5% to 0.75% B, where B is the footing width for footings up to approximately 3 m wide. The majority of the settlement is expected to occur upon initial load application and any time dependent settlement should be minor. Differential settlement between footings is expected to be about 50% of the total settlement. 10.11 Piles

10.11.1 General Comments

Based on the site investigation findings and type of development proposed, it is considered that the building could be supported on bored piles socketed into the weathered sandstone. 10.11.2 Pile Design

For a project of this nature, specialist piling contractors are normally requested to submit their own design nominating pile diameters and load capacities, pile socket lengths and estimated settlements based on the load schedule provided by the structural engineers. Accordingly, this geotechnical report should be made available to contractors to assist in the preparation of their design. The pile design should be carried out in accordance with the minimum requirements of Australian Standard AS 2159-2009 – Piling, Design and Installation.

of 25


Bored piles would derive their capacity from a combination of end bearing and shaft skin friction. Preliminary design of bored piles may be based on the ultimate unit stresses presented in Table 10. Table 10 : Preliminary Estimate of Ultimate Unit Stresses (Unfactored) for Pile Design

Founding Material Ultimate Unit Stresses for Piles

Skin Friction (kPa)

End Bearing3 (kPa)

Sandstone

Moderately Weathered – medium strength 500 10,000

Moderately to Slightly or Less Weathered – medium to high strength 600 15,000

Notes: 1. Assumes that pile penetrates a distance of at least 4 pile diameters into the designated founding material. 2. The parameters presented are preliminary only, and may be adjusted once details of pile loads and layouts are known. 3. Ultimate end bearing values include a nominal base area reduction for possible construction related effects and variability

of the rock. As bored piles are likely to be drilled below groundwater, the use of a stabilising fluid may be required to ensure shaft stability throughout the pile construction process. The side friction values for rock sockets presented in Table 10 assume that the pile shafts are suitably rough, free of remoulded material or any drilling fluid deposits, which can substantially reduce the mobilised resistance. It is recommended that base capacity should be downgraded to account for construction related effects and base cleanliness. The base area of piles constructed under a stabilising fluid, and where remote inspection via a downhole device is not carried out, is normally reduced by between 25% and 50% depending on the construction methodology and measures applied to achieve cleanliness. The piling contractor should nominate the area reduction in their design, and a lower reduction may be considered where the piling contractor can demonstrate and verify the pile bases are not significantly disturbed and free from debris. For cast in place concrete piles subject to tension loads, the ultimate shaft uplift resistance can be assessed using the friction resistance as per compression loading. Uplift capacity should also be checked against the cone pullout mode of failure, taking into account overlapping cones and buoyancy effects where applicable. Australian Standard AS 2159 provides the minimum requirements for the design of piled footings based on the limit state approach. Accordingly, the calculated design ultimate pile capacity depends on the selected strength reduction factor and the application of an appropriate factor to the pile loading. Selection of the geotechnical strength reduction factor (Φg) in accordance with AS 2159 Table 4.3.2 (A) is based upon a series of individual risk ratings and the final value of Φg depends on the following factors: a) Site: the type, quantity and quality of testing. b) Design: design methods and parameter selection.

of 25


c) Installation: construction control and monitoring. d) Pile testing regime: testing benefit factor based on percentage of piles tested and the type of

testing. If some testing is carried out, an increase in the value of Φg may be possible depending on the type and extent of the testing. It is noted that Table 8.2.4(B) of AS 2159 requires that 5% to 15% of piles should be subject to integrity testing if the value of Φg adopted by the structural designer exceeds 0.4.

e) Redundancy: whether other piles can take up load if a given pile settles or fails. Of the above factors, DP can only comment directly upon the site factors under a). The pile designer must determine the individual risk factors b) - e) with knowledge of the pile construction specification that will be applied to the works. Based on some typical broad assumptions regarding the use of bored piles on this site, including the preliminary nature of this investigation, it is considered that a Φg of 0.5 may be adopted for the preliminary design of piles founded within the weathered rock. However, as noted above, designers should make their own assessment of appropriate Φg values. Should load testing be undertaken on constructed piles, and it is recommended to do so, then higher Φg values may apply in accordance with the procedures of AS2159-2009. Also, the drilling of additional boreholes and more extensive laboratory testing, may allow the adoption of a higher reduction factor. For rock socketed piles, serviceability is likely to govern the design, with the proportioning of socket geometry to ensure that the settlement criteria for the structure are satisfied. A rigorous assessment of socket capacity and settlement of piles founded in the Silurian siltstone can be undertaken using elastic theory or design methods developed at Monash University (Williams, Johnston & Donald), which take non-linear effects into account. This method also allows a realistic assessment of the sharing of side and base components of socket resistance. If other methods of analysis are employed, it is recommended that the capacity and settlement predictions should be compared with the Monash approach. The Monash method requires input of the unconfined compressive strength and elastic modulus of the rock. A design settlement at the top of socket is then specified. The design is iterated by adjusting the socket length to achieve compatibility between the design load and settlement. A default ‘factor of safety’ of 2 is applied to the settlement prediction, largely to account for variability in the stiffness of the siltstone. In other words the actual settlement should be half of the calculated value if the rock properties match the assumed parameters. 10.11.3 Pile Construction and Verification

The method of constructing bored piles can have significant effects on the load capacity and settlement behaviour of piles. The design approach presented in the above sections of this report relies on the implementation of good construction techniques coupled with appropriate levels of verification.

of 25


The siltstone is expected to be variably weathered but gradually becoming less weathered with depth. Logging of the excavated shafts requires an experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to assess the key attributes of the rock as reliance on the weathering grade alone may not be a sufficient indicator of rock strength. Logging should involve full-time geotechnical inspection coupled with sampling and rapid site moisture content testing of representative rock samples taken at regular intervals to confirm the field assessment and adopted strength profiles for socket design purposes. It is recommended that the selected piling contractor should submit a detailed methodology statement that addresses the issues of selecting and managing the drilling fluids, shaft stability, and how to achieve suitable socket roughness and base cleanliness. The recommendations in Technical Report No. 69 ‘Construction of Bored Piles in Weathered Rock’ published by the then Road Construction Authority of Victoria (now VicRoads) provide guidelines for good construction practice for which an experienced piling contractor should be expected to follow, particularly where a stabilising fluid is used. It is important to keep drilling mud agitated to reduce the potential for separation, particularly if the construction of a pile is interrupted. Special attention should be given to the following points:

• The rock socket should be suitably grooved laterally so that rough surfaces are developed to ensure that the shaft resistance can be mobilised. This may require the use of coring buckets equipped with cutting teeth along the top and base of the buckets;

• To achieve a high level of base preparation flat-bottomed excavation / cleaning buckets should be used to remove disturbed material or accumulated debris;

• The piling contractor should be able to demonstrate that base cleanliness has been achieved. To provide a high level of confidence, consideration should be given to using a down-the-hole device to remotely inspect the conditions of the shaft and base and confirm the contractor’s practices are appropriate. Inspections using such a device can sometimes be inconclusive, however the practical application should be further discussed with the piling contractor. Failure to clean the base of the shafts adequately can lead to increased pile settlement under serviceability conditions; and

• The program should be planned such that drilling and subsequent pile casting should proceed as quickly as possible to avoid delays and minimise the build up of drilling fluid on the shaft walls. In the event of an unexpected delay the shaft should be re-grooved (laterally) to ensure that a concrete-to-rock interface free of drilling fluid is achieved.

10.12 Earthquake Classification

Based on Table 3.2 in Australian Standard AS 1170.4 – 2007 “Earthquake actions in Australia, the hazard factor (Z) for the Melbourne region is 0.08. The site sub-soil class is considered to correlate to Class Ce, Shallow Soil, which considers the presence of extremely weathered and extremely to highly weathered siltstone extending more than 3 m below ground level.

of 25


10.13 Basement Floor Slabs

The natural moderately weathered sandstone is expected to form the basement floor subgrade. Where this slab is to be used by vehicles, a design CBR value of 10% is suggested for the weathered sandstone. Alternatively, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 50 kPa/mm is suggested. However, this value should not be adopted for other than wheel loading without first confirming the applicability with DP as increases in the size of the loaded area may reduce the applicable modulus value. 10.14 Groundwater Aggressivity

Based on the results in the table above and with reference to Table 4.3 in AS 3600 – 2009, the Exposure Classification for concrete footings for the site would be “A2”. With reference to Tables 6.4.2C and 6.5.2C in AS 2159 – 2009, the Exposure Classification for concrete piles for the site is “Mild”. 10.15 Noise and Vibrations

Noise and vibration will be caused by excavation work and other construction activities on the site. Care will be required when excavating close to neighbouring structures, such as buildings and underground services. The level of acceptable vibration is dependent on various factors including the type of structure (e.g. reinforced concrete, brick, etc.), its structural condition, the frequency range of vibrations produced by the construction equipment, the natural frequency of the structure and the vibration transmitting medium. Acceptable vibration levels would need to be established at the commencement of the project based on the requirements of the particular neighbouring structures and surrounding land uses. The ground conditions (e.g. soil, rock strength and defects, groundwater or similar) are unique for any site and therefore it is recommended that excavation trials be subject to vibration monitoring to establish the vibration attenuation behaviour, if the effects of vibrations on neighbouring properties are of concern. It is also noted that humans are very sensitive to vibrations and consequently will be disturbed by vibration levels which are considered relatively insignificant for buildings. Taking human comfort into account, it is suggested that a maximum vibration level at the foundation level of occupied adjacent buildings should be specified. Dilapidation surveys should be carried out on neighbouring buildings and structures prior to commencement of excavation work, so as to allow appropriate response to any claims for damages that may arise from construction activities. The above precautions should reduce the risk of damage and associated claims that may result from excavation activities, but will not guarantee that they will not occur.

of 25


10.16 Further Investigation

At the time of preparing this report, only limited access was available for drilling of boreholes due to the presence of the existing building at the southern half of the site. Further geotechnical investigation with boreholes (i.e. Phase 2 work) is recommended to assess the areas of the site that are not currently accessible and confirm and refine the recommendations of this report. Phase 2 work as detailed in DP proposal MEL170180 dated 8 May 2017 comprises two boreholes within the existing building footprint to 25 m to 30 m depth. Additional groundwater standpipes should also be installed to confirm groundwater levels across the site, with further in situ permeability testing to assess variability across the site. Consideration could also be given to pressuremeter testing in the weathered sandstone to provide high quality strength & deformation properties of the material, and potentially allowing for the adoption of less conservative design parameters. 11. References

Fetter, C.W., 2001: Applied Hydrogeology, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. McDonald, M.G., & Harbaugh, A.W. 1988, MODFLOW, a modular three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 83-875, Chapter A1. Schlumberger Water Services, 2011, Aquifer Test Pro Version 2011.1 Schlumberger Water Services (SWS) (2011) Visual MODFLOW V2011.1 Pro.

of 25


12. Limitations

Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at 16 – 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra in accordance with DP’s proposal MEL170180 dated 8 May 2017 and acceptance received from Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd dated 9 November 2017. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd and it’s agent for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the (geotechnical / environmental / groundwater) components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A

About This Report

July 2010

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations. Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: • In low permeability soils groundwater may

enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;

• A localised, perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table;

• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table. Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.

The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;

• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or

• The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

July 2010

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

Appendix B

Drawing Site Photograph

Preliminary Structural Drawings

LEGEND

79681.00

A

1DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

30-11-17CLIENT: DATE:

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

YARRA ONE DEVLEOPMENT

16-22 CLAREMONET ST, SOUTH YARRA

Eco World - Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd

Locality Plan

Site

BH1BH2

BH1A

BH2A

Claremont Street

Borehole

Borehole with Standpipe 30 400 10 20

Approximate Scale (m)

50

N

Photo 1 : Existing at grade car park and building occupying the subject site (taken on 16 November 2017)

CLIENT Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd SITE PHOTOGRAPH Project No: 79681.00

OFFICE Melbourne Yarra One Development Rev No: 0

DATE: 30 November 2017 South Yarra Plate No. 1

Appendix C

Borehole Logs Core Photographs

Standpipe Construction Details

3.7m: CORE LOSS:660mm

5.2m: Unless otherwisestated all joints are 20 -50°, pl, ro, cln.5.35m: CORE LOSS:650mm

6m: 50 mm fg band

6.16m: J 60°, pl, ro, cly6.18m: 60 mm fg band

7.48m: J 70°, pl, ro, cly

8.11m: J 0°, un, ro, cln8.14 - 8.2 m: fg zone8.25m: J 60°, pl, ro, cluy

8.8m: 2 x J 75°, pl, ro,cly

9.2m: J 30°, st, ro

9.5m: J 10°, un, ro, cly

9.68m: J 60°, un, ro, cly

Concrete.

Crushed Rock.

FILLING / Slightly SANDY CLAY(CH): Firm, brown, mottled orangeand yellow, M<Wp, some siltstonegravel, some ceramic fragments.

SILTY CLAY (CH): Firm, darkgrey, M=Wp.

Brown and orange below 1.8 m.

SANDSTONE (EW): Extremelylow strength (hard clay), grey andorange.

Core Loss.

(EW): Extremely low strength(hard clay), pale grey and orange,some low strength Siltstone bands.

(HW): Low strength, fractured,orange brown.

Core Loss.

SANDSTONE (HW): Low strenth,fractured, orange brown, ironstained, iron cemented bands.

(EW): Extremely low strength(hard clay), pale grey, white SiltyClay.

(MW): Medium strength, fracturedto slightly fractured, grey, orange,with orange staining.

Pale grey below 8 m.

BH1 - 0.25

3,3,3N = 6

BH1 -0.5

BH1 - 1.2

4,4,8N = 12

BH1 - 2.1

PL(D) = 0.17SMC = 5.8%

0

0

7

67

18

59

100

56

57

100

100

100

E

S / E

E

S / E

C

C

C

C

C

C

29-1

1-1

7

0.150.2

0.8

2.3

3.7

4.36

5.2

5.35

6.0

6.45

6.7

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.0

1

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Type

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex L

ow

Very

Low

Low

Medium

High

Very

High

Ex H

igh

0.1

0

0.5

01.0

0 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wate

r

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

43

21

0-1

-2-3

-4-5

Test Results&

Comments0.0

5

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION: 16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH 1

PROJECT No: 79681.00

DATE: 21 - 22/11/2017

SHEET 1 OF 3

DRILLER: Apex Soil Testing LOGGED: DR CASING: NA

Eco World Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd

Yarra One

REMARKS:

RIG: Fraste Multi-Drill

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Groundwater measured at 6.67 m below ground level on 29 November 2017.

Solid flight auger to 2.5 m; NMLC coring to end.

Location coordinates are in WGS 84 Zone 55 H.

SURFACE LEVEL: 4.0 m AHD

EASTING: 323488

NORTHING: 5810323

DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

9.93m: J 80°, pl, ro, fe

10.25m: 40 mm thick fgband10.4m: J 0°, un, ro, cly10.62m: J 0°, pl, ro, fe10.8m: J 10°, pl, ro, cln

11.46m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln

11.64m: J 60°, pl, he11.78m: J 10°, pl, ro, cln

11.95m: DI

12.1m: J 80°, un, ro, cly12.17m: J 0°, un, ro, cln

12.9m: 10 mm thick fgband13.06 - 13.32 m: 5 x J10°, pl, he13.44m: J 10°, pl, ro, cln

13.78m: J 10°, pl, ro, cln

14m: J 10°, pl, ro, cln

14.75m: 2 x J 10°, pl, ro,cln15m: Unless otherwisestated all J 10° - 40°, ro,cln below 15 m15.06m: DI

15.98m: DI16m: J 10°, pl, he

16.34m: 2 x J 0°, pl, ro,cly16.4m: J 0°, pl, ro, cly

16.95m: DI

17.56m: J 80°, pl, ro, festn

18.2m: DI

18.4m: DI

19.55m: J 60°, pl, ro, cln

19.7m: J 50°, pl, ro

SANDSTONE (MW): Mediumstrength, fractured to slightlyfractured, grey, orange, withorange staining.

Grey and orange brown below

11.4 m.

(MW-SW): Medium to highstrength, fractured, grey.

(SW): Medium to high strength,fractured to slightly fractured, palegrey, grey.

Blue grey below 14.75 m.

(MW): Medium strength, fractured,orange brown, some high strengthbands.

(MW-SW): Medium to highstrength, fractured, blue grey,brown.

(EW-HW): Extremely low (hardclay) to low strength, yellow,orange brown, bands of very lowstrength siltstone.

(SW): Medium to high strength,fractured to slightly fractured, bluegrey.

PL(D) = 1.17SMC = 4.3%

PL(D) = 2SMC = 3.1%

PL(D) = 0.22SMC = 3.7%

77

87

83

85

50

80

52

35

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

12.6

13.15

16.35

17.85

18.5

19.0

20.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.0

1


S - Shear

RockStrength

Type


Ex L

ow

Very

Low

Low

Medium

High

Very

High

Ex H

igh

0.1

0

0.5

01.0

0 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wate

r

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

-6-7

-8-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15

Test Results&

Comments0.0

5

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



BORE No: BH 1


DATE: 21 - 22/11/2017

SHEET 2 OF 3



Yarra One

REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





EASTING: 323488

NORTHING: 5810323


BOREHOLE LOG

20.47m: J 0°, un, ro, cln

20.65m: DI20.73m: J 0°, un, ro, cln

21.06m: J 0°, un, ro, cln21.12m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln

21.39m: fg band

21.95m: DI

22.1m: DI

22.4 - 23.5 m: J 10° -40°, he

23.14m: DI

23.46m: DI

23.85m: DI

24.28m: J 50°, pl, ro, ca

24.6m: J 50°, pl, ro, cln24.65m: DI

25.13m: K 60°, pl, ro, ca

25.28m: DI

25.53m: DI25.62m: DI25.69m: J 50°, pl, ro, ca25.8m: J 70°, un, he25.86m: DI

26.3m: DI

26.82m: J 45°, pl, ro, cln

27.25 - 27.26 m: fg zone

SANDSTONE (SW): Medium tohigh strength, fractured to slightlyfractured, blue grey.

Highly fractured to fragmented 21.1to 21.5 m.

(SW-FR): High strength, slightlyfractured, dark blue grey.

Bore discontinued at 27.4m

PL(D) = 2.51SMC = 2.4%

PL(D) = 1.8SMC = 1.3%

35

65

100

57

75

57

100

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

C

C

21.6

27.4

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.0

1


S - Shear

RockStrength

Type


Ex L

ow

Very

Low

Low

Medium

High

Very

High

Ex H

igh

0.1

0

0.5

01.0

0 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wate

r

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

-16

-17

-18

-19

-20

-21

-22

-23

-24

-25

Test Results&

Comments0.0

5

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



BORE No: BH 1


DATE: 21 - 22/11/2017

SHEET 3 OF 3



Yarra One

REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





EASTING: 323488

NORTHING: 5810323


BOREHOLE LOG

2.5m: Unless otherwisestated all joints are 10° -40°, pl, ro

3.13 - 3.16 m: fg zone

3.54m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln

3.93m: J 50°, pl, ro, cly4m: J 45°, un, ro

4.22m: DI

4.93m: DI

5.36m: DI


6.32m: J 0°, pl, ro6.42m: J 50°, pl, cly inf

7.2m: J 0°, pl, ro, sand

7.65m: J 60°, pl, he

7.94m: J 70°, pl, ro, cly

8.18m: DI8.31 - 8.6 m: fg zone

8.56m: J 45°, pl, cly

9.75m: J0°, pl, ro, fe

Concrete.

Crushed Rock.

FILLING / SANDY CLAY : Firm,yellow brown, some brickfragments.

SILTY CLAY (CH): Stiff, brown,M=Wp.

SILTY SAND (SM): Grey brown,moist fine to medium grain sand.

SILTY CLAY (CH): Stiff, orangeand brown, M=Wp.

SANDSTONE (EW): Extremelylow strength (hard clay), orangebrown.

(EW-HW): Extremely low (hardclay) to low strength, orange andgrey.

(HW): Low to medium strength,fractured, orange brown.

Core Loss.

(EW-HW): Extremely low strength(hard clay), pale grey and orangebrown.

(HW): Low strength, highlyfractured to fractured, orangebrown and grey.

Fragmented from 6.42 to 6.56 m.

50 mm thick EW band at 6.57 m.

50 mm thick EW band at 6.92 m.

(EW-HW): Extremely low (hardclay) to very low strength, orangebrown.

(HW): Low strength, highlyfractured, pale brown.

Fragmented 8.3 to 8.6 m.

(MW): Medium strength, fractured,grey brown.

BH2 - 0.2

3,2,4N = 6

BH2 - 0.5

BH2 - 1.0

2,2,3N = 5

BH2 - 2.05

PL(A) = 0.86SMC = 7.7%

PL(A) = 1.46SMC = 7.2%

13

60

48

0

48

9

65

81

100

100

100

31

100

100

100

100

E

E / S

E

E / S

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

29-11-17

0.110.15

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.5

2.7

3.0

5.55

5.75

6.2

7.1

7.4

8.92

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Type


Ex Low

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very H

igh

Ex H

igh

0.10

0.50

1.00 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Graphic

Log

Water

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

43

21

0-1

-2-3

-4-5

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



BORE No: BH 2


DATE: 22 - 23/11/2017

SHEET 1 OF 3



Yarra One

REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





EASTING: 323508

NORTHING: 5810326


BOREHOLE LOG

10.57m: J 45°, pl, ro, cln

10.79m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln

11.35m: J 45°, un, ro, festn11.44m: J 50°, pl, he11.46m: DI11.75m: DI11.83m: J 0°, pl, ro, cly12.1m: DI

13.07m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln13.13 - 13.18 m: fg zone

13.47m: DI13.55m: J 45°, un, ro,cln13.81m: DI14m: J 45°, pl, ro, fe stn14.13m: J 70°, pl, fe stn14.24m: DI

14.57m: DI

14.85m: J 50°, pl, ro, festn

15.2 - 15.29 m: fg zone15.29m: J 50°, pl, ro, festn

15.65m: J 80°, un, ro, festn

16.54m: J 50, pl, ro, cln16.68m: J 0°, pl, ro,gravel16.88m: J 0°, pl, ro, cln

17.4m: J 50°, pl, ro festn

18.29m: DI

18.45m: J 10°, he

18.92m: J 0°, pl, ro, festn

19.52 - 19.62 m: fg zone

19.86m: J 45°, pl, ro, ca

SANDSTONE (MW): Mediumstrength, slightly fractured, greybrown.

Highly fractured to fractured below11.4 m.

Slightly fractured below 13.3 m.

Increased Fe staining 13.9 to

14.1 m.

Increased Fe staining 14.75 - 15 m.

(HW): Very low to low strength,fractured to highly fractured,orange brown.

(MW): Low to medium strength,fractured, grey brown.

(SW): Medium strenth, fractured toslightly fractured, blue grey.

Fractured below 18.95 m.

Fragmented from 19.52 to 19.62 m.

SANDSTONE (SW-FR)

PL(A) = 0.55SMC = 7.0%

PL(A) = 0.94SMC = 5.0%

PL(A) = 0.35SMC = 2.7%

81

61

68

48

11

28

50

10

11

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

16.75

17.3

17.7

19.8

20.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Type


Ex Low

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very H

igh

Ex H

igh

0.10

0.50

1.00 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Graphic

Log

Water

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

-6-7

-8-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



BORE No: BH 2


DATE: 22 - 23/11/2017

SHEET 2 OF 3



Yarra One

REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





EASTING: 323508

NORTHING: 5810326


BOREHOLE LOG

19.92m: J 45°, pl, ro, ca20m: J 70°, un, ro, ca



22.34m: DI

23.02m: 2 x J 50°, pl, ro,ca

23.39m: J 50°, pl, ro, ca

23.69m: DI

24.3m: DI24.35m: J 60°, pl, ro, ca24.5m: J 60°, pl, ro, ca

24.8m: J 60°, pl, ro, ca

25.28m: J 45°, pl, ro, ca

26.18m: J 45°, pl, ro, ca26.26m: J 45°, pl, ro, ca

27.35m: DI

SANDSTONE (SW-FR): Mediumto high strength, fractured, darkgrey.

Core Loss.

(SW-FR): High strength, highlyfractured, dark grey.

Core Loss.

SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE(SW-FR): High strength, fractured,dark grey.

Slightly fractured below 22.4 m.

Bore discontinued at 27.6m

PL(A) = 4.23SMC = 1.0%

11

0

0

88

86

58

80

100

19

23

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

20.7

21.55

21.75

21.9

27.6

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01


S - Shear

RockStrength

Type


Ex Low

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very H

igh

Ex H

igh

0.10

0.50

1.00 RQD

%

Core

Rec. %

Graphic

Log

Water

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

-16

-17

-18

-19

-20

-21

-22

-23

-24

-25

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



BORE No: BH 2


DATE: 22 - 23/11/2017

SHEET 3 OF 3



Yarra One

REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





EASTING: 323508

NORTHING: 5810326


BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 1 (2.45 – 8.05 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00

OFFICE: Melbourne Yarra One Development PLATE No: 1-1

DATE: 1 December 2017 16 – 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra REVISION: 0

CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 1 (8.05 – 13 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00



CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 1 (13 – 18 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00



CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 1 (18 – 24 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00



CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 1 (24 – 27.4 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00



CLIENT: Eco World – Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd Core Photograph – BH 2 (23.95 – 27.6 m) PROJECT No: 79681.00



79681.00

2DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

30-11-2017CLIENT: DATE:Eco World - Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd

Standpipe Construction DetailsBorehole BH1AYarra One Development16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra

Not To Scale

Gatic cover flush

with ground surfaceBH1A

Unslotted PVC Pipe

0.0 m - 9 m

(60 mm OD; 50 mm ID)

Bentonite Seal 7.5 m to 8.5 m

Sand Filter 8.5 m to 15 m

Drill Cuttings 0.3 m to 7.5 m

End Cap

End of Borehole at 15 m

0

DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

CLIENT: DATE:

Not To Scale

Gatic cover flush

with ground surfaceBH2A

Unslotted PVC Pipe

0.0 m - 9 m

(60 mm OD; 50 mm ID)

Bentonite Seal 7.5 m to 8.5 m

Sand Filter 8.5 m to 15 m

Drill Cuttings 0.3 m to 7.5 m

End Cap

End of Borehole at 15 m

79681.00

30-11-2017Eco World - Salcon Y1 Pty Ltd

Standpipe Construction DetailsBorehole BH2AYarra One Development16 - 22 Claremont Street, South Yarra

3

0

Appendix D

Laboratory Test Certificates Hydraulic Conductivity Results

Table D1

Comparison of Groundwater Laboratory Results to

South East Water Trade Waste Acceptance Criteria

(results in mg/L unless otherwise stated)

Su

lfa

te

Ch

lori

de

Ca

lciu

m

Ma

gn

es

ium

Po

tas

siu

m

So

diu

m

To

tal A

lka

lin

ity

(a

s

Ca

CO

3)

Ars

en

ic

Ca

dm

ium

To

tal C

hro

miu

m

Co

pp

er

Me

rcu

ry

Nic

ke

l

Le

ad

Zin

c

Be

nze

ne

To

lue

ne

Eth

yl B

en

ze

ne

To

tal X

yle

ne

s

C6-C

10

>C

10-C

14

>C

15-C

28

>C

29-C

36

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

6.0-10.0 200kg/d 2 50 1 2 10 10 1 10 10 10 1 2 2 2 0.001 1

BH1A-141217 -2.42 7.2 500 <0.1 63 46 2.0 3.0 2.0 180 310 0.001 <0.0002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.003 <0.001 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

BH2A-141217 -2.46 7.0 860 <0.1 100 50 6.0 12 2.0 230 420 0.001 <0.0002 <0.001 0.003 <0.0001 0.006 <0.001 0.026 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Legend

A blank space indicates no test performed or no criteria available

5 A grey shaded area indicates an exceedence of the adopted trade waste acceptance criteria

References for Criteria Used:1 South East Water Trade Waste Approved Acceptance Criteria 2014

Notes2 Total salt load calculated from TDS must not exceed 200 kg/day

Trade Waste Acceptance Criteria1

Am

mo

nia

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Sa

mp

le N

o.

Wa

ter

lev

el (m

AH

D)

pH

TD

S

BTEXMetals and Metalloids

Ha

log

en

ate

d V

ola

tile

s

(HV

OL

s)

Anions and Cations

Geotechnical Investigation

14-22 Claremont Street, South Yarra

Project : 79681.00

January 2018

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Date Issued: 21-Dec-2017

Page 1 of 13

Dean WoodsContact:

664903

Client:

17-55021Batch No:

Final Report

231 Normanby Road

SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205

Address:


Client Program Ref: 79681.00

ALS Program Ref: DOUGLAS

Page

Contact: Brad Snibson

Client Manager

[email protected]

Caribbean Business Park, 22 Dalmore Drive, Scoresby, VIC 3179

Scoresby Laboratory

03 8756 800003 9763 1862

Address

Date Sampled:

15-Dec-2017Date Samples Received:

14-Dec-2017

PO No: 135171

Laboratory

PhoneFax

The sample(s) referred to in this report were analysed by the following method(s) under NATA Accreditation No. 992.

The hash (#) below indicates methods not covered by NATA accreditation in the performance of this service .

Analysis Method Laboratory Analysis Method Laboratory Analysis Method Laboratory

WD037 ScoresbyAlkalinity WP074 ScoresbyBTEXN WD045G ScoresbyChloride WA010 ScoresbyEC WP074 ScoresbyHVOL WG020A ScoresbyMS Total Metals WK055G ScoresbyNH3 as N (DA) EK058GV ScoresbyNO3-N WG005A (Si not

NATA); EA065-69

ScoresbyOES Scan

WA005 ScoresbypH WA015 ScoresbyTDS at 180°C +/-

5°C

WD041G ScoresbySO4 DA

WP071 ScoresbyTRH F2 # WP071 ScoresbyTRH & TPH (>C10) WP071 (F1 not

NATA)

ScoresbyTRH (C6-C10) & F1

Result for pH in water tested in the laboratory may be indicative only as holding time is generally not achievable.

Late Sample Arrival - NO3-N[5472930,5472931]

Analysis conducted outside holding time due to late arrival or delayed extraction/analysis. Based on APHA, VICEPA, AS & NEPM

Signatories

These results have been electronically signed by the authorised signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in

21 CFR Part 11

Legionella species refers to Legionella species other than Legionella pneumophila

Name Title Name Title

Chatura Perera Team Leader Nutrients Hao Zhang Team Leader Organics

Joseph De Alwis Analyst John Earl Team Leader Metals

Melani Wijayasiri Analyst

Measurement Uncertainties values for your compliance results are available at this link

RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER Page: Page 2 of 13

https://www.alsglobal.com/au/services-and-products/environmental/laboratory-downloads/client-downloads/

17-55021Batch No:


Report Number: 664903

Page 3 of 13

Douglas Partners Pty LtdClient:

Page:

LOR = Limit of reporting. When a reported LOR is higher than the standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample or matrix interference.

CAS Number = Chemistry Abstract Services Number. The analytical procedures in this report ( including in house methods ) are developed from internationally recognised procedures such as those published by USEPA, APHA and NEPM.

Sample No.

Client Sample ID

Sample Date

Sample Type

5472930 5472931

BH1A-141217 BH2A-141217

14/12/17 14/12/17

WATER WATER

Analysis Analyte CAS # LOR

BTEXN Benzene 71-43-2 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

BTEXN Toluene 108-88-3 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

BTEXN Ethyl Benzene 100-41-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

BTEXN Xylene - m & p 108-38-3 /

106-42-3

<0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002

BTEXN Xylene - o 95-47-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

BTEXN Naphthalene 91-20-3 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

BTEXN Total Xylenes 1330-20-7 <0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002

BTEXN BTEX (Sum) BTEX <0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002


pH pH, units pH_Lab Units 7.2 7.0

TDS at 180°C +/-

5°C

Total Dissolved Solids TDS <5 mg/L 500 860

EC Electrical Conductivity @ 25C EC_Lab <2 uS/cm 850 1200

Chloride Chloride, as Cl 16887-00-6 <1 mg/L 46 50

SO4 DA Sulphate, as SO4 14808-79-8 <1 mg/L 63 100

Alkalinity Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 ALKBICARBON

ATE_CaCO3

<2 mg CaCO3 / L 310 420

Alkalinity Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 ALK_CARBON

ATE_CaCO3

<2 mg CaCO3 / L <2 <2

Alkalinity Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 ALK_HYDROXI

DE_CaCO3

<2 mg CaCO3 / L <2 <2

Alkalinity Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 ALK_CACO3 <2 mg CaCO3 / L 310 420


HVOL 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

A blank space indicates no test performed. Soil results expressed in mg/kg dry weight unless specified otherwise. Soil microbiological testing was commenced within 48 hours from the day received unless otherwise stated.

Water microbiological testing was commenced on the day received and within 24 hours of sampling unless otherwise stated.

MM524: Plate count results <10 per mL and >300 per mL are deemed as approximate.

MM526: Plate count results <2,500 per mL and >250,000 per mL are deemed as approximate.

Calculated results are based on raw data.

Samples not collected by ALS and are tested as received.

17-55021Batch No:



Page 4 of 13


Page:

Sample No.

Client Sample ID

Sample Date

Sample Type

5472930 5472931

BH1A-141217 BH2A-141217

14/12/17 14/12/17

WATER WATER

HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [cis] 540-59-0(cis) <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [trans] 540-59-0(trans) <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001


HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [cis] 10061-01-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [trans] 10061-02-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001


HVOL 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 4-Chlorotoluene 106-43-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Bromobenzene 108-86-1 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 75-25-2 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 67-66-3 <0.001 mg/L 0.001 <0.001

HVOL Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Dibromomethane 74-95-3 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Dichloromethane 75-09-2 <0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002

HVOL Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11) 75-69-4 <0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002

HVOL Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Vinyl Chloride (Monomer) 75-01-4 <0.002 mg/L <0.002 <0.002

HVOL 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL 1,1,2-Trichlorethane 79-00-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

HVOL Trichloroethene 79-01-6 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001


MS Total Metals Arsenic 7440-38-2 <0.001 mg/L 0.001 0.001

MS Total Metals Cadmium 7440-43-9 <0.0002 mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002

MS Total Metals Chromium 7440-47-3 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

MS Total Metals Copper 7440-50-8 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 0.003







17-55021Batch No:



Page 5 of 13


Page:

Sample No.

Client Sample ID

Sample Date

Sample Type

5472930 5472931

BH1A-141217 BH2A-141217

14/12/17 14/12/17

WATER WATER

MS Total Metals Lead 7439-92-1 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

MS Total Metals Mercury 7439-97-6 <0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001

MS Total Metals Molybdenum 7439-98-7 <0.001 mg/L 0.001 0.001

MS Total Metals Nickel 7440-02-0 <0.001 mg/L 0.003 0.006

MS Total Metals Selenium 7782-49-2 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 0.011

MS Total Metals Silver 7440-22-4 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

MS Total Metals Tin 7440-31-5 <0.001 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

MS Total Metals Zinc 7440-66-6 <0.001 mg/L 0.009 0.026

OES Scan Calcium 7440-70-2 <0.1 mg/L 2 6

OES Scan Magnesium 7439-95-4 <0.1 mg/L 3 12

OES Scan Potassium 7440-09-7 <0.1 mg/L 2 2

OES Scan Sodium 7440-23-5 <0.1 mg/L 180 230


NH3 as N (DA) Ammonia, as N 7664-41-7 (as

N)

<0.1 mg N / L <0.1 <0.1

NO3-N Nitrate, as N 14797-55-8(as

N)

<0.01 mg N / L 1.2 14


TRH (C6-C10) &

F1

TPH C6-C9 C6-C9 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH (C6-C10) &

F1

TRH C6-C10 C6-C10 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH (C6-C10) &

F1

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX F1-BTEX <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1


TRH F2 TRH>C10-C16 minus Naphthalene F2-NAPHTHAL

ENE

<0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TPH C10-C14 C10-C14 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TPH C15-C28 C15-C28 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TPH C29-C36 C29-C36 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TRH>C10-C16 C10-C16 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TRH>C16-C34 C16-C34 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

TRH>C34-C40 C34-C40 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1

TRH & TPH

(>C10)

Sum of TRH>C10-C40 C10-C40 <0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1







17-55021Batch No:



Page 6 of 13


Page:

QUALITY CONTROL - BLANKSQC Blanks are an 'analyte free' matrix in which all applicable reagents have been added in the same proportion as in standard samples and are an internal monitor for

laboratory contamination.

Value Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Analysis Analyte

5475346 QC - Blank pH pH, units Units 5.7

5475346 QC - Blank EC Electrical Conductivity @ 25C uS/cm 2

5476149 QC - Blank Alkalinity Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2

5476149 QC - Blank Alkalinity Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2

5476149 QC - Blank Alkalinity Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2

5476149 QC - Blank Alkalinity Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2

5480838 QC - Blank Chloride Chloride, as Cl mg/L <1

5480838 QC - Blank SO4 DA Sulphate, as SO4 mg/L <1

5481206 QC - Blank TDS at 180°C +/- 5°C Total Dissolved Solids mg/L <5

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Analysis Analyte

5480838 QC - Blank NH3 as N (DA) Ammonia, as N mg N / L <0.1


5479384 QC - Blank OES Scan Calcium mg/L <0.1

5479384 QC - Blank OES Scan Magnesium mg/L <0.1

5479384 QC - Blank OES Scan Potassium mg/L <0.1

5479384 QC - Blank OES Scan Sodium mg/L <0.1

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Arsenic mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Cadmium mg/L <0.0002

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Chromium mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Copper mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Lead mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Mercury mg/L <0.0001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Molybdenum mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Nickel mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Selenium mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Silver mg/L <0.001

5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Tin mg/L <0.001







17-55021Batch No:



Page 7 of 13


Page:

Value 5479939 QC - Blank MS Total Metals Zinc mg/L <0.001


5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Benzene mg/L <0.001

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Toluene mg/L <0.001

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Ethyl Benzene mg/L <0.001

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Xylene - m & p mg/L <0.002

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Xylene - o mg/L <0.001

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Naphthalene mg/L <0.001

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN Total Xylenes mg/L <0.002

5479401 QC - Blank BTEXN BTEX (Sum) mg/L <0.002


5479408 QC - Blank TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TPH C6-C9 mg/L <0.1

5479408 QC - Blank TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TRH C6-C10 mg/L <0.1

5479408 QC - Blank TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX mg/L <0.1


5480109 QC - Blank TRH & TPH (>C10) TPH C10-C14 mg/L <0.1



5480109 QC - Blank TRH & TPH (>C10) TRH>C10-C16 mg/L <0.1



5480109 QC - Blank TRH & TPH (>C10) Sum of TRH>C10-C40 mg/L <0.1


5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1-Dichloropropene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dibromoethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [cis] mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [trans] mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001







17-55021Batch No:



Page 8 of 13


Page:

Value 5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [cis] mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [trans] mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 2,2-Dichloropropane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 2-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 4-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Bromochloromethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Bromodichloromethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Bromobenzene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Bromoform (Tribromomethane) mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Chloroform (Trichloromethane) mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Chlorobenzene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Dibromochloromethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Dibromomethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Dichloromethane mg/L <0.002

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11) mg/L <0.002

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Tetrachloroethene mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Vinyl Chloride (Monomer) mg/L <0.002

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL 1,1,2-Trichlorethane mg/L <0.001

5476289 QC - Blank HVOL Trichloroethene mg/L <0.001

QUALITY CONTROL - DUPLICATESQC Data for duplicates is calculated on raw 'unrounded' values. Laboratory duplicates are randomly selected samples tested by the laboratory to maintain method precision and provide

information on sample homogeniety.

RPD = Relative Percentage Difference for duplicate determinations. RPD’s that fall outside the general acceptance criteria will be attributed to non-homogeneity of samples or results of

low magnitudes.

NCP: Non-Customer Parent (sample quality is representative of the analytical batch but the sample that was QC tested belongs to a customer not pertaining to the report.)







17-55021Batch No:



Page 9 of 13


Page:

Sample Value Duplicate Value % RPD Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Analysis Analyte

5476150 NCP Alkalinity Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L 100 95 4.3

5476150 NCP Alkalinity Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2 <2 0

5476150 NCP Alkalinity Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L <2 <2 0

5476150 NCP Alkalinity Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg CaCO3 / L 100 95 4.3

5476767 NCP pH pH, units Units 7.4 7.4 0.1

5476767 NCP EC Electrical Conductivity @ 25C uS/cm 6600 6600 0.0

5480871 NCP Chloride Chloride, as Cl mg/L 140 140 0.4

5480871 NCP SO4 DA Sulphate, as SO4 mg/L 350 340 2.2

5481184 NCP TDS at 180°C +/- 5°C Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 26000 24000 5.3


5480871 NCP NH3 as N (DA) Ammonia, as N mg N / L <0.1 <0.1 0

5480880 NCP NO3-N Nitrate, as N mg N / L 0.06 0.07 14.4


5479385 NCP OES Scan Calcium mg/L 19 19 1.9

5479385 NCP OES Scan Magnesium mg/L 33 33 1.3

5479385 NCP OES Scan Potassium mg/L 4.5 4.6 0.7

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Arsenic mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Cadmium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Copper mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Lead mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Mercury mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Molybdenum mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Nickel mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Silver mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479948 NCP MS Total Metals Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0


5479394 NCP BTEXN Benzene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN Toluene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN Ethyl Benzene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN Xylene - m & p mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN Xylene - o mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN Naphthalene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0







17-55021Batch No:



Page 10 of 13


Page:

Sample Value Duplicate Value % RPD 5479394 NCP BTEXN Total Xylenes mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0

5479394 NCP BTEXN BTEX (Sum) mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0


5479407 NCP TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TPH C6-C9 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0

5479407 NCP TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TRH C6-C10 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0

5479407 NCP TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0


5480107 NCP TRH & TPH (>C10) TPH C10-C14 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0



5480107 NCP TRH & TPH (>C10) TRH>C10-C16 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0



5480107 NCP TRH & TPH (>C10) Sum of TRH>C10-C40 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0


5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1-Dichloropropene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dibromoethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [cis] mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [trans] mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0


5476287 NCP HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [cis] mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [trans] mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0


5476287 NCP HVOL 2-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 4-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Bromochloromethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0







17-55021Batch No:



Page 11 of 13


Page:

Sample Value Duplicate Value % RPD 5476287 NCP HVOL Bromodichloromethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Bromobenzene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Bromoform (Tribromomethane) mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Chloroform (Trichloromethane) mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Chlorobenzene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Dibromochloromethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Dibromomethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Dichloromethane mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11) mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Tetrachloroethene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Vinyl Chloride (Monomer) mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL 1,1,2-Trichlorethane mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

5476287 NCP HVOL Trichloroethene mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0

QUALITY CONTROL - SPIKESQC Data for spikes is calculated on raw 'unrounded' values. Laboratory spikes are randomly selected samples in which the analytes in question have been artificially introduced and

recovered via standard analysis and are used to provide information on potential matrix effects on analyte recoveries.

Spike recoveries that fall outside the general acceptance criteria will be attributed to sample matrix interference or results of high magnitudes.

NCP: Non-Customer Parent (sample quality is representative of the analytical batch but the sample that was QC tested belongs to a customer not pertaining to the report.)

Sample Value Expected Value % Recovery Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Analysis Analyte

5480853 NCP Chloride Chloride, as Cl mg/L 140 340 107

5480853 NCP SO4 DA Sulphate, as SO4 mg/L 350 550 84.3

5481179 NCP TDS at 180°C +/- 5°C Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 75 2600 99.8


5480853 NCP NH3 as N (DA) Ammonia, as N mg N / L <0.1 70 95.0

5480860 NCP NO3-N Nitrate, as N mg N / L 0.06 8.1 104


5479386 NCP OES Scan Calcium mg/L 19 21 110

5479386 NCP OES Scan Magnesium mg/L 33 35 111

5479386 NCP OES Scan Potassium mg/L 4.5 6.5 105







17-55021Batch No:



Page 12 of 13


Page:

Sample Value Expected Value % Recovery 5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Arsenic mg/L <0.001 0.041 110

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Cadmium mg/L <0.0002 0.040 102

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Chromium mg/L <0.001 0.040 98.8

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Copper mg/L <0.001 0.041 96.0

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Lead mg/L <0.001 0.040 94.3

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Molybdenum mg/L <0.001 0.040 104

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Nickel mg/L <0.001 0.041 96.6

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Selenium mg/L <0.001 0.040 113

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Tin mg/L <0.001 0.040 99.6

5479949 NCP MS Total Metals Zinc mg/L 0.006 0.046 103


5479395 NCP BTEXN Benzene mg/L <0.001 0.019 116

5479395 NCP BTEXN Toluene mg/L <0.001 0.019 103

5479395 NCP BTEXN Ethyl Benzene mg/L <0.001 0.019 99.8

5479395 NCP BTEXN Xylene - m & p mg/L <0.002 0.037 102

5479395 NCP BTEXN Xylene - o mg/L <0.001 0.019 102

5479395 NCP BTEXN Naphthalene mg/L <0.001 0.019 73.2


5479405 NCP TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TPH C6-C9 mg/L <0.1 0.57 89.1

5479405 NCP TRH (C6-C10) & F1 TRH C6-C10 mg/L <0.1 0.55 94.4


5480108 NCP TRH & TPH (>C10) TPH C15-C28 mg/L <0.1 1.2 104

5480108 NCP TRH & TPH (>C10) TRH>C16-C34 mg/L <0.1 1.2 96.8


5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 99.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 122

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.4

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1-Dichloroethene mg/L <0.001 0.20 96.9

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1-Dichloropropene mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.3

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/L <0.001 0.20 93.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.8

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dibromoethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.7

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [cis] mg/L <0.001 0.20 91.7

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethene [trans] mg/L <0.001 0.20 92.3







17-55021Batch No:



Page 13 of 13


Page:

Sample Value Expected Value % Recovery 5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 98.4

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/L <0.001 0.20 98.9


5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [cis] mg/L <0.001 0.20 90.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,3-Dichloropropene [trans] mg/L <0.001 0.20 91.0


5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 2-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001 0.20 96.1

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 4-Chlorotoluene mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.8

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Bromochloromethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 97.7

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Bromodichloromethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 99.3

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Bromobenzene mg/L <0.001 0.20 100

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Bromoform (Tribromomethane) mg/L <0.001 0.20 97.7

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L <0.001 0.20 101

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Chloroform (Trichloromethane) mg/L <0.001 0.20 95.7

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Chlorobenzene mg/L <0.001 0.20 96.4

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Dibromochloromethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 96.3

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Dibromomethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 94.5

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Dichloromethane mg/L <0.002 0.20 94.1

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11) mg/L <0.002 0.20 91.3

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Tetrachloroethene mg/L <0.001 0.20 98.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Vinyl Chloride (Monomer) mg/L <0.002 0.20 81.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 100

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL 1,1,2-Trichlorethane mg/L <0.001 0.20 97.6

5476284 BH2A-141217 HVOL Trichloroethene mg/L <0.001 0.20 93.0







Douglas P a r t n e r s CHAIN OF CUSTODY DESPATCH SHEETGeotechn ics I En v , r n r n e n t I Groundwater

Project No: 79681 .00 Suburb: South Yarra To: ALS WRGProject Name: Yarra One Order Number 135171 22 Dalmore Drive, ScoresbyProject Manager: Dean Woods Sampler: Katerina Irwin Attn: Susan CassarEmails: lean.woodsdouglaspartners.com.a I Phone:Date Required: Same day 24 hours 48 hours 1 72 hours i Standard x Email:Prior Storage: Esky x Fridge Shelved Do samples contain potential HBM? Yes No x (If YES, then handle, transport and store in accordance with FPM HAZID)

Sample Container AnalytesType Type

Sample Lab E , _ U) .2 '< 06ID ID 0 f l

(I) Notes/preservation

, . 2 ° EI, G)

0 E I0 O a .

<LU

BH1A−141 217 14/12/17 W Various x x x x x x * 12 metals

BH2A−141217 14/12/17 W Various x x x x x x

1−a. .−c4t'L

PQL (S) mg/kg ANZECC PQLs req'd for all water analytesPQL = practical quantitation limit. If none given, default to Laboratory Method Detection Limit Lab Report/Reference No:Metals to Analyse: 8HM unless specified here: 12 MetalsTotal number of samples in container: Relinquished by: I Transported to laboratory by:Send Results to: Douglas Partners Pty Ltd I Address I Phone: Fax:Signed: Received by: / −T Date & Time: f iU JzL

FPM − ENVID/Form COG 02 Page 1 of 1 Rev4/0ctober2016

17-5502117-55021

Caribbean Business Park, 22 Dalmore Drive, Scoresby, VIC 3179

Sample Receipt Advice (SRA)

ALS WaterA trading name of:

Ecowise Australia Pty Ltd ABN: 94 105 060 320

www.ecowise.com.au www.alsglogal.com

Client Contact: Dean Woods

Phone :

Mobile :

Fax :

Email :

9673 3506

0412-067691

[email protected]

Client:

231 Normanby Road



Lab. Contact :Tuyen Nguyen

[email protected]

Phone: 03 87568000

17-55021

Client Job Ref : 79681.00

Program :

Purchase Order :

NATA report : Reqd.

135171Misc.

Batch Summary:

No. of Sample(s) :

22-Dec-2017

Date Received :

Scheduled Reporting Date :

ALS Water Batch No :

Delivery Details:

COC Received :

Sample Temperature on Receipt.

Samples preserved where applicable #

Comments:

YES

6

4

Please direct any enqeris you have regarding this project to the above ALS Water contact .

C ⁰

15-Dec-2017

ALS Water

Disclaimer : This document contains priviledged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the

addressee, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take action of its contents. If you have received this

document in error, please notify the ALS Water immediately.

# Comparisons are made against pretreatment/prersevation as per AS,VICEPA,APHA,USEPA standards

Sample disposal - Aqueous (14 days), Solid (60 days) from date of completio of work order

Client Contact: Dean Woods

Phone :

Mobile :

Fax :

Email :

9673 3506

0412-067691

[email protected]

Client:

231 Normanby Road



Test Count

5472930 BH1A-141217 14/12/2017 15

5472931 BH2A-141217 14/12/2017 15

Summary of Sample and Received Analysis:

Sample Name DateALS Sample

ALS Water

Disclaimer : This document contains priviledged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the

addressee, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take action of its contents. If you have received this

document in error, please notify the ALS Water immediately.

# Comparisons are made against pretreatment/prersevation as per AS,VICEPA,APHA,USEPA standards

Sample disposal - Aqueous (14 days), Solid (60 days) from date of completio of work order

yarra one development - melbourne real estate

Documents