Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units at

Report Ref. G2017-40A

Date: 20th June 2018

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units at

No. 170 Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148

Prepared for

Trace Environmental

Mark Kiryakos - Geotechnical Engineer - A.B.N. 45 393 390 896

PO Box 474, Broadway 2007 NSW, [email protected], 04 67676 555

mailto:[email protected]

20th June 2018 Ref: G2017-40A No. 170 Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Geotechnical Investigation Report of 42

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Mark Kiryakos – Geotechnical Engineer

Document Control - Distribution and Revision Record

Project: Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units at

No. 170 Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148

Client: Trace Environmental

Project Reference: G2017-40

Document: Geotechnical Investigation Report

Document Reference: G2017-40A

Copies to:

No. 1

Matt Vanderhayden

Trace Environmental

L6, Suite 6A, 110-114 Kippax Street

Surry Hills NSW 2010

[email protected]

No. 2 Mark Kiryakos Library

Document History:

Revision: Issue Date: Description:

0 20/06/2018 Initial Issue



CONTENTS

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

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

3. SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................... 6

4. SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 8

5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 10

6. LOCAL GEOLOGY ....................................................................................... 10

7. SALINITY AND FLOODING .......................................................................... 10

8. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ......................................................................... 11

8.1 Surface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 11

8.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................. 11

8.3 Soil Plasticity Testing .................................................................................................... 15

8.4 Soil Salinity and Aggressivity Testing ......................................................................... 16

8.5 Results of DCP Testing .................................................................................................. 18

8.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 18

9. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 19

9.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 19

9.2 Construction Staging ..................................................................................................... 19

9.3 Excavation Conditions ................................................................................................... 20

9.4 Vibration Control ............................................................................................................ 21

9.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 23

9.6 Stability of Basement Excavation ................................................................................. 23

9.7 Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................... 26

9.8 Foundations .................................................................................................................... 30

9.9 Subgrade Preparation/ Earthworks .............................................................................. 34

9.10 Pavement Design and Construction ............................................................................. 36

9.11 Soil Salinity and Aggressivity ....................................................................................... 36

9.12 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................ 37

9.13 Site Earthquake Classification ...................................................................................... 38

10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION ............................. 39



11. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 39

12. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 42

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SITE BOREHOLE AND DCP TEST LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS, DCP TEST SHEETS AND ROCK CLASSIFICATION

APPENDIX D CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL LONG SECTIONS

APPENDIX F RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING

APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - TABLE 10

REFERENCES

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

actions in Australia.

2. Australian Standard – AS 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigation.

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

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

5. Bertuzzi R, “Sydney Sandstone and Shale Parameters for Tunnel Design”, Australian

Geomechanics Journal, Vol 49, No 1, March 2014.

6. Bertuzzi R and Pells P J.N., “Geotechnical Parameters of Sydney Sandstone and Shale”,

Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol 37, No 5, December 2002.

7. Blacktown Council GIS maps - Flooding Precincts, http://maps.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/

8. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 - Dryland Salinity, 1993.

9. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, “Salinity Potential in Western

Sydney 2002”, March 2003.

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

2002.

11. NSW WorkCover: “Code of Practice – Excavation work” July 2015.

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

Sydney Region”, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1998.

13. NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Natural Resources - “Building in a Saline

Environment”, 2003.

14. State of NSW and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change “Interim

Construction Noise Guideline”, referenced DECC 2009/265, July 2009.

15. The Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia “Guide to Residential Slabs and Footings in

Saline Environments”, May 2005.

16. Wagga Wagga City Council’s “Urban Salinity Management Plan 2008-2013”, 2008.



1. INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical site investigation was carried out at No. 170 Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW

2148 on the 8th and 9th January 2018. The site investigation was followed by interpretation

of the results and assessment of the geotechnical conditions of the site.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the existing ground conditions and

geotechnical design requirements of the site for a proposed development of Blacktown

Assisted Living Units. The proposed development consists of thirteen buildings varying in

height from four to fourteen storeys with one to two basement levels for underground

carparking.

This report provides results of the geotechnical site investigation, interpretation and

assessment of the existing geotechnical conditions of the site, together with

recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION

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

Client:

Geotechnical brief by Warren Smith and Partners, referenced 5619000, Rev.01, dated

25th October 2017;

Drawing titled “Preliminary Bulk Earthworks”, by Warren Smith and Partners,

referenced 5619001, SK01-01, dated 9th January 2018;

A set of architectural drawings titled “Proposed 20 Units Multi-Storey Residential

Development”, by Allen, Jack and Cottier Architects, referenced 17002, consisting of

sheet nos. SK1000 and SK2000 dated 6th December 2017, and sheets SK2101 to

SK2106, inclusive and SK3200, dated 20th December 2017;

Architectural drawings by Allen, Jack and Cottier Architects, referenced 17002,

consisting of sheet nos. SKCP1000-1, SKCP1001-3 and SKCP1002-2, received on 25th

January 2018;

Report titled “Geotechnical Investigation Report for Site A: Proposed Sports Facilities

and Childcare Centre, 221 Walters Road & Site B: Residential Age Care Facility, 170

Reservoir Road at Blacktown Workers Sports Club Arndell Park, NSW”, by JK

Geotechnics, referenced 28870ZArpt. Rev 2, dated 23rd February 2016; and

Draft borehole logs and measured water levels by Trace Environmental.



3. SCOPE OF WORK

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

following in general the guidelines provided in the Australian Standard AS1726-1993

“Geotechnical Site Investigation” (Reference 2) and comprised the following:

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

Service locating by a specialist contractor using electromagnetic detection equipment

to ensure the borehole and test locations are positioned away from underground

services;

Machine drilling of seven boreholes on 8th and 9th January 2018, identified as BH1 to

BH3, inclusive and BH5 to BH8, inclusive, using a rotary drilling rig owned and operated

by Traccess Drilling;

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) conducted within the majority of the boreholes to

assess the in-situ strength of the subsurface soil layers;

Collection of soil samples and rock cores during drilling;

Reinstatement of the boreholes with soil cuttings; and

Field testing using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) at eight locations identified as

DCP1 to DCP8, inclusive, with the majority of the tests positioned adjacent to the

boreholes.

The approximate locations of the boreholes and DCP tests completed during the site

investigation are depicted on a plan of the site, which is reproduced from drawing

SKCP1000-1 of the architectural drawings referenced in Section 2 and presented as “Figure

1 - Site Borehole and DCP Test Location Plan” attached as Appendix A.

The majority of the boreholes were drilled with flight auger to Tungsten Carbide (TC) bit

refusal. Drilling of boreholes BH1 and BH2 was carried using a combination of flight auger

with TC bit and a rock roller in conjunction with wash boring. Drilling of the boreholes thence

continued with coring using NMLC technique. The boreholes were drilled to depths varying

from approximately 7.4m below ground level (bgl) to 10.4m bgl.

Following the fieldwork, laboratory testing was carried out by NATA approved laboratories,

consisting of the following tests:

Point Load on nineteen core samples.

A set of Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage on four soil samples.

Salinity and Electrical Conductivity (dS/m) on twelve soil samples.

pH, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Sulphate on twelve soil samples.



The site investigation was followed by interpretation of the results and assessment of the

geotechnical aspects relevant to the proposed development. This geotechnical report

summarises the results of the geotechnical site investigation, interpretation and

assessment. The information provided in the report includes:

Method of investigation;

Site description, including surface conditions;

Site plan indicating the approximate locations of the boreholes and DCP tests;

Borelogs providing description of the encountered soil and rock strata;

Results of in-situ testing by DCP testing;

Results of laboratory testing;

Subsurface conditions together with material characterisation;

Geotechnical long sections with approximate depths of soil and rock strata encountered

in the boreholes;

Assessment of the geotechnical aspects and potential issues that may be associated

with the proposed development;

Recommendations on foundation types and design, including end bearing and shaft

adhesion for shallow and deep foundations;

Effects of settlement and requirement of bridging over underground services;

Recommendations on types and design of suitable shoring systems, including design

parameters for both cantilevered, flexible and propped retaining walls;

Recommendations on groundwater management;

Recommended soil and rock geotechnical parameters including Poisson Ratio, vertical

and horizontal Modulus of Elasticity (Young's Modulus);

Site "Subsoil Class" for earthquake design in accordance with Australian Standard AS

1170.4-2007;

An indication of the nature and condition of the materials to be excavated and

recommendations as to excavation methods in soil and rock and measures as may be

applicable to restrict ground vibrations;

Advice on earthworks, excavatability, bulking factors, site trafficability during

construction, and on suitability of insitu materials to be used as engineered fill;

Recommendations on design and construction of pavements including design CBR

values based on DCP testing;

Assessment of salinity and aggressivity of the soils underlying the site; and

Advice on construction techniques and any associated issues requiring attention.



4. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site consists of two existing rectangular terraced sports fields within the southern portion

of No. 170 Reservoir Road, south of the existing Blacktown Workers Club. The site is

bordered by the following properties and roads:

An existing driveway and carparking area to the north;

Reservoir Road carriageway and road reserve to the east;

Penny Place carriageway and road reserve to the south; and

The properties at No. 24 and 26 Penny Place to the west, which are occupied by

commercial concrete warehouse buildings.

At the time of the site investigation, the site was predominantly covered with well-maintained

grass. The ground surface within the eastern field gently slopes from the south east, at

approximate reduced level (RL) of 63.6m to the Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the

vicinity of the south eastern corner, towards the north west, at approximately RL 61.8m in

the vicinity of the north western corner. The western field is lower than the eastern field by

approximately 1.8 to 2.33m. The ground surface within the western portion gently slopes

from the south east, at approximately RL 60.3m in the vicinity of the south eastern corner,

towards the north west, at approximately RL 59.1m in the vicinity of the north western

corner.

The site is higher than the adjoining areas to the north and west, but lower than the

Reservoir Road carriageway within the south eastern portion of the eastern field. It is

inferred that the sports fields were constructed by cutting within the eastern portion and

filling within the middle and western portions. It is also inferred that imported fill was used

to construct the western field.

Alongside the western boundary, the ground is higher than the adjoining properties by

approximately 2.0m, and it is sloping down at approximately 30° towards an open concrete

channel drain.

The DBYD plans, observation made during the site walkover and information provided by

the caretaker of the club indicate the underground services within the site include the

following:

An existing large stormwater pit located in the vicinity of the eastern boundary,

connected to a large diameter concrete stormwater pipe running across the site towards

the north west towards a watercourse/ drain located to the north west of the site;

Electrical cables connected to the light towers;



A network of irrigation pipes connected to valve chambers within the sports fields;

A sanitary sewer pipe crossing the south eastern corner of the site and a manhole; and

Telstra chambers located at some locations alongside the site boundaries.

Examination of extracts of the aerial photographs of the area dated 1943, 1953, 1977 and

2016 reproduced as Figure 1R below, indicates a watercourse was running within the

northern portion of the site from the east towards the north west. It is inferred that the

aforementioned stormwater pipe was constructed along the approximate alignment of the

watercourse which was filled to develop the existing sports fields.

1943 1953

1977 2016

Figure 1R - Extracts of aerial photographs of the site

Vehicular access to the site is currently available via three gates located at different

locations along the northern boundary.

Selected photographs of the site recorded during a site walkover are presented in Figure 2,

attached as Appendix B.



5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The architectural drawings referenced in Section 2 indicate that the currently proposed

development consists of earthworks comprising cutting within the eastern field and filling

within the western field. This will be followed by construction of thirteen buildings varying in

height from four to fourteen storeys with one to two basement levels for underground

carparking.

In this report, the lower level of every building whether is under or above ground, is referred

to as “basement”.

A pedestrian bridge is proposed over the adjoining road to the north of the site, linking

Building C within the eastern field to the existing building of the Blacktown Workers Club.

A network of internal roads will be constructed along the centreline of the site in east to west

and north to south directions. Another road is proposed alongside the western boundary.

A summary of the proposed buildings together with estimated depths of cut and fill is

provided in “Table 10 - Geotechnical Assessment Summary”, attached as Appendix G.

Further details are shown on the provided drawings referenced in Section 2.

6. LOCAL GEOLOGY

Reference to the Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 Edition 1, dated 1991, by

the Geological Survey of New South Wales Department of Minerals and Energy, indicates

the site is located within an area underlain by the Triassic Age Bringelly Shale (Rwb) of the

Wianamatta Group. The Bringelly Shale formation is described as “Shale, carbonaceous

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

Results of the investigation, as summarised in Section 8 indicate the site is underlain by

materials with characteristics similar to those belonging to the Bringelly Shale formation,

which confirm the published geology.

7. SALINITY AND FLOODING

Review of the “Potential Salinity in Western Sydney 2002” map by the Department of

Infrastructure (Reference 9) indicates the site is located within an area identified to have a

“Moderate Salinity Potential”, to the east of an area of “High Salinity Potential”.

Soil sampling and laboratory testing for determination of salinity of the soils underlying the

site were carried out as part of the site investigation. The results of laboratory testing are

presented in Section 8.4 and discussed in Section 9.3.



Figure 2R below is an extract from a map of the flooding precincts of the Blacktown Council

area (Reference 7). The map shows the watercourse to the north west of the site is within

high flood potential area.

Figure 2R - Extract of an aerial photograph of the site showing the local flooding precincts

8. INVESTIGATION RESULTS

8.1 Surface Conditions

At the time of the site investigation, the site was predominantly covered with topsoil.

8.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered within the boreholes are recorded on the Borehole

Logs attached as Appendix C. Results of DCP testing are also attached in Appendix C.

Photographs of the rock cores recovered during drilling are presented as “Figures 3.1 and

3.2 - Core Photographs”, attached as Appendix D. Generalised geotechnical long sections

along approximately the centreline of the proposed buildings within the northern and

southern portions, in an east to west direction, are presented as figures 4.1 to 4.4 inclusive,

and attached as Appendix E. Results of laboratory testing are presented in sections 8.3

and 8.4.

Classification for the rock horizons encountered in the boreholes is provided in Table 1,

attached in Appendix C.



An idealised ground profile at the location of each proposed building is provided in Table 10

in Appendix G. However, it should be noted that the depths and elevations of the soil and

rock horizons vary throughout the site and will require confirmation during construction.

Subsurface conditions encountered during borehole drilling of this investigation, and the site

investigation by JK Geotechnics in 2015, consisted of the following:

Western Field:

The western field is underlain by a thin layer

of topsoil overlaying fill extending to depths

varying from approximately 1.4 to 3.0m bgl

overlying stiff to hard residual soils and

completely to highly weathered shale

materials.

The bedrock is at depths varying from

approximately 2.3 to 5.2m bgl. The top of

the bedrock is slightly sloping towards the

west. The bedrock consists of interbedded

siltstone, mudstone and fine sandstone.

Eastern Field:

The south eastern and majority of the south

western portion, are underlain by a thin

layer of topsoil and reworked insitu soils,

overlying stiff to hard residual soils and

completely to highly weathered shale

materials extending to depths varying from

1.75m to 2.8m bgl.

The upper horizons of the bedrock consist

of predominantly siltstone and mudstone

becoming interbedded with fine sandstone

at depth.

The remainder of the eastern field is

underlain by thin topsoil layer overlaying fill

extending to depths varying from

approximately 1.0 to 2.4m bgl.

The north western portion and the

alignment of the buried watercourse

inferred to be running within the northern

portion, is underlain by alluvial soils below

the fill, extending to up to 4.6m bgl. The fill

and the alluvium overlay stiff to hard

residual soils and completely to highly

weathered shale rock extending to depths

varying from 3.0 to 5.25m bgl. The upper

horizons of the bedrock consist of

interbedded siltstone, mudstone and fine

sandstone.



The observations made on the recovered soils during borehole drilling of this investigation

and the previous investigation indicated the following characteristics of the soil horizons:

Layer 1 - Fill: The materials encountered during this investigation consisted of

predominantly reasonably clean, clayey Silt with crushed fragments of highly weathered

siltstone with occasional fragments of highly weathered mudstone. The results of DCP

testing indicated that the fill is reasonably well compacted at the majority of the test

locations with the exception of the upper 1.0m at DCP7 location. The 2015 report by

JK Geotechnics referenced in Section 2, indicates the fill includes ash, brick, slag and

roots. It is recommended that the results of environmental site investigation, which was

carried out concurrent with this investigation by Trace Environmental are taken into

consideration in determination of the contents of any waste materials that may be

present within the existing fill.

Layer 2 - Alluvium: Alluvial soils were encountered at one borehole only, being BH5,

which was positioned within the alignment of the buried watercourse and in the vicinity

of buried stormwater pipe. The alluvium consisted of grey to dark grey Clay, with layers

of reddish brown and brown, with organic inclusions and rootlets, firm to stiff and highly

plastic.

Layer 3 - Residual soils and completely to highly weathered shale: The natural residual

soils underlying the site consisted of pale grey and brown, reddish and orange brown,

clayey Silt, stiff to hard, and moderately to highly plastic.

The observation made on the recovered rock cores during coring using NMLC technique,

and description of the materials recovered during augering of this and the previous

investigations, indicated the site is underlain by the following main rock horizons (classes):

Layer 4 - Class V Shale: Brown interbedded with pale grey Siltstone/ Mudstone, with

occasional sandstone bands, extremely weathered, extremely low strength, highly

fractured, thinly and horizontally bedded, and laminated, with occasional to frequent

clay seams; overlying

Layer 5 - Class IV Shale: Grey interbedded with pale grey Sandstone and Mudstone,

extremely to moderately weathered, extremely low to very low strength, thinly and

horizontally bedded, and laminated; overlying

Layer 6 - Class III Shale: Dark grey, and grey moderately to slightly weathered, medium

to high strength Sandstone and Mudstone, thinly and horizontally bedded, and

laminated.



The rock horizons above were classified with reference to the guidelines provided in a paper

by Pells et al (Reference 12). The class of each layers includes horizons of mudstone,

siltstone and sandstone, which all belong to the Bringelly Shale formation.

The recovered rock cores indicated several natural fractures consisting of predominantly

horizontal, smooth and rough bedding partings, and irregular, diagonal and vertical rough

fractures, some clay seams within the extremely weathered horizons, and joints. Minor thin

coal seams were encountered interbedded within the mudstone horizons at some locations.

The results of the site investigation indicate the topsoil and existing fill are highly

compressible. For highly compressible soils typical magnitude of Coefficient of

Compressibility (mv) ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 m2/MN. The stiff residual silty Clay layer have

moderate to low compressibility. Typical mv for stiff cohesive soils ranges from 0.1 to 0.3

m2/MN, and 0.05 to 0.1 m2/MN for very stiff cohesive soils. Compressibility of the weathered

rock is typically very low and mv is inferred to be less than 0.05 m2/MN.



8.3 Soil Plasticity Testing

As part of this investigation, laboratory testing for determination of Atterberg Limits and

Linear Shrinkage of soils was carried out on selected four soil samples. Results of

laboratory testing, which were carried out by STS Laboratory are attached as Appendix F,

and summarised in Table 2 below. Also presented in Table 2, are results of laboratory

testing of the geotechnical site investigation by JK Geotechnics of 2015.

Table 2: Soil Plasticity and Linear Shrinkage Results

BH No. Depth Moisture Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Linear Shrinkage

(m) (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) LS (%)

Soil testing January 2018

BH1 0.5 NT 41 14 27 13

BH3 1.5 NT 51 16 35 15

BH5 3.0 NT 43 15 28 12

BH6 1.0 NT 70 17 53 18

Soil testing November 2015 – JK Geotechnics

210

0.5-0.95 11.8 33 16 17 7

1.6-2.0 5.7 NT NT NT NT

3.0-3.4 8.6 NT NT NT NT

3.4-3.6 11.8 NT NT NT NT

211 0.5-0.95 12.7 32 15 17 7

1.7-1.8 9.8 NT NT NT NT

212

3.0-3.45 17.9 36 14 22 7.5

4.5-4.6 10.8 NT NT NT NT

5.5-6.0 6.4 NT NT NT NT

7.2-7.7 6.9 NT NT NT NT

213 0.5-0.95 11.8 42 18 24 10

4.0-4.3 6.9 NT NT NT NT

214 1.5-1.95 20.3 64 23 41 16

4.0-4.3 9.1 NT NT NT NT

215

5.5-6.0 10.4 NT NT NT NT

7.0-7.5 7.8 NT NT NT NT

8.0-8.3 6.0 NT NT NT NT

216 1.5-1.95 24.1 60 22 38 15.5

217 2.8-3.0 4.9 NT NT NT NT

3.6-4.0 7.9 NT NT NT NT

219

0.4-0.95 15.9 54 20 34 14.5

2.5-3.0 7.0 NT NT NT NT

4.0-4.3 9.9 NT NT NT NT

NT = Not Tested



8.4 Soil Salinity and Aggressivity Testing

Laboratory testing for determination of soil salinity was carried out by Envirolab Services,

on twenty four selected soil samples. The testing included determination of the saline

content through measurement of Electrical Conductivity of the soil samples. Results of

laboratory testing are attached as Appendix F and summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Electrical Conductivity Test Results and Estimated Salinity

BH No. Depth

(m)

Electrical Conductivity (dS/m) – EC

Multiplication Factor1

Electrical Conductivity of

Saturated Extract (dS/m) ECe

Estimated Salinity mg/kg

Soil Type

BH1

D2 1.0 0.21 9 1.89 710 clayey Silt -Fill

D3 1.5 0.22 9 1.98 750 calculated clayey Silt-

Residual Soil

D4 2.0 0.16 9 1.44 550 clayey Silt-

Residual Soil


Residual Soil

BH2

D1 0.5 0.088 9 0.79 300 clayey Silt (Fill)

D2 1.0 0.12 9 1.08 400 calculated clayey Silt (Fill)

D3 1.5 0.11 9 0.99 370 clayey Silt-

Residual Soil

D5 2.5 0.16 9 1.44 540 calculated sandy Silt -

Residual Soil

BH3

D2 1.0 0.19 8.5 1.62 640 Silt (Fill)


Residual Soil

D5 2.5 0.20 8 1.6 690 silty Clay -

Residual Soil

BH5




D6 3.0 0.20 9 1.8 680 calculated silty Clay -Alluvium

D7 4.5 0.078 9 0.70 260 calculated Silty Clay-

Residual Soil

BH6 D1 0.5 0.35 8.5 2.98 1200 Silt (Fill)

D2 1.0 0.94 8.5 7.99 3200

calculated Silt (Fill)

BH7


D3 1.5 0.14 9 1.26 470 clayey Silt-

Residual Soil

D5 2.0 0.45 14 6.3 450 calculated silty Sand-

Residual Soil

BH8


D3 1.5 0.08 9 0.72 270 clayey Silt-

Residual Soil

D4 2.0 0.49 8.5 4.17 1600

calculated silty Clay -

Residual Soil 1 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation Non-saline <2 dS/m 1994 - Dryland Salinity (1993) (Reference 8) Slightly saline 2-4 dS/m

Moderately saline 4-8 dS/m

Very saline 8-16 dS/m

Highly saline >16 dS/m



Laboratory testing was carried out by Envirolab Services, on twelve selected soil samples

for determination of soil aggressivity including pH, Chloride, and Sulphate contents. Results

of laboratory aggressivity testing are attached as Appendix F and summarised in Table 4

below.

Table 4: Laboratory Soil Aggressivity Test Results, pH, Chloride and Sulphate

Borehole Depth (m) pH Chloride (mg/kg) Sulphate - S04 (mg/kg)

BH1-D3 1.5 9.0 20 54

BH1-D5 2.5 8.7 20 30

BH2-D2 1.0 8.5 <10 10

BH2-D5 2.5 8.8 20 76

BH3-D4 2.0 7.5 60 320

BH5-D3 1.5 8.6 20 38

BH5-D6 3.0 7.0 73 330

BH5-D7 4.5 8.6 10 48

BH6-D2 1.0 5.6 1200 540

BH7-D2 1.0 8.1 110 100

BH7-D5 2.0 4.9 530 250

BH8-D4 2.0 5.6 320 590

AS2159-2009

Piling - Design and Installation

Reinforced Concrete Piles

High Permeability Soils

Mild >5.5 <5000

Moderately aggressive 4.5 - 5.5 5000 – 10,000

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

Very severely <4.0 >20,000

Low Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive > 5.5 <5000

Mild 4.5 - 5.5 5000 – 10,000

Moderately aggressive 4.0 - 4.5 10,000 – 20000

Severely aggressive <4.0 >20,000

Steel Piles

High Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive >5.0 <5000

Mild 4.0 - 5.0 5000 – 20,000

Moderately aggressive 3.0 - 4.0 20,000-50,000

Severe <3 >50,000

Low Permeability Soils

Non-aggressive >5.0 <5000

Non-aggressive 4.0 - 5.0 5000 – 20,000

Mild 3.0 - 4.0 20,000-50,000

Moderately aggressive <3.0 >50,000



8.5 Results of DCP Testing

Results of DCP testing indicated the following soil layers and correlated California Bearing

Ratio (CBR) values:

Eastern Field:

A thin layer of firm soils of approximately 0.3m in thickness with an average correlated

CBR of 3 to 4; overlying

Stiff to very stiff soils layers extending to DCP refusal depths of up to 3.8m bgl, with

average CBR values ranging from 6 to 12% within the upper 1.0m bgl, with the

exception of the location of DCP7, where the CBR values ranged from 2 to 4%.

Western Field:

A thin layer of firm soils of approximately 0.3m in thickness with an average correlated

CBR of 3 to 4; overlying

Stiff to very stiff soils interbedded with occasional hard soil layers extending to DCP

refusal depths of up to 4.5m bgl, with average CBR values ranging from 6 to 12% within

the upper 1.0m bgl.

8.6 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during augering through the soils and the extremely

weathered rock in the boreholes at this site, which extended to approximately 3.0m bgl in

the majority of the boreholes. Measurement of water levels during core drilling below that

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

The results of groundwater monitoring carried out by Trace Environmental concurrent to this

investigation indicated water levels in monitoring wells installed within the site, to be at

approximately 8.0m bgl within the eastern field and 6.5 to 10.0m bgl within the western field.

It is inferred that groundwater may occur in the form of seepage through natural fissures

and fractures within the underlying weathered mudstone and sandstone horizons.

Based on the results of this investigation and the local topography, natural continuous

seepage flows are expected to be deep relative to the proposed basements, and likely to

be towards the north west, towards the existing watercourse/ drain.

It should be noted that seepage levels may be subject to seasonal, and daily fluctuations

influenced at some locations by factors such as rainfalls, flooding and future development

of the surrounding lands.



9. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

9.1 Overview

The results of the site investigation carried out at this site indicate the main geotechnical

aspects associated with the proposed development include the following:

Construction staging and techniques;

Earthworks and subgrade preparation;

Excavation conditions and vibration control;

Stability of basement excavation and retaining walls;

Foundations;

Soil salinity and aggressivity;

Pavement design and construction;

Groundwater management; and

Site earthquake classification.

Assessment of the geotechnical aspects above and recommendations for design and

construction of the proposed development based on the results of the site investigation are

provided in the following sections. A summary of the assessment of the design and

construction requirements for the buildings is provided in Table 10, in Appendix G.

9.2 Construction Staging

Based on the available information on the proposed development, it is envisaged that

construction will consist of the following main stages:

The locations of all underground services are identified and marked on site.

The light towers, irrigation network and similar are decommissioned and removed.

Construction of temporary stormwater detention basins, silt and dust control measures

and other construction site measures.

The topsoil is stripped and stockpiled off site.

To improve the trafficability of the site placement of pavement hardfill within the

temporary access internal roads within the western portion will be required.

Earthworks consisting of cutting within the eastern field and filling within the western

field.

Excavation for the basements of the proposed buildings A to C, inclusive, H, I, and K

to M, inclusive, together with excavation within the eastern portions of buildings D and

J, may be carried out concurrently or after completion of the bulk earthworks.



If cutting was carried out for the entire eastern field, construction of batter slope or

retaining walls to support vertical excavations, will be required alongside the northern,

eastern and southern boundaries.

Environmental sampling, testing and monitoring during earthworks.

Filling within the western field will require batter slopes or retaining walls alongside the

northern, western and southern boundaries.

Filling should be carried out in accordance with the relevant standards and it should be

“engineered”, i.e. placed in conjunction with a compaction testing programme under the

supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer for this development.

Excavation methods and shoring walls for the basements should take into consideration

the proximity to the site boundaries, existing underground services, trees, proposed

internal roads and other proposed buildings. Safe access ways to the buildings should

be provided and appropriately retained by temporary or permanent retaining walls if

necessary.

Batter slope stabilisations may be required at some areas along the site boundaries to

maintain the short and long term stability of the adjoining roads and the proposed

internal roads.

Construction of the proposed buildings is recommended to commence with the

buildings within the eastern field. This would allow any settlement that may occur within

the existing fill under the additional fill to be completed prior to construction of the

buildings and roads within the western field.

For heavy machinery such as piling rigs and mobile cranes, inspection of the working

platform would be required and construction of stabilised temporary working platform

may be required for areas underlain by existing fill.

Foundations of the tower crane will require piling, particularly within areas underlain by

existing fill.

9.3 Excavation Conditions

Based on the provided information on the proposed development and the site survey plan

excavation will be required for the entire basement footprints of the buildings within the

eastern field together with basements of buildings H and I, and partially of buildings D and

J within the western field.

Excavation to below the finished floor level (FFL) of the basement levels for the majority of

the above buildings is inferred to be within topsoil, fill and residual soils. Excavation for



Building M is inferred to extend down into horizons of extremely weathered shale.

Excavation in the soils should be feasible using conventional earthmoving equipment.

Subject to confirmation by inspection during excavation, Table 5 below provides the

Characteristic Geological Strength Index (GSI) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) inferred for

the rock horizons underlying the site. The GSI and RMR are described with reference to

the classification provided in papers by Bertuzzi et al (Reference 5 and Reference 6) and

rock rippability based on Weaver's Rippability Rating Chart (Weaver 1975).

Table 5: Preliminary GSI, RMR and Rippability

Rock Layer/ Class Characteristic GSI RMR Rippability

Layer 3: Class V Shale 15 to 30 1 to 19

Very Poor Rock Easy Ripping

Layer 4: Class IV

Shale 27 to 49

14 to 34

Very Poor to Poor Rock

Easy to Hard

Ripping

Layer 5: Class III

Shale 40 to 60

33 to 54

Poor to Fair Rock

Hard to Very

Hard Ripping

The classification in Table 5 above indicates that excavation within the Class V Shale should

be feasible using conventional earthmoving equipment, using digging buckets fitted to

hydraulic excavators. The classification indicates heavy ripping, rock breaking equipment

in conjunction with vibratory rock breaking equipment are required only for excavation below

the top of Class IV Shale. The use of a combination of Cat D9 dozer, and a small rock

breaker such as Krupp 600 hammer, or equivalents, will likely to be feasible for excavation

within Class IV Shale and Class III Shale horizons.

Excavation contractors should be provided with a copy of this report. The contractors should

make their own review and assessment as to the selection of most appropriate excavation

methods and machinery, productivity, or bulking factors, taking into consideration vibration

and noise aspects associated with the excavation. It is recommended that only excavation

contractors with appropriate insurances and experience on similar projects, should be

engaged to carry out the rock excavation at this site.

9.4 Vibration Control

Vibration levels should be maintained within acceptable levels to minimise the potential

effects of vibration that would be generated during excavation and operation of construction

machineries. It is recommended that appropriate methods should be carefully planned and



appropriate machineries selected in order to minimise transmission of vibrations to the

adjoining properties and roads that may be potentially affected.

Induced vibrations in existing structures within the adjoining properties should not exceed a

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 10mm/sec for brick or unreinforced structures that are in

good conditions, 5mm/sec for residential and low rise buildings or 2mm/sec for historical or

structures that are in sensitive conditions.

Table 6 below provides preliminary vibration limits and distances to ordinary structures

related to jack and rock hammers, which are typically adopted for similar developments in

NSW. It is recommended that detailed assessment based on a monitoring trial is carried

out prior to construction in order to confirm the preliminary operating limits provided in Table

6.

Table 6: Vibration Limits and Distances to Ordinary Structures and Type of Plant

Distance to Nearest

Structure (m) Plant

Operating Limit (% of Maximum Capacity) to achieve 5mm/sec PPV

Plant

Operating Limit (% of Maximum Capacity) to achieve 10mm/sec PPV

1.5 to 2.5 Hand operated Jack Hammer

100 300kg Rock

Hammer 50

2.5 to 5.0 300kg Rock

Hammer 50

300kg Rock Hammer

100

600kg Rock Hammer

50

5.0 to 10.0

300kg Rock Hammer

100 600kg Rock

Hammer 100

600kg Rock Hammer

50 900kg Rock

Hammer 50

As vibration and noise are restricted to low levels due to the adjoining club, properties and

roads, the use of low to moderate energy generating equipment is recommended. These

should be used at the locations near the site boundaries, to aid in breaking and trimming, in

order to minimise transmission of vibrations and noise.

The excavation should start from the middle portion of the site and should continue

progressively towards the site boundaries in stages. If excavation in rock horizons stronger

than Class V Shale is required, the use of rock hammers should be minimised or restricted

within the areas alongside the site boundaries and in the vicinity of the stormwater pipe. If

necessary, hammering should be carried out based on confirmed operating limits,

preferably horizontally along bedding planes of rock horizons or pre-cut rock

boulders/blocks, away from the site boundaries with noise limits restricted to those



acceptable to the adjoining properties. The rock hammers should be operated only for short

durations/bursts in order to reduce the potential for amplification of vibrations.

If high energy generating equipment such as, heavy ripping equipment, rock hammers or

similar are used, then the following measures are recommended prior to and during

construction (including excavation):

Undertaking dilapidation survey of the existing structures within the influence zone1 of

the proposed excavations, within the adjoining properties and roads.

Vibration monitoring during construction should be carried out using a vibration

monitoring instrument (i.e. seismograph). The alarm levels should be set based on the

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

zone of influence of the proposed construction works.

If the vibrations exceed the alarm levels construction activities should cease

immediately and the Geotechnical Engineer for this development should be contacted

for assessment and modification of the construction methodology if necessary.

9.5 Noise

Noise generated during excavation and construction should be restricted to the appropriate

limits specified in the “Interim Construction Noise Guideline” by the NSW Department of

Environment and Climate Change (Reference 14). The guideline indicates that the affected

parties within the adjoining properties should be consulted to schedule the project’s work

hours to achieve a reasonable noise outcome.

9.6 Stability of Basement Excavation

The estimated depths of excavation below the existing ground level for the basements of

the proposed buildings A to C, inclusive, H, I, and K to M, inclusive, together with excavation

depths within the eastern portions of buildings D and J, are provided in Table 10, in

Appendix G. If the excavations of the basements are carried out following the bulk

earthworks, the excavation depths for the buildings within the eastern portion will be less.

Excavation to below the FFL of the basement levels for the majority of the above buildings

is inferred to be within topsoil, fill and residual soils. Excavation for Building M is inferred to

be predominantly within residual soils extending down into horizons of extremely weathered

shale.

1 A theoretical envelope that extends upwards from maximum excavation level at a 45 angle to the surface.



Due to the proposed adequate setbacks from the site boundaries to the majority of the

proposed buildings, excavation of temporary cut batters for the full excavation depth along

the basement perimeter walls of the buildings is expected to be feasible. The following are

recommended cut batter slope ratios for the soil and rock horizons underlying the site:

Temporary batter slope;

o within the existing fill should be made at a ratio of no steeper than 1V:2H, where

“V” denotes vertical and “H” denotes horizontal.

o within the residual soils and completely to highly weathered Shale can be made at

a ratio of 1V:1H.

o within the extremely weathered Class V Shale horizons can be made at a ratio of

1V:0.75H.

o within the moderately weathered Class IV Shale horizons can be made to a slope

ratio of 1V:0.5H.

Horizons of competent Class III Shale or stronger are expected to be self-supporting

and can be made vertical or near vertical.

The batter slopes may require stabilisation to maintain the stability of the cuts in the

short and long terms. The stabilisation may be carried out using shotcrete, which

should be at least fibre reinforced, or reinforced geotextile sheets of an appropriate

thickness, adequately nailed into the slopes. Permanent cut batter slopes can be

planted in conjunction with geotextile sheets, which can improve its stability in the long

term.

Construction of the batter slopes should not undermine the foundations of any structure

within the influence zone of the basement excavation. The feasibility of batter slopes

should be confirmed based on the location of nearest structure to the basement. The

area within a width equivalent to the depth of excavation from the top of the batter slope

should not be used for storage or traffic by construction machineries.

Following completion of the basement construction, the excavated batter slopes will

require backfilling to the final subgrade level using an engineered fill in conjunction with

installation of suitable drainage measures.

For areas where excavation of cut batters for partial or full excavation depths along the

basement perimeter walls is not feasible, vertical excavation will be required which should

be retained by a suitable shoring system prior to excavation. The type of shoring wall will

depend on factors such as the depth of excavation, predicted wall movement and whether



the shoring wall can be incorporated into the permanent basement wall. The following

options may be considered:

Installation of cantilevered cast insitu reinforced concrete soldier piles, positioned at

approximately 3 to 5 times the pile diameter, centre to centre; and

Installation of temporary cantilevered steel sheetpile wall from the existing ground level

or final subgrade level.

For any of the above wall options, the following is recommended:

For any of the above options the shoring wall should be installed from the existing

ground level or the final subgrade level, extending to depths below the lower basement

level to a minimum ratio of 1D:2E, where “D” denotes depth of the basement and “E”

denotes the embedment depth below the basement level;

The spacing of the solider piles and embedment depths of the walls should be

determined by design analysis;

The gaps between the soldier piles would require a cover consisting of reinforced

shotcrete and/or reinforced concrete panels. Alternatively, the permanent concrete

block or Dincel walls should be constructed immediately after excavation. The gap

between the face of excavation and basement walls will require filling;

The basement walls should be either founded onto the natural rock horizons or

supported by piles;

Construction should be carried out by staged excavation at no more than 1.5m in depth

for each stage accompanied by inspection; and

The use of temporary strutting/ propping may be required to prevent excessive wall

movement, particularly for sheetpile walls.

Alternative shoring options may be considered for the basement perimeter walls, subject to

assessment by the Structural Engineer in consultation with the Geotechnical Engineer.

Installation of wall restraint systems are not expected to be required for the permanent

basement walls of the majority of the proposed buildings, due to the maximum depth of

excavation being in the order of 3.0m. In general, the requirement for measures such as

anchors, diagonal or hydraulic props depends on the predicted movement of the shoring

walls. If the predicted movement is assessed by structural analysis to be excessive, wall

restraint systems should be installed prior to or during excavation in order to reduce the

potential effects of wall movement on the adjoining properties and roads.



The recommendations above should be confirmed during construction by the Geotechnical

Engineer. During basement excavation, observations and recording of the condition of

exposed soil and rock faces should be carried out so that any local softening or weakening

of material resulting from possible seepage or the presence of any loosening of soil or rock

wedges or the presence of adversely orientated defects can be identified and treated. The

observations should constitute as “Hold Points”.

Undertaking dilapidation survey of the existing structures within the influence zone of the

basement excavation, within the adjoining properties and roads is recommended to be

carried out prior to commencing of excavation. Existing underground services within the

zone of influence, within the site, adjoining properties and roads should be identified and

protected during construction. All excavation should be carried out in accordance with the

“NSW WorkCover: Code of Practice – Excavation work” (Reference 11).

Monitoring of the ground movement along the site boundaries is recommended to be carried

out until completion of the floor slabs for the ground level of the buildings. As a minimum

during construction, on-going visual monitoring of the basement walls and the retained

ground in the vicinity of the site boundaries would be required. Regular surveying of survey

markers positioned alongside the site boundaries, in the vicinity of deep excavations,

particularly alongside the eastern boundary with Reservoir Road is recommended. If

significant movement occurs, excavation and construction must cease and the Geotechnical

Engineer should be immediately contacted for assessment and modification of the shoring

methodology if necessary. For any cracks that may develop on the ground surface in the

vicinity of the site boundaries, they must be immediately sealed to prevent percolation of

surface water, to avoid the cracks from further increase in width and depth, and to reduce

the potential subsequent effects on the adjoining properties and roads.

With the recommended retention options above, construction of the proposed development

in the short and long terms is expected to have low effects on the adjoining properties and

roads. The temporary shoring and permanent basement walls can be designed taking into

consideration the recommended parameters provided in Section 9.7.

9.7 Retaining Walls

The proposed basement walls including the ramp walls, should be designed to withstand

the lateral earth pressures and the applied surcharge loads within the zones of influence of

the walls. The surcharge loads typically include proposed structures, traffic and



construction traffic loads within the zone of influence of the wall. Hydrostatic and earthquake

lateral pressures should be considered in the design if applicable for this development.

The architectural drawings and results of this site investigation indicate the majority of the

retaining walls for this development will likely consist of reinforced masonry concrete block

or Dincel walls, which should be designed as gravity walls. Buried basement walls would

be typically designed to support lateral earth pressure.

Cantilevered reinforced concrete soldier piles with reinforced shotcrete/ panel walls may be

required at some locations where excavation of cut batters is not safe or feasible due to the

presence of roads, underground services or trees. The basement walls should be either

founded onto the natural rock horizons or supported by piles.

Where minor lateral movement is acceptable, retaining walls are typically considered as

flexible retaining structures. The design of flexible retaining walls is typically carried out

based on “active” lateral earth pressures. If it is critical to limit the lateral movement of the

walls, the design should be carried out based on “at rest” lateral earth pressures. Typically,

the “at rest” lateral pressure design is considered for cases where the retaining walls are

restrained by concrete slabs of buildings, or by pre-stressed ground anchors in their

permanent state.

Table 7 below provides recommended preliminary parameters for the design of retaining

walls retaining or embedded within the relevant soils and rock horizons encountered in the

boreholes drilled during this investigation.

Table 7: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retaining Walls

Layer Unit

Weight

kN/m3

Effective

Cohesion

c’ kPa

Effective

Internal Friction

Angle ’ degrees

Elastic Modulus

Horizontal Esh

MPa

Poisson’s

Ratio

Layer 1: Topsoil/ Fill 17 0 26 8 0.35

Layer 2: Alluvium 18 0 27 8 0.35

Layer 3: Residual stiff

to hard silty Clay – CW

Shale

19 8 28 16 0.3

Layer 4: Class V Shale 22 10 28 60 0.3

Layer 5: Class IV

Shale 24 20 30 240 0.3

Layer 6: Class III

Shale 24 60 32 400 0.2



Preliminary coefficients of lateral earth pressure for the relevant soils and rock horizons

encountered during the geotechnical site investigation are provided in Table 8 overleaf. The

coefficients provided are based on horizontal ground surface behind and in front of the

retaining walls with fully drained conditions.

Table 8: Preliminary Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Layer Coefficient of Active

Lateral Earth Pressure Ka

Coefficient of At Rest Lateral Earth

Pressure Ko

Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth

Pressure Kp

Layer 1: Topsoil/ Fill 0.39 0.56 2.56

Layer 2: Alluvium 0.38 0.55 2.66

Layer 3: Residual stiff

to very stiff silty Clay 0.36 0.53 2.77

Layer 4: Class V

Shale 0.36 0.53 2.77

Layer 5: Class IV

Shale 0.33 0.50 3.00

Layer 6: Class III

Shale 0.31 0.47 3.25

The coefficient of active and passive lateral earth pressure Ka and Kp, respectively,

can be calculated using Coulomb’s equations. Alternatively, the charts or tables by

Caquot and Kerisel (1948) can be used to calculate Ka and Kp.

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest Ko, can be calculated using Jacky’s

equation (Ko= 1 – Sin’).

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

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

and passive earth pressures can be carried out using the Rankine equations below:

𝑃𝑎 = 𝐾 𝛾 𝐻 − 2𝑐′√𝐾 For calculation of Lateral Active or At Rest Earth Pressure

𝑃𝑝 = 𝐾𝑝 𝛾 𝐻 + 2𝑐′√𝐾𝑝 For calculation of Passive Earth Pressure

where,

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

Pp = Passive Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

= Unit Weight (kN/m3)

K = Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (Ka or Ko)

Kp = Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure

H = Retained Height (m)

c’ = Effective Cohesion (kN/m2)



Although not anticipated to be required for this proposed development, temporary anchors

socketed into the Class V Shale, Class IV Shale and Class III Shale horizons can be

designed based on an allowable bond stress of 50kPa, 100kPa and 300kPa respectively.

The anchors can be designed based on these capacities and parameters above subject on

the following conditions:

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

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

Engineer, before they are locked off at working load; and

Anchor testing should constitute as a “Hold Point”.



9.8 Foundations

The provided drawings indicate the FFL of the basement level for the majority of the

buildings is proposed to be at RL 60.4m. The FFL of the lower basement level of buildings

H and I is proposed to be at RL 57.3m.

For the buildings within the eastern field and buildings H and I within the western field,

excavation to the FFL of the basements will result in removal of an overburden pressure

equivalent to the unit weight of the removed materials times the excavation depth.

The most economical foundation system for the proposed development particularly for the

eastern field is considered to consist of shallow spread foundations. Installation of piles is

typically required if the axial loads on columns and walls exceed the allowable bearing

pressure of the bearing stratum. Other cases where piles may be required include the need

to reduce the potential effects of differential settlement, for buildings over underground

services, to increase the stiffness of the founding rock, or increase the resistance against

lateral earthquake loads. For this development cast insitu reinforced concrete, bored piles

or similar are assessed suitable.

Table 10, in Appendix G, provides a summary of the recommended foundation options for

the proposed buildings. Table 1 attached in Appendix C, provides the approximate depths

and elevations of rock horizons underlying the proposed buildings and their rock classes.

Eastern Field

For buildings A, B, L and M, where the foundations will be founded predominantly onto Class

V Shale horizons, a foundation system consisting of cast insitu reinforced concrete shallow

spread foundations, such as pad footings under columns and strip footings under walls may

be applicable if the footings are sufficiently embedded onto the bedrock. A raft slab on

grade with thickened slab under columns and walls may also be applicable.

A similar foundation system may be applicable for Building K and the eastern portion of

Building C, provided that additional excavation is carried out to remove the upper residual

soils from the footprints of the footings and the excavations are backfilled with site concrete,

i.e. bucket piers and pocket piers are constructed under the pad and strip footings

respectively. Alternatively, buildings K and C can be supported by piles sufficiently

embedded into the bedrock while the podium of building C may be supported by a

combination of shallow spreads footings with bucket and pocket piers.

The piles for buildings C and M may require to be socketed into Class IV Shale or stronger.

Due to the number of storeys of proposed buildings A and B, K and L being six to seven



above the basement level, piles may be required and these should be socketed into Class

III Shale or stronger.

In any case, the portions of buildings A, B, and C over the existing stormwater pipe will

require piles to straddle the pipe with the piles positioned at safe distance from the pipe and

embedded to safe depths below the invert level of the pipe.

Western Field

For buildings D, E, F, G and J, engineered fill will be required within the footprints of the

buildings. A foundation system consisting of cast insitu RC bored piles under the columns

and walls is assessed to be required, as the proposed engineered fill, the existing fill and

the residual soils are not suitable to support the proposed five to six storeys above the

basement levels. A slab on grade will be required for these building at the FFL of the

basements.

The basement of Building I will likely be founded onto residual soils and Class V Shale and

for Building H the basement will likely be founded onto residual soils and the existing fill. A

group of cast insitu RC bored piles under the columns and walls is assessed to be required

for buildings H and I.

The piles for Building J may require to be socketed into Class IV Shale or stronger. Due to

the number of storeys of proposed buildings D, E, F, G and I being 6 to 7 above the

basement level, the piles may require to be socketed into Class III Shale or stronger. Piles

of Building H, may require to be socketed into Class II Shale or stronger

The portions of buildings D and E over the existing stormwater pipe will require the piles to

straddle the pipe.

If the basement walls are used to support the buildings, they should be designed for the

most adverse load combination, and they should not rely on the retained materials or

structures to provide the required bearing capacity.

Buildings over existing and future proposed underground pipes should be supported by

piled foundations straddling the pipes and embedded to at least 1.0m below the zone of

influence of the pipe which is a theoretical envelope extending at 45 up from at least 1.0m

below the invert level of the pipe. Bored piles should be at no closer than 1.0m distance

from the influence zone of nearest wall of a pipe. Driven piles should not be used in the

vicinity of underground services. The exact locations and depth of the underground services

should be determined prior to construction. Capping beams connecting the piles will be

required over the pipes.



The proposed pedestrian bridge between Building C and the existing Blacktown Workers

Club building is recommended to be supported by pile foundations to reduce the potential

effects of settlement between the bridge and the buildings.

Table 9 below provides preliminary geotechnical ultimate and allowable capacities,

recommended for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS) design,

respectively, and elasticity parameters for shallow and piled foundations, to be founded onto

the relevant soil and rock horizons underlying the site.

Table 9: Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Design Capacities and Parameters

Layer Ultimate/Allowable

End Bearing Pressure1,3 kPa

Ultimate/ Allowable Shaft Adhesion Compression2 kPa

Elastic Modulus Vertical Esv MPa

Layer 1: Topsoil/ Fill NA4 NA 10

Layer 2: Alluvium NA4 NA 10

Layer 3: Residual very stiff to hard silty Clay

ULS 300

ULS 50 (25)

20 SLS 100

SLS 25 (12)

Layer 4: Class V Shale

ULS 3000

ULS 100 (50)

80 SLS 700

SLS 50 (25)

Layer 5: Class IV Shale

ULS 4000

ULS 200 (100)

300 SLS 1000

SLS 100 (50)

Layer 6: Class III Shale

ULS 9000

ULS 400 (200)

500 SLS 3000

SLS 175 (87)

Layer 7: Class II Shale

ULS 150005

ULS 750 (375)

1000 SLS

50005 SLS

375 (185) 1 With a minimum embedment depth of 0.5m for deep foundations and 0.4m for shallow foundations. 2 Clean rock socket of roughness of at least grooves of depth 1 to 4mm and width greater than 5mm at spacing of 50mm to 200mm (i.e R2). Shaft Adhesion in Tension is 50% of Compression. The rock socket sidewalls should be free of soil and/or crushed rock, with at least 80% of the socket sidewall consisted of solid rock. Shaft adhesion should be reduced or ignored within sockets lengths that are smeared and fail to satisfy cleanliness requirements. 3 Bearing capacity for the soils is estimated based on the soil layers encountered in the boreholes. Bearing capacity for shallow and pile foundations in rock are based on Pells et al (Reference 12). 4 NA= Not Applicable, not recommended for this development. 5 This layer was not encountered during this investigation and must be confirmed by additional site investigation.

It should be noted that the allowable bearing pressures (SLS) provided in Table 9 are based

on Factor of Safety (FoS) against bearing capacity failure of 3.0. Based on the information

available for this project and results of the site investigation, typical strength reduction factor



values for verification of the geotechnical capacity for the ULS case, range from 0.4 to 0.5.

However, the strength reduction factors should be selected by the Structural Engineer

based on the risk rating of the design in accordance with the relevant engineering standards

such as Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 “Residential slabs and footings“ (Reference 4)

and AS 2159-2009 “Piling - Design and installation” (Reference 3).

To minimise the potential effects of differential vertical ground deformation under the

building loads, it is recommended all foundations of the proposed buildings should be

founded on consistent rock horizons of similar class. Typically, the compressibility of the

weathered shale and sandstone is very low. According to Pells et al (Reference 12) for

foundations founded onto the weathered sandstone and shale horizons within the Sydney

region, settlement of up to 1% of the minimum footing dimension can occur under the

allowable (SLS) end bearing pressures provided in Table 9 above. Under the ultimate (ULS)

bearing pressures settlement can exceed 5% of the minimum footing dimension. If

necessary, the design of the foundation system of the proposed building should take into

consideration the potential effects of differential settlement.

Shallow footings for minor structures constructed on the existing ground level, the footings

should be embedded to at least 0.4m below the top of the bearing stratum. Shallow footings

should not be founded within topsoil, weak existing fill or reworked insitu soils. Should there

be a need to reduce the potential effects of shrinkage and swelling of the insitu soils, as the

case for this site, the footings should be embedded further to a minimum of 0.6m.

For bored piles, shaft adhesion may be applied to socketed piles adopted for foundations

provided socket shaft lengths conform to appropriate classes of shale, and accepted levels

of shaft sidewall cleanliness and roughness. The rock socket sidewalls should be free of

soil and/or crushed rock to the extent that natural rock is exposed over at least 80% of the

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

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

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

bands is evident over socket lengths. For piled foundations embedded in soils with potential

for shrinkage and swelling, shaft adhesion should be ignored in the zones of seasonal

moisture variations due to the potential of cracks developed by cycles of moisture variations.

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

surface runoff be encountered within the excavations. Any spoil, loose debris and wet soils

should also be removed from the foundation base excavation.



Shallow foundations in rock designed for allowable bearing pressure equal or less than

1000kPa should be inspected with reference to the geotechnical information provided in this

report. Testing of materials such as residual soils or completely weathered shale by

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) would be required. Shallow type foundations in rock

designed for allowable bearing pressure equal to and greater than 1000kPa will require

spoon testing carried out on at least 1/3 of the total number of footings in conjunction with

Point Load Index testing on rock cuttings or cores for determination of rock strength. Pile

foundations will require at least inspection of the rock socket visually by methods such as

downhole camera in conjunction with inspection of the cuttings.

The requirement for pile testing such as static or pile dynamic analysis (PDA), or pile

integrity testing (PIT) should be considered on at least 10% of the total number of piles.

Test piles should be selected for buildings H, B, G, and I as a minimum.

Verification of the capacity of the exposed rock at the foundation base excavation by

inspection and testing should constitute as a “Hold Point”.

9.9 Subgrade Preparation/ Earthworks

Based on the provided information on the proposed development it is envisaged earthworks

may involve, as a minimum, the following procedure:

Removal of topsoil and localised soft pockets within the footprints of the proposed

buildings and internal roads.

Cutting within the eastern field.

Compaction of the subgrade.

Filling to the finished subgrade level within the western field, using engineered fill in

layers accompanied by adequate compaction.

Filling should be carried out using clean materials to engineering standards

accompanied by testing under supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer.

To achieve a balanced cut/fill operation within the site, the materials resulting from

excavation within the eastern field can be used for filling within the western field.

It should be noted that no information on the origin or construction of the existing fill was

available at the time of reporting. The residual soils and the weathered shale rock are

typically suitable for reuse from a geotechnical perspective. The results of this investigation

indicate the existing fill materials are generally clean and may be suitable for reuse from a

geotechnical perspective. Some screening may be required and for this site unsuitable

material of 5 to 8% of the total volume of excavated materials, may be expected.



However, the suitability of the excavated materials for reuse or imported materials for filling

should be confirmed by further testing based on satisfying the following criteria:

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

material), free of inclusions of >120mm in size;

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

The material should be assessed by environmental investigation to be suitable from

contamination perspective; and

The materials should satisfy the Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on

Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments (Reference 5).

The results of the site investigation indicate that due to the likely variation in the

compositions of the existing fill within the site, a bulking factor of 1.1 to 1.4 may be used for

preliminary design purpose. The lower bound is typically applicable for cohesionless and

low plasticity constituents of the fill and the upper bound is applicable for the highly plastic

cohesive constitutes. For the residual soils, a bulking factor varying from 1.3 to 1.4 may be

used due to the moderate to high plasticity and the inferred high insitu density of the residual

soils.

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

subgrade to achieve adequate strength for the proposed buildings platforms and internal

roads.

For the subgrade preparation and fill construction, the recommended compaction targets

should be the following:

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

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

The loose thickness of layer should not exceed 150mm; and

For the internal roads, minimum density ratio of 95% of the maximum dry density for

general fill and 98% for the subgrade to 0.3m depth.

The proposed earthworks will require an extensive earthwork quality control insitu and

laboratory testing. At the completion of earthworks, a geotechnical completion report will

be required to ensure that the subgrade within the building platforms and the internal roads

has been prepared in accordance with standard AS 3798-2007. Design and construction

of earthworks should be carried out in accordance with AS 3798-2007.

Permanent cuts and fills greater than 0.5m in height should be retained or prepared in slope

batters of no steeper than 1V:2H.



Suitable drainage measures should be incorporated into the design of earthworks and

pavements for the proposed development. This may include subsoil drains connected to

the stormwater network system.

Inspections and testing during earthworks, subgrade preparation and proof rolling should

be carried out under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer. The inspections and

testing should constitute as “Hold Points”.

9.10 Pavement Design and Construction

It is expected that the excavation within the majority of the internal roads and carparking

areas will be within existing topsoil, fill and residual soils. Provided the topsoil and any weak

soils are removed, which may be up to 300mm in thickness, a preliminary CBR value of 6%

may be adopted for pavements constructed directly on the existing well compacted fill and

12% for pavements on the residual soils. A higher value can be used for engineered fill that

may be placed within the proposed internal roads and parking areas. At the existing

conditions, in the vicinity of DCP7, a CBR value of 3% should be used.

The subgrade within the proposed internal roads and carparking areas should be tested by

a NATA certified laboratory by a combination of laboratory testing for determination of four

day soaked CBR values and insitu DCP testing for determination of correlated CBR values

in accordance with Austroads guidelines. The testing should be carried out under the

supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer, and the subgrade inspected to confirm the design

CBR values.

Any deleterious material that may be encountered should be removed prior to pavement

construction. Any loose or soft to firm materials that may be present, as confirmed by a site

inspection and in-situ testing, should be either removed or improved by compaction in order

to increase the strength of the materials. If the existing materials are clean, they can be

excavated and backfilled with compaction in layers to a least 600mm in depth. Otherwise

subgrade stabilisation may be necessary.

Pavement design should be complemented by the provision surface and subsurface

drainage.

9.11 Soil Salinity and Aggressivity

The resultant electrical conductivity of saturated extracts (ECe) for the majority of the tested

soil samples summarised in Table 3 in Section 8.4 ranged from approximately 1.0 to 2.0

dS/m. With reference to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 1994



(Reference 8) the ECe values indicate the subsurface soils within the site to be

predominantly “non to slightly saline”. For some samples of residual soils such as BH6-

1.0m, BH7-2.0m and BH8-2.0m, the resultant ECe ranged from approximately 4 to 8,

indicating “moderately saline” soils.

Measures required to mitigate the potential effects of slightly to moderately saline soils,

should be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed development to

prevent moisture/ salinity from entering the proposed buildings. Details of these measures

should be shown in detail on the engineering drawings of the proposed development, which

can be designed taking into consideration information provided in the following publications:

“Building in a Saline Environment” (Reference 13);

Water Sensitive Urban Design in the Sydney Regions “Practice Note 12: Urban Salinity”

(reference 10);

Wagga Wagga City Council’s “Urban Salinity Action” (Reference 16); and

“Guide to Residential Slabs and Footings in Saline Environments” (Reference 15).

Reference to AS2159-1995, “Piling - Design and Installation” (Reference 3), and the results

of soil pH, Chloride, and Sulphate testing on soil samples collected from the boreholes of

investigation, as summarised in Table 4, indicate that the subsurface soils underlying the

site are predominantly “non – aggressive” to reinforced concrete and steel foundations. The

testing results on sample BH7-2.0m indicated “mild-aggressivity” to reinforced concrete and

steel foundations.

9.12 Groundwater Management

The natural groundwater level was not encountered in the soils augered during this

geotechnical site investigation which extended to approximately 3.0m bgl in the majority of

the boreholes. The results of groundwater monitoring carried out by Trace Environmental

indicated water levels in monitoring wells installed within the site, to be at approximately

8.0m bgl within the eastern field and 6.5 to 10.0m bgl within the western field. It is inferred

that groundwater may occur in the form of seepage through natural fissures and fractures

within the underlying weathered mudstone and sandstone horizons. Natural continuous

seepage flows are expected to be deep relative to the proposed basements.

However, there is a potential for the natural groundwater levels to rise due flooding within

the adjoining lands. It would be prudent to allow for precautionary drainage measures in

the design and construction of the proposed development, for the potential of seepage of



surface water during construction or flooding within the watercourse/ drain to the north west

of the site in the long term. Such measures would include the following:

Strip drains or drainage backfill with perforated drains should be provided behind the

basement retaining walls. The drains should be installed in conjunction with collection

trenches or pipes and pits connected to the stormwater system of the buildings and

road network.

The walls and floor slabs of buried basements should be constructed with appropriate

construction joints. Deep basements such for buildings H and I may require water tight

joints (i.e. tanking).

Seepage or surface runoff inside excavated foundation pits or pile holes should be

removed prior to concrete pouring.

It is recommended that the above measures should be reviewed during construction based

on the exposed ground conditions during the basement excavation.

Although not expected to be required, dewatering during construction, would typically

require a conventional sump and pump. Toe drains at the base of the excavated basement

walls and sump pits would be required within the excavations to collect surface water or

seepage and a pump to detention basins and discharge water to the public stormwater

system subject to approval by Council. Dewatering should be controlled in a manner that

reduces the potential effects on the adjoining properties and roads.

With the recommended procedures and measures described above, the potential effects on

the proposed development, adjoining properties and roads are expected to be low.

9.13 Site Earthquake Classification

The results of the site investigation indicate the presence of minor topsoil, relatively thick

layer of fill overlying stiff to hard residual cohesive soils extending to depths varying from

approximately 2.8 to 5.65m bgl, underlain by extremely weathered rock horizons of the

Bringelly Shale formation. In accordance with Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007

“Structural Design Actions” (Reference 1) the site may be classified, as a “Shallow soil site”

(Class Ce) for design of foundations and retaining walls embedded into and retaining the

underlying soils and rock horizons. The Hazard Factor (Z) for Sydney in accordance with

AS 1170.4-2007 is considered to be 0.08.



10. Additional Geotechnical Site Investigation

Two stages of geotechnical site investigations have been carried out for this site, in 2015

and in 2018. However, due to the size of the development and the proposed buildings,

being multi-storey ranging from five to fourteen storeys and up to two basement levels, there

are significant gaps in the geotechnical data within the footprints of a the proposed

buildings. It is our opinion that due to varying ground conditions throughout the site, the

depth and classification of the rock horizons, in particular, that the existing geotechnical

data is not adequate for detailed foundation design. It is recommended that additional site

investigation is carried out consisting of machine borehole drilling. The boreholes should

be deep extending to depths varying from 15.0 to 20.0m bgl, with focus on rock coring and

testing of rock by Point Load index tests on rock cores, in order to determine, with

reasonable accuracy, the socket depth of piles for each building. It is expected with the

recommended additional geotechnical investigation, a safe and an economical foundation

design can be achieved.

The recommended number of additional boreholes is provided in Table 10, attached in

Appendix G.

11. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the geotechnical investigation and assessment for the site at No. 170

Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park, NSW 2148, indicate the ground conditions in general are

suitable for the proposed development subject to adoption of the recommendations made

in this report. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the geotechnical assessment

and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development.

The site is underlain by minor topsoil and fill overlying residual soils underlain by horizons

of weathered shale belonging to the Bringelly Shale formation. Groundwater was not

encountered during drilling through the soils, and results of groundwater monitoring carried

out by Trace Environmental indicated water levels at approximately 8.0m bgl within the

eastern field and 6.5 to 10.0m bgl within the western field. It is inferred that groundwater

may occur in the form of seepage through natural fissures and fractures within the

underlying weathered mudstone and sandstone horizons and natural continuous seepage

flows are expected to be deep relative to the proposed basements.

Staged earthworks consisting of cutting within the eastern field and filling within the western

field is expected to be feasible and will likely result in a balanced cut/fill ratio. The residual



soils, weathered rock and majority of the existing fill are expected to be suitable for reuse

subject to further testing and assessment.

Excavation to below the FFL of the basement levels for the proposed buildings within the

eastern field and buildings H and I within the western field is inferred to be predominantly

within the existing fill. The residual soils and horizons of extremely weathered shale are

expected to be encountered for the excavations within the southern portion of the eastern

field and the deep basements. Excavation through the fill, residual soils and extremely

weathered shale is expected to be feasible using conventional earthmoving equipment.

Heavy ripping, rock breaking equipment and vibratory rock breaking equipment are not

expected to be required based on the current plans of the proposed development.

Excavation of temporary cut batters for the full excavation depth along the basement

perimeter walls of the majority of the buildings is expected to be feasible. Stabilisation of

the slopes using shotcrete or reinforced geotextile may be required. For areas where

excavation of cut batters for partial or full excavation depths along the basement perimeter

walls is not feasible, vertical excavation will be required which should be retained by a

suitable shoring system prior to excavation. The type of shoring wall will depend on factors

such as the depth of excavation, predicted wall movement and whether the shoring wall can

be incorporated into the permanent basement wall. Suitable shoring options such as

cantilevered cast insitu reinforced concrete solider piles for permanent retention or

sheetpiles for temporary retention may be applicable. To maintain the stability of the ground

within the adjoining properties and roads in the long term, the basement walls should be

retained by either masonry concrete block, Dincel walls or similar walls. The basement

walls should be either founded onto the natural rock horizons or supported by piles.

A foundation system consisting of cast insitu reinforced concrete shallow spread

foundations, such as pad footings under columns and strip footings under walls and/or raft

slab on grade with thickened slab under columns and walls is assessed applicable for the

proposed buildings within areas underlain by rock horizons such as Class V Shale or

stronger. The majority of the proposed buildings will require to be supported by reinforced

concrete bored pies or similar sufficiently socketed into Class IV Shale, Class III Shale or

stronger. The design should be verified with reference to the recommended preliminary

geotechnical capacities and parameters provided in this report, which will require

confirmation during construction by testing and inspection. Buildings over existing

underground and proposed underground services will also require to be supported by piles.



It is assessed that the depths and elevations of the soil and rock horizons may vary

throughout the site and the current geotechnical information including this report, will require

additional borehole drilling within the footprints of the proposed buildings.

The design of the earthworks, foundations, retaining walls, pavements and drainage

measures should take into consideration the geotechnical aspects discussed in this report.

It is recommended that the final architectural and structural design drawings should be

reviewed by Mark Kiryakos - Geotechnical Engineer for further assessment and

confirmation of the conclusions and recommendations provided in this report.

The stratification of the soil and rock horizons should be confirmed during excavation of the

proposed basements and the foundations. Inspections and testing under supervision of the

Geotechnical Engineer during earthworks and subgrade preparation, basement and

foundation excavations are required. The inspections and testing should constitute as “Hold

Points”.

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

the entire report.



12. LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical assessment of the subsurface profile and geotechnical conditions within

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

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

Mark Kiryakos – Geotechnical Engineer and in the provided documents listed in Section 2

of this report.

Inferences about the nature and continuity of ground conditions within the site are made,

but cannot be guaranteed. It is possible that the nature of the exposed subsurface soils

and rock will require further investigation and modification of the design based upon this

report. It is recommended that the ground conditions within the site should be inspected

during construction by Mark Kiryakos - Geotechnical Engineer to assess if the conditions

are compatible with the assumptions made in this report and/or referenced reports. In all

circumstances, if the ground conditions differ from those described or assumed to exist,

Mark Kiryakos – Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted for further advice and review

of the conclusions and recommendations provided for this site. Mark Kiryakos –

Geotechnical Engineer does not accept any liability for site conditions not observed or

accessible during the time of the investigation or inspection.

This report and associated documents have been prepared for the particular purpose

described to the author, and for the sole use of the client, Trace Environmental. Any

reliance assumed by third parties on this report shall be at such parties’ own risk. No

responsibility is accepted for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any

other purposes. Any ensuing liability resulting from use of the report by third parties cannot

be transferred to Mark Kiryakos – Geotechnical Engineer.

This report and copyright of the report are the property of Mark Kiryakos - Geotechnical

Engineer. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned for

this site only and in accordance with the Terms of Agreement for the commission provided

at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report (without written approval by Mark

Kiryakos - Geotechnical Engineer) by any party in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Kiryakos

BScEng, MEngSt

Specialist Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Site Borehole Location Plan

Image Source: Site Plan & Site Analysis, Allen Jack + Cottier Architects, drawing No.SK1000-5, dated 06/12/2017. Borehole DCP Test of 8 & 9 Jan 2018 by Mark Kiryakos Borehole Test Pit of Nov 2015 by JK Geotechnics

PO Box 474

Broadway NSW 2007

Drawn By: MK Client: Trace Environmental Project No.:

G2017-40A

Checked By: MK Project: Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units Figure Title:

Site Plan – Locations of Boreholes with their Depths

and DCP Tests Date: 20/06/2018 Address: Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148

Revision Details By Date Scale: NTS Title Geotechnical Site Investigation Figure No.: 1 Rev.: 0

7.5m bgl

7.5m bgl 7.4m bgl

10.4m bgl

8.8m bgl

9.2m bgl

7.9m bgl

212

228

215

209 210

211

213

216 229

218

217

214

220

219

BH1 DCP1

1

BH2 DCP2

BH3 DCP3

1

BH5 DCP5

1

BH6 DCP6

1

BH7 DCP7

1

BH8 DCP8

1 DCP4

1

A1 A1’ A2 A2’

B1 B1’ B2 B2’

Geotechnical Long Section A1-A1’ Geotechnical Long Section A2-A2’

Geotechnical Long Section B1-B1’ Geotechnical Long Section B2-B2’

7.8m bgl 3.6m bgl

2.0m bgl

4.3m bgl

4.3m bgl

1.7m bgl

4.0m bgl

4.0m bgl

8.3m bgl

7.4m bgl

1.3m bgl

4.3m bgl

2.7m bgl 1.5m bgl

BU

ILD

ING

D B

UIL

DIN

G F

BU

ILD

ING

G

BU

ILD

ING

E

BU

ILD

ING

H

BU

ILD

ING

I

BU

ILD

ING

K

BU

ILD

ING

L

BUILDING J BUILDING M

APPENDIX B

Site Photographs

Photo 1: Panoramic view of the site from the north western corner Photo 2: South eastern corner of site

Photos 3 & 4: Area alongside western boundary Photo 5: Middle portion of site between eastern and western fields Photo 6: Stormwater pit in the vicinity of the eastern boundary

PO Box 474 Broadway NSW 2007

Drawn By: MK

Trace Environmental

Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units

Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148

Geotechnical Site Investigation

Project No.:

G2017-40A

Checked By: MK Figure Title:

Site Photographs

Date: 20/06/2018

Rev. Details By Date Scale: NTS Figure No.:

2 Rev.: 0

APPENDIX C

Borehole Logs and DCP Test Sheets

Project No.: G2017-40A

BH No: BH 1

Sheet: 1 of 3

Client: Trace Environment Date Started: 9/01/2018

Project Name: Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units Date Completed: 9/01/2018

Project Location: Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park, NSW 2148 Logged by: MK

BH Location: North Western Portion Checked by: MK

Drilling Contractor: Traccess Drilling R.L. Surface: 59.50 m

Drilling Method/ Rig: Rotary on tracks Datum: AHD

Hole Diameter: 100mm Slope: 0

Drilling Fluid: Water for rock coring Bearing: 0

Drilling Information

Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 59.5 Grass/ brown Silt (Topsoil) D Topsoil OL

0.1 59.4

0.2 59.3

0.3 59.2

0.4 59.1 Fill MH

0.5 59.0 Pale grey and brown clayey SILT St D MP

0.6 with minor fragments and siltstone

0.7

0.8 58.7

0.9

1.0 58.5 Pale grey/brown clayey SILT St D MP MH

1.1 58.4 with minor fragments and Siltstone

1.2 58.3

1.3 58.2

1.4 58.1

1.5 58.0 Pale grey/brown clayey SILT St D MP Residual Soils ML

1.6 57.9 with minor fragments of Siltstone

1.7 57.8

1.8 57.7

1.9 57.6

2.0 57.5 Pale grey/brown clayey SILT St D MP ML


2.2 57.3

2.3 57.2

2.4 57.1

2.5 57.0 Pale grey/brown clayey SILT St D MP ML


2.7 56.8

2.8 56.7 Groundwater was not encountered.

2.9 56.6 Hard drilling with TC bit

3.0 56.5 Change to R/W from 3.0bgl Bedrock - Shale

3.1 56.4 Rock roller from 3.0 - 6.1m

3.2 56.3

3.3 56.2 Polymer liquid was added to drilling water

3.4 56.1

3.5 56.0

3.6 55.9

3.7 55.8

3.8 55.7

3.9 55.6

Method: Sampling: Moisture: Plasticity: Relative Density: SPT Consistency: SPT

OB Open Barrel B - Bulk D - Dry None Plastic - NP Very Loose (VL) <4 Very Soft (VS) <2

AD Auger Drilling D - disturbed M - Moist Slightly Plastic -M - Moist Slightly Plastic - SP Loose (L) 4-10 Soft (S) 2-4

R Roller / Tricone UD - Undisturbed W - Wet Moderately Plastic - MP Medium Dense (MD) 10-30 Firm (F) 4-8

W Washbore SPT - Standard Penetration Sampler S - Saturated Highly Plastic - HP Dense (D) 30-50 Stiff (St) 8-15

TT Triple Tube Coring Casing Used: None S"-" Slightly Very Dense (VD) >50 Very Stiff (VSt) 15-30NQ,HQ Wireline Core Drill Water Inflow: None Hard (H) >30

ENGINEERING LOG - BOREHOLE

Soil Profile Field Testing Geology/ Classification

Soil Description

D1

D2

NA

NA

R/W

10

00

NA

15

00

15

00

AD

AD

D3

D4

D5

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA


BH No: BH 1

Sheet: 2 of 3










Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

4.0 55.5 Rock roller from 3.0 - 6.1m

4.1 51.4

4.2 51.3 From 3.0 to 6.1m inferred to consist of interbedded;

4.3 51.2 - Extremely weathered, extremely low strength Mudstone &

4.4 51.1 Siltstone; and

4.5 55.0 - Moderately to slightly weathered, low to medium strength

4.6 sandstone.

4.7 with frequent defects and possible occasional clay seams

4.8 50.7

4.9

5.0 54.5

5.1 54.4

5.2 54.3

5.3 54.2

5.4 54.1

5.5 54.0

5.6 53.9

5.7 53.8

5.8 53.7

5.9 53.6

6.0 53.5 Hard drilling with R/W

6.1 53.4 Change to NMLC from 6.1m bgl

6.2 53.3

6.3 53.2

6.4 53.1

6.5 53.0

6.6 52.9

6.7 52.8

6.8 52.7

6.9 52.6

7.0 52.5

7.1 52.4

7.2 52.3

7.3 52.2

7.4 52.1

7.5 52.0

7.6 51.9

7.7 51.8

7.8 51.7

7.9 51.6







R/W

21

00

NA

NA



Soil Description

Project No.: G2017-34AProject No.: G2017-40A

BH No: BH 1

Sheet: 3 of 3









Drilling Information Rock Profile Rock Mass Defects

EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 55.5 4.0

4.1 55.4 4.1

4.2 55.3 4.2

4.3 55.2 4.3

4.4 55.1 4.4

4.5 55.0 4.5

4.6 54.9 4.6

4.7 54.8 4.7

4.8 54.7 4.8

4.9 54.6 4.9

5.0 54.5 5.0

5.1 54.4 5.1

5.2 54.3 5.2

5.3 54.2 5.3

5.4 54.1 5.4

5.5 54.0 5.5

5.6 53.9 5.6

5.7 53.8 5.7

5.8 53.7 5.8

5.9 53.6 5.9

6.0 53.5 6.0 Start Coring with NMLC from 6.1m bgl

6.1 53.4 6.1 Interbedded clay seams, EW 6.1- 6.17 pale grey CS

6.2 53.3 6.2 Dark grey Mudstone, extremely low strength (ELS)

6.3 53.2 6.3 fractured 6.17 FC 45

6.4 53.1 6.4

6.5 53.0 6.5 6.55- 6.65 CS pale grey

6.6 52.9 6.6

6.7 52.8 6.7 Becoming blackish grey Mudstone with clay seams EW- 6.72 CS 45°

6.8 52.7 6.8 extremely low to very low strength ( ELS-LS) MW 6.8 BP Undulating

6.9 52.6 6.9

7.0 52.5 7.05 CS

7.1 52.4 Grey fine Sandstone SW 3.1A 7.08 BP H

7.2 52.3 Slightly weathered, Medium to High strength (MS-HS) 0.9D 7.21 Driller induced

7.3 52.2 7.25 BP H

7.4 52.1 Defects including bedding parting, open fractures, 7.27 BP Sub H

7.5 52.0 lined reddish brown, trace mica 7.4 F Undulating

7.6 51.9 2.5A 7.58 BP Undulating

7.7 51.8 0.9D

7.8 51.7 7.86 BP H

7.9 51.6 EoB at ~ 7.95m bgl

Casing Used: HW to 3.0m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Some

Method: Weathering: Defect Type: Strength: Is (50) MPa

OB Open Barrel Fr Fresh BP Bedding Parting EL Extremely Low < 0.03

AD Auger Drilling SW Slightly weathered J Joint VL Very Low 0.03 - 0.1

R Roller / Tricone MW Moderately weathered SM Seam L Low 0.1 - 0.3

W Washbore HW Highly weathered FC Fracture M Medium 0.3 - 1.0

TT Triple Tube EW Extremely weathered SS Sheared Surface H High 1.0 - 3.0

NQ,HQ Wireline Core Drill CW Completely weathered SZ Sheared Zone VH Very High 3.0 - 10.0R Residual Soils CS Clay Seam EH Extremely High >10.0

18

50

18

50

NM

LC

ENGINEERING LOG - CORE HOLE

Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

50

.3%

Defect Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Co

re

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g


BH No: BH 2

Sheet: 1 of 4




BH Location: Western Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 59.2 Grass/ brown silt (Topsoil) St D MP Topsoil OL

0.1 59.1

0.2 59.0

0.3 58.9

0.4 58.8 Fill MH

0.5 58.7 Pale brown clayey SILT with minor Siltstone fragments St D MP

0.6

0.7

0.8 58.4

0.9

1.0 58.2 Pale brown clayey SILT with minor Siltstone fragments D MP MH

1.1 58.1

1.2 58.0

1.3 57.9

1.4 57.8

1.5 57.7 Pale grey clayey SILT with minor Siltstone/ Mudstone fragments St D MP Residual Soils ML

1.6 57.6

1.7 57.5

1.8 57.4

1.9 57.3

2.0 57.2 Brown clayey SILT with minor Sand/ minor Siltstone fragments St M MP ML

2.1 57.1

2.2 57.0

2.3 56.9

2.4 56.8 MP-

D5 2.5 56.7 Brown medium grained sandy SILT with minor trace Clay St M SP ML

2.6 56.6 Hard drilling with TC bit Bedrock - Shale

2.7 56.5

2.8 56.4 Polymer liquid added to drilling water.

2.9 56.3 Ground water was not encountered during augering.

3.0 56.2

3.1 56.1

3.2 56.0

3.3 55.9

3.4 55.8

3.5 55.7

3.6 55.6

3.7 55.5

3.8 55.4

3.9 55.3







15

00

NA

NA

NA

NA

D1

D2

D3

AD

RW

48

00



Soil Description

Rock roller from 2.6mbgl

NA

NA

AD

11

00

NA

D4

NA


BH No: BH 2

Sheet: 2 of 4










Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

4.0 55.2 Rock roller from 2.6 to 7.4m

4.1 51.1

4.2 51.0 From 2.6 to 7.4m inferred to consist of interbedded;

4.3 50.9 - Extremely weathered, extremely low strength Mudstone &

4.4 50.8 Siltstone; and

4.5 54.7 - Moderately to slightly weathered, low to medium strength

4.6 sandstone.

4.7 with frequent defects and possible occasional clay seams

4.8 50.4

4.9

5.0 54.2

5.1 54.1

5.2 54.0

5.3 53.9

5.4 53.8

5.5 53.7

5.6 53.6

5.7 53.5

5.8 53.4

5.9 53.3

6.0 53.2

6.1 53.1

6.2 53.0

6.3 52.9

6.4 52.8

6.5 52.7

6.6 52.6

6.7 52.5

6.8 52.4

6.9 52.3 Harder R/W drilling

7.0 52.2

7.1 52.1

7.2 52.0

7.3 51.9 Difficult drilling with R/W

7.4 51.8 Change to NMLC Coring from 7.4m bgl

7.5 51.7

7.6 51.6

7.7 51.5

7.8 51.4

7.9 51.3







RW

48

00

NA

NA



Soil Description


BH No: BH 2

Sheet: 3 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 4.0 55.2 4.0

4.1 4.1 55.1 4.1

4.2 4.2 55.0 4.2 55.0

4.3 4.3 54.9 4.3

4.4 4.4 54.8 4.4

4.5 4.5 54.7 4.5

4.6 4.6 54.6 4.6

4.7 4.7 54.5 4.7

4.8 4.8 54.4 4.8

4.9 4.9 54.3 4.9

5.0 5.0 54.2 5.0

5.1 5.1 54.1 5.1

5.2 5.2 54.0 5.2

5.3 5.3 53.9 5.3

5.4 5.4 53.8 5.4

5.5 5.5 53.7 5.5

5.6 5.6 53.6 5.6

5.7 5.7 53.5 5.7

5.8 5.8 53.4 5.8

5.9 5.9 53.3 5.9

6.0 6.0 53.2 6.0

6.1 6.1 53.1 6.1

6.2 6.2 53.0 6.2

6.3 6.3 52.9 6.3

6.4 6.4 52.8 6.4

6.5 6.5 52.7 6.5

6.6 6.6 52.6 6.6

6.7 6.7 52.5 6.7

6.8 6.8 52.4 6.8

6.9 6.9 52.3 6.9

7.0 7.0 52.2

7.1 7.1 52.1

7.2 7.2 52.0

7.3 7.3 51.9 Start NMLC Coring from 7.4m bgl

7.4 51.8 Dark grey Mudstone MW 7.46m CS

7.5 51.7 Low to medium strength (LS-MS) 7.49m BP H

7.6 51.6 7.59m BP H

7.7 51.5 Dark grey fine Sandstone MW 2.9A 7.66m CS

7.8 51.4 Low to medium strength (LS-MS) 1.2D 7.77m BP H, Vertical FC

7.9 51.3 7.82, 7.84, 7.88m BP H

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Minor water loss









Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

23

.5%

Defect Description

NM

LC

17

00

17

00

Co

re


BH No: BH 2

Sheet: 4 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

8.0 51.2 8.0 Interbedded Mudstone, Clay Seams, highly crushed, ELS EW 8.0m fractured band

59.2 0.0 8.1m FC

59.2 0.0 At ~ 8.22m Pale grey medium grained Sandstone, LS MW 0.6A 8.15m FC

59.2 0.0 minor laminations and beddings ~10° 0.2D 8.35m BP ~10° stepped

59.2 0.0

8.50 50.7 8.5 At ~ 8.47m Dark grey Mudstone, beddings ~10°, LS-MS MW 4.49m, 8.51m

59.2 0.0 8.58m, 8.62m

59.2 0.0 At ~ 8.72m Band of pale grey coarse Sandstone, LS MW 8.7m BP Sub H

59.2 0.0 8.8m FC Sub H ~10°

59.2 0.0 At ~ 8.86m Dark grey Mudstone, ELS-LS MW 8.88 FC

9.0 50.2 9.0 fractured

9.1 50.1 9.1 EoB at 9.1m bgl

9.2 50.0 9.2

9.3 49.9 9.3

9.4 49.8 9.4

9.5 49.7 9.5

9.6 49.6 9.6

9.7 49.5 9.7

9.8 49.4 9.8

9.9 49.3 9.9

10.0 49.2 10.0

10.1 49.1 10.1

10.2 49.0 10.2

10.3 48.9 10.3

10.4 48.8 10.4

10.5 48.7 10.5

10.6 48.6 10.6

10.7 48.5 10.7

10.8 48.4 10.8

10.9 48.3 10.9

11.0 48.2

11.1 48.1

11.2 48.0

11.3 47.9

11.4 47.8

11.5 47.7

11.6 47.6

11.7 47.5

11.8 47.4

11.9 47.3

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Minor water loss









Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

23

.5%

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

NM

LC

17

00

17

00

Co

re

Defect Description


BH No: BH 3

Sheet: 1 of 4




BH Location: South Western Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 59.7 Grass/ dark brown Silt (Topsoil) St D HP Topsoil OH

0.1 59.6

0.2 59.5

0.3 59.4

0.4 59.3 Fill ML-

0.5 59.2 Pale grey SILT with minor Siltstone fragments St D MP- MH

0.6 SP

0.7

0.8 58.9

0.9

1.0 58.7 Pale grey SILT with minor Siltstone fragments St MP ML

1.1 58.6

1.2 58.5

1.3 58.4

1.4 58.3

1.5 58.2 Pale grey SILT with minor Siltstone fragments St MP MH

1.6 58.1

1.7 58.0

1.8 57.9

1.9 57.8

2.0 57.7 Becoming grey, hard to drill VSt D MP Residual Soils ML

2.1 57.6 brown/ pale brown clayey SILT

2.2 57.5

2.3 57.4

2.4 57.3

2.5 57.2 Becoming brown silty CLAY VSt M MP- CH

2.6 57.1 HP

NA 2.7 57.0 Hard drilling with TC bit

2.8 56.9 NMLC Coring from 2.8m bgl Bedrock - Shale

2.9 56.8


3.1 56.6

3.2 56.5

3.3 56.4

3.4 56.3

3.5 56.2

3.6 56.1

3.7 56.0

3.8 55.9

3.9 55.8









Soil Description

AD

13

00

15

00

AD

D3

NA

NA

NA

D1

D2

D4

D5

NA

NA

NA

NA


BH No: BH 3

Sheet: 2 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

0.0 59.7 0.0

0.1 59.6 0.1

0.2 59.5 0.2 59.5

0.3 59.4 0.3

0.4 59.3 0.4

0.5 59.2 0.5

0.6 59.1 0.6

0.7 59.0 0.7

0.8 58.9 0.8

0.9 58.8 0.9

1.0 58.7 1.0

1.1 58.6 1.1

1.2 58.5 1.2

1.3 58.4 1.3

1.4 58.3 1.4

1.5 58.2 1.5

1.6 58.1 1.6

1.7 58.0 1.7

1.8 57.9 1.8

1.9 57.8 1.9

2.0 57.7 2.0

2.1 57.6 2.1

2.2 57.5 2.2

2.3 57.4 2.3

2.4 57.3 2.4

2.5 57.2 2.5

2.6 57.1 2.6

2.7 57.0 2.7 Coring from 2.8m bgl

2.8 56.9 2.8 Brown, grey interbedded fine Sandstone, Mudstone EW Frequent defects,

2.9 56.8 2.9 with frequent clay seams, bedding partings, fractures BP H R, FC and CS

3.0 56.7 Brown Mudstone, iron rich, extremely low strength (ELS) crushed bands,

3.1 56.6 mostly horizontal,

3.2 56.5 occ. Diagonal

3.3 56.4 Occasional laminations, occasional diagonal fractures

3.4 56.3 diagonal ~70° Clay seams at ~3.45m

3.5 56.2

3.6 56.1

3.7 56.0

3.8 55.9

3.9 55.8

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: None








29

.2%

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description

NM

LC

12

00

12

00

Co

re


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description


BH No: BH 3

Sheet: 3 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 55.7 4.0 Pale grey/ brown Sandstone, low strength (LS) EW- 4.0- 4.2m Crushed

4.1 55.6 4.1 with occasional Mudstone bands, MW 4.25m FC ~30

4.2 55.5 4.2 clay seams, crushed bands, bedding partings, 4.3m Crushed band

4.3 55.4 4.3 black laminations, beddings horizontal, 4.37 BP H S

4.4 55.3 4.4 minor diagonal fractures 1.4A 4.4m BP H S

4.5 55.2 4.5 0.7D 4.55m BP Sub H R

4.6 55.1 4.6 4.6m BP H S

4.7 55.0 4.7 4.65, BP Sub H S

4.8 54.9 4.8 4.7m BP H S

4.9 54.8 4.9 Dark grey/ black Mudstone with coal lenses EW 4.8m Crushed band

5.0 54.7 5.0 extremely low strength (ELS) 4.9m Crushed band

5.1 54.6 5.1 Grey Mudstone, low strength (LS) MW- 5.0m crushed

5.2 54.5 5.2 with fractures, bedding parting, clay seam SW 5.1m Diagonal CS

5.3 54.4 5.3 5.25m FC H R

5.4 54.3 5.4 5.3m FC R 40

5.5 54.2 5.5 5.4m FC R 40X Bedding

5.6 54.1 5.6 Dark grey Mudstone with frequent bedding partings, 5.5m FC H R

5.7 54.0 5.7 crushed bands, occasional diagonal fractures 5.55m BP H S

5.8 53.9 5.8 5.6m FC diagonal

5.9 53.8 5.9 5.65m crushed band

6.0 53.7 6.0 5.7m FC H S

6.1 53.6 6.1 ~6.15m Becoming blackish grey Mudstone, fractured EW- 5.75m Vertical/ Crushed

6.2 53.5 6.2 extremely low to very low strength (ELS-VLS) MW- 5.8-5.9m Crushed

6.3 53.4 6.3 6.1m BP H R

6.4 53.3 6.4 6.15m Crushed

6.5 53.2 6.5 6.2-6.4m Several FC/BP

6.6 53.1 6.6 6.6m BP H R

6.7 53.0 6.7 6.7-6.85m Fractured,

6.8 52.9 6.8 diagonal

6.9 52.9 6.9

7.0 52.7 7.1m BP Sub H S

7.1 52.6 7.15m, 7.2m FC 30-40

7.2 52.5

7.3 52.4

7.4 52.3 ~7.37m Becoming blackish grey Mudstone MW 0.4A 7.4m F Sub H R

7.5 52.2 extremely low to very low strength (ELS-VLS)

7.6 52.1 frequent fractures & crushed bands, horizontal & diagonal 7.65m Crushed band

7.7 52.0 0.3D 7.7m FC 45

7.8 51.9 7.8m FC irregular

7.9 51.8 ~7.85m Becoming grey Mudstone, (LS-MS) MW 7.9, 7.95m FC 45

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Some








Co

re

NM

LC

19

50

19

50

Co

re

11

%5

1.3

%R

QD

12

.3%

NM

LC

11

00

11

00

Co

re

NM

LC

17

50

17

50

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


BH No: BH 3

Sheet: 4 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

8.0 51.7 8.0 Grey Fine mudstone/ Sandstone, MS-HS MW-

8.1 51.6 8.1 SW

8.2 51.5 8.2 8.25m FC Sub H R

8.3 51.4 8.3 Medium grained pale grey Sandstone, Mudstone lenses MW- 1.9A 8.35m FC Sub H R

8.4 51.3 8.4 black vertical veins SW

8.5 51.2 8.5 low to medium strength (MS-HS) 1.0D 8.55m BP Sub H S

8.6 51.1 8.6

8.7 51.0 8.7

8.8 50.9 8.8 EoB at 8.8m bgl

8.9 50.8 8.9

9.0 50.7 9.0

9.1 50.6 9.1

9.2 50.5 9.2

9.3 50.4 9.3

9.4 50.3 9.4

9.5 50.2 9.5

9.6 50.1 9.6

9.7 50.0 9.7

9.8 49.9 9.8

9.9 49.8 9.9

10.0 49.7 10.0

10.1 49.6 10.1

10.2 49.5 10.2

10.3 49.4 10.3

10.4 49.3 10.4

10.5 49.2 10.5

10.6 49.1 10.6

10.7 49.0 10.7

10.8 48.9 10.8

10.9 48.8 10.9

11.0 48.7

11.1 48.6

11.2 48.5

11.3 48.4

11.4 48.3

11.5 48.2

11.6 48.1

11.7 48.0

11.8 47.9

11.9 47.8

Casing Used: HW to 3.0m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Some








Co

re

51

%R

QD

NM

LC

19

50

19

50

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og


BH No: BH 5

Sheet: 1 of 4




BH Location: North of Middle Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 61.9 Grass/ brown Silt (Topsoil) St D MP Topsoil OL

0.1 61.8

0.2 61.7

0.3 61.6

0.4 61.5

0.5 61.4 Pale brown clayey SILT, minor fine to medium sized fragments St D MP Fill MH

0.6

0.7

0.8 61.1

0.9

1.0 60.9 Pale brown clayey SILT, minor fine to medium sized fragments H D MP 8 MH

1.1 60.8 12

1.2 60.7 14

1.3 60.6 N=26

1.4 60.5

1.5 60.4 Pale brown clayey SILT St D MP MH

1.6 60.3 with minor fine to medium sized siltstone fragments

1.7 60.2

1.8 60.1

1.9 60.0

2.0 59.9 5

2.1 59.8 4

2.2 59.7 5

2.3 59.6 N=9

2.4 59.5

2.5 59.4 Becoming moist to wet grey /dark grey CLAY F M-W HP Alluvium CH

2.6 59.3

2.7 59.2

2.8 59.1

2.9 59.0

3.0 58.9 Grey mottled dark reddish brown silty CLAY F-St M-D HP 3 CH

3.1 58.8 Becoming with minor black inclusions 4

3.2 58.7 7

3.3 58.6 N=11

3.4 58.5 Becoming pale grey mottled pale brown silty CLAY

3.5 58.4 trace rootlets

3.6 58.3

3.7 58.2

3.8 58.1

3.9 58.0







SP

T3

D6

NA

45

04

50

NA

45

0N

A

D3

SP

T2

D4

NA

AD

15

00

15

00

15

00

AD

AD



Soil Description

NA

NA

NA

NA

D1

SP

T1

D2

NA

D5

NA

NA


BH No: BH 5

Sheet: 2 of 4










Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

4.0 57.9 -57.9

4.1 57.8 -57.8

4.2 57.7 -57.7

4.3 57.6 -57.6

4.4 57.5 -57.5

4.5 57.4 -57.4 Fine to medium gravel sized fragments D D 9 Residual/ HW Shale

4.6 57.3 -57.3 grey/ dark red Mudstone and Ironstone Gravel 9

4.7 57.2 -57.2 in pale orange brown silty Clay matrix 14

4.8 57.1 -57.1 N=23

4.9 57.0 -57.0

5.0 56.9 -56.9

5.1 56.8 -56.8

5.2 56.7 -56.7

5.3 56.6 -56.6 Becoming hard drilling, mudstone/ siltstone fragments Bedrock - Shale

5.4 56.5 -56.5

5.5 56.4 -56.4

5.6 56.3 -56.3 Very hard drilling with TC bit

5.7 56.2 Change to NMLC Coring from 5.65m bgl

5.8 56.1


6.0 55.9

6.1 55.8

6.2 55.7

6.3 55.6

6.4 55.5

6.5 55.4

6.6 55.3

6.7 55.2

6.8 55.1

6.9 55.0

7.0 54.9

7.1 54.8

7.2 54.7

7.3 54.6

7.4 54.5

7.5 54.4

7.6 54.3

7.7 54.2

7.8 54.1

7.9 54.0







SP

T4

D7

NA



Soil Description

NA

NA

45

0

AD

15

00

11

50

R/W

NA


BH No: BH 5

Sheet: 3 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 57.9 4.0

4.1 57.8 4.1

4.2 57.7 4.2 57.7

4.3 57.6 4.3

4.4 57.5 4.4

4.5 57.4 4.5

4.6 57.3 4.6

4.7 57.2 4.7

4.8 57.1 4.8

4.9 57.0 4.9

5.0 56.9 5.0

5.1 56.8 5.1

5.2 56.7 5.2

5.3 56.6 5.3

5.4 56.5 5.4

5.5 56.4 5.5


5.7 56.2 5.7 Grey fine Sandstone, thinly laminated white MW- 5.7m 70° open black lined

5.8 56.1 5.8 low to medium strength (LS-MS) SW 5.82m BP H

5.9 56.0 5.9 with a number of bedding partings, horizontal to 1.7A 5.88m Irregular

6.0 55.9 6.0 sub horizontal, orange beddings, minor cross bedding, 1.1D 6.09m BP Sub H

6.1 55.8 6.1 occasional diagonal open joints. 6.31m BP H

6.2 55.7 6.2 6.39m open joint

6.3 55.6 6.3 6.47m crushed

6.4 55.5 6.4 6.49m clay seam

6.5 55.4 6.5 6.5m cross bedding

6.6 55.3 6.6 6.59m crushed, vertical

6.7 55.2 6.7 Becoming black/grey crushed Mudstone, extremely low EW 6.62m BP H

6.8 55.1 6.8 strength (ELS) 0.1A

6.9 55.0 6.9 6.75m, Dark blackish grey Mudstone EW- 0.2D

7.0 54.9 extremely low to very low strength(ELS-LS) MW

7.1 54.8 fractured, frequent crushed bands

7.2 54.7

7.3 54.6

7.4 54.5

7.5 54.4

7.6 54.3

7.7 54.2 ~7.745m thin coal seam (~2mm)

7.8 54.1

7.9 54.0

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Some water loss








Defect Description


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

24

.5%

56

.4%

20

%

NM

LC

75

0

75

0

Co

re

NM

LC

29

00

29

00

Co

re

NM

LC

11

00

11

00

Co

re


BH No: BH 5

Sheet: 4 of 4










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

8.0 53.9 8.0 Dark grey interbedded with pale grey Sandstone(SW-F, L-M) EW- 8.14m Sub H

8.1 53.8 8.1 and Mudstone(EW-MW, EL-VL) MW 8.18m diagonal

8.2 53.7 8.2 highly fractured, occasionally crushed bands, 8.26m crushed band

8.3 53.6 8.3 diagonal fracture SW- 8.31m Sub H BP

8.4 53.5 8.4 ~8.3m Dark grey Sandstone interbedded with Mudstone F 0.7A 8.41m Sub H BP

8.5 53.4 8.5 medium to high strength( M-H) 0.8D 8.46m Sub H BP

8.6 53.3 8.6 horizontally bedded and laminated, minor bedding partings 8.61m BP H

8.7 53.2 8.7 horizontal, sub horizontal and undulating

8.8 53.1 8.8

8.9 53.0 8.9

9.0 52.9 9.0 8.82 BP H

9.1 52.8 9.1 Trace coal lenses 9.17m BP H

9.2 52.7 9.2 0.6A 9.36m minor clay seam

9.3 52.6 9.3 0.7D 9.4m undulating H

9.4 52.5 9.4 9.44m BP closed

9.5 52.4 9.5 9.5m BP closed

9.6 52.3 9.6 9.54m BP closed

9.7 52.2 9.7 9.5m BP closed

9.8 52.1 9.8 9.54m BP closed

9.9 52.0 9.9 9.58m BP closed

10.0 51.9 10.0 9.62m BP H

10.1 51.8 10.1 9.85m BP Sub H

10.2 51.7 10.2 10m H

10.3 51.6 10.3 10.14m H

10.4 51.5 10.4 EoB at 10.4m bgl

10.5 51.4 10.5

10.6 51.3 10.6

10.7 51.2 10.7

10.8 51.1 10.8

10.9 51.0 10.9

11.0 50.9

11.1 50.8

11.2 50.7

11.3 50.6

11.4 50.5

11.5 50.4

11.6 50.3

11.7 50.2

11.8 50.1

11.9 50.0

Casing Used: HW to m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Minor water loss








54

%

Defect Description

NM

LC

29

00

29

00

Co

re


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g


BH No: BH 6

Sheet: 1 of 3




BH Location: South East Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 62.6 Grass/ brown Silt (Topsoil) St D MP- Topsoil OL

0.1 62.5 HP

0.2 62.4

0.3 62.3

0.4 62.2

0.5 62.1 Dark reddish brown/ grey silty CLAY St D MP- Residual soils CH

0.6 HP

0.7

0.8 61.8

0.9

1.0 61.6 Dark grey mottled orange brown silty CLAY, trace rootlets VSt D MP- 8 CH

1.1 61.5 HP 7

1.2 61.4 10

1.3 61.3 N=17

1.4 61.2

1.5 61.1 Dark grey mottled orange brown silty CLAY, trace rootlets VSt D MP- CH

1.6 61.0 HP

1.7 60.9

1.8 60.8

1.9 60.7

2.0 60.6 Pale grey mottled orange brown clayey SILT, with minor fine VSt D MP 9 Residual/ CW-HW ML

2.1 60.5 to medium gravel sized fragments - Residual to completely 12 Siltstone

2.2 60.4 to highly weathered (CW-HW) Siltstone 19

2.3 60.3 N=31

2.4 60.2

2.5 60.1 VSt M MP-

2.6 60.0 HP

2.7 59.9

2.8 59.8 Very hard drilling with TC bit

2.9 59.7 Change to R/W, NMLC Coring from 2.9 bgl

3.0 59.6 Groundwater not encountered

3.1 59.5

3.2 59.4

3.3 59.3

3.4 59.2

3.5 59.1

3.6 59.0

3.7 58.9

3.8 58.8

3.9 58.7







15

00

AD

D3

NA

NA

NA

NA

D1

SP

T1

D2

45

0N

A



Soil Description

SP

T2

D4

NA

AD

14

00

NA

NA

45

0N

A


BH No: BH 6

Sheet: 2 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

0.0 62.6 0.0

0.1 62.5 0.1

0.2 62.4 0.2 62.4

0.3 62.3 0.3

0.4 62.2 0.4

0.5 62.1 0.5

0.6 62.0 0.6

0.7 61.9 0.7

0.8 61.8 0.8

0.9 61.7 0.9

1.0 61.6 1.0

1.1 61.5 1.1

1.2 61.4 1.2

1.3 61.3 1.3

1.4 61.2 1.4

1.5 61.1 1.5

1.6 61.0 1.6

1.7 60.9 1.7

1.8 60.8 1.8

1.9 60.7 1.9

2.0 60.6 2.0

2.1 60.5 2.1

2.2 60.4 2.2

2.3 60.3 2.3

2.4 60.2 2.4

2.5 60.1 2.5

2.6 60.0 2.6

2.7 59.9 2.7

2.8 59.8 2.8 Start Coring with NMLC from 2.9m bgl

2.9 59.7 2.9 Highly fractured, interbedded Mudstone, with thick whitish EW

3.0 59.6 grey clay seams (50-120m thick), Ironstone Several defects,

3.1 59.5 extremely low strength(ELS), with open defects

3.2 59.4 ~45 ° open joints, black stained at 3.37, 3.48 and 3.7 m bgl

3.3 59.3 clay seams, hard pp= 4,4,4.5

3.4 59.2 3.37m J open black


3.6 59.0


3.8 58.8

3.9 58.7









17

.3%

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description

NM

LC

11

00

11

00

Co

res


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description


BH No: BH 6

Sheet: 3 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 58.6 4.0 Interbedded pale grey, brownish grey and dark grey EW- 4.07m BP Sub H

4.1 58.5 4.1 Siltstone and Mudstone, MW 4.19m CS

4.2 58.4 4.2 highly fractured horizontal to sub horizontal beddings, 4.2m CS

4.3 58.3 4.3 occasional clay seams 4.32m BP

4.4 58.2 4.4 extremely low to very low strength(ELS-VLS) 4.4m FC

4.5 58.1 4.5 4.52m CS

4.6 58.0 4.6 4.55m - 5.0m

4.7 57.9 4.7 Several open H, BP

4.8 57.8 4.8

4.9 57.7 4.9 with reddish brown Ironstone conglomerate EW

5.0 57.6 5.0 5.0m FC

5.1 57.5 5.1 Grey fine Sandstone, low to medium strength(LS-MS) MW- 5.1m 45° Joint

5.2 57.4 5.2 with frequent reddish brown iron rich beddings SW 5.28m Sub H BP

5.3 57.3 5.3 and laminations 0.3A

5.4 57.2 5.4 0.3D

5.5 57.1 5.5

5.6 57.0 5.6 Becoming thinly laminated with black & red 5.6m stepped

5.7 56.9 5.7 5-10° beddings with 45° sealed joint 5.77m BP undulating

5.8 56.8 5.8 5.87m BP H

5.9 56.7 5.9 5.92m BP H

6.0 56.6 6.0 0.2A 6.18m crushed band

6.1 56.5 6.1 0.3D 6.24m CS

6.2 56.4 6.2 6.29m BP H

6.3 56.3 6.3 6.42m BP Sub H

6.4 56.2 6.4 6.59m BP H

6.5 56.1 6.5 Blackish grey/dark grey Mudstone, EW Core break

6.6 56.0 6.6 extremely low strength(ELS) 6.73m diagonal

6.7 55.9 6.7 6.78m diagonal

6.8 55.8 6.8 Pale grey Mudstone, low to medium strength (LS) MW- 7.09m BP H

6.9 55.8 6.9 SW 0.2A 7.16m diagonal, curved

7.0 55.6 0.2D 7.2m Cross bedding

7.1 55.5 Dark/ blackish grey Mudstone, LS MW- 7.24m Cross bedding

7.2 55.4 SW 7.28m Cross bedding

7.3 55.3 Grey Mudstone, LS-MS MW 7.3m CS

7.4 55.2 7.4m BP, FC, undulating

7.5 55.1 EoB at 7.5m bgl

7.6 55.0

7.7 54.9

7.8 54.8

7.9 54.7









NM

LC

15

00

15

00

Co

res

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

NM

LC

20

00

19

70

Co

res

47

.8%

66

.7%

Defect Description


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n


BH No: BH 7

Sheet: 1 of 3




BH Location: Middle Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 61.9 Grass/ brown Silt (topsoil) St D MP- Topsoil OL

0.1 61.8 HP

0.2 61.7

0.3 61.6

0.4 61.5 Pale brown, pale grey clayey SILT St D MP Fill MH

0.5 61.4

0.6

0.7

0.8 61.1

0.9

1.0 60.9 Grey, mottled pale brown, dark grey clayey SILT St D MP- 7

1.1 60.8 HP 7

1.2 60.7 9

1.3 60.6 N=16

1.4 60.5

1.5 60.4 Grey, pale brown clayey SILT with minor gravel sized St D MP Residual Soils ML-

1.6 60.3 Mudstone fragments MH

1.7 60.2

1.8 60.1

1.9 60.0

2.0 59.9 Pale whitish grey, mottled orange brown D- D SP- 3

2.1 59.8 fine Sand, Silt, silty Sand VSt NP 10

2.2 59.7 29

2.3 59.6 Change to R/W to 3.0m N=39 Bouncing from145mm

2.4 59.5 Completely to highly weathered Siltstone CW-HW Siltstone

2.5 59.4

2.6 59.3

2.7 59.2

2.8 59.1

2.9 59.0 Very hard drilling with TC bit

3.0 58.9 Change to NMLC at 3.0m bgl

3.1 58.8

3.2 58.7 Groundwater not encountered

3.3 58.6

3.4 58.5

3.5 58.4

3.6 58.3

3.7 58.2

3.8 58.1

3.9 58.0







AD

R/W

70

0

NA

SP

T2

/

D5

44

5N

A

AD

80

0

NA

NA

D3



Soil Description

NA

D1

SP

T1

D2

NA

15

00

NA

NA


BH No: BH 7

Sheet: 2 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

0.0 61.9 0.0

0.1 61.8 0.1

0.2 61.7 0.2 61.7

0.3 61.6 0.3

0.4 61.5 0.4

0.5 61.4 0.5

0.6 61.3 0.6

0.7 61.2 0.7

0.8 61.1 0.8

0.9 61.0 0.9

1.0 60.9 1.0

1.1 60.8 1.1

1.2 60.7 1.2

1.3 60.6 1.3

1.4 60.5 1.4

1.5 60.4 1.5

1.6 60.3 1.6

1.7 60.2 1.7

1.8 60.1 1.8

1.9 60.0 1.9

2.0 59.9 2.0

2.1 59.8 2.1

2.2 59.7 2.2

2.3 59.6 2.3

2.4 59.5 2.4

2.5 59.4 2.5

2.6 59.3 2.6

2.7 59.2 2.7

2.8 59.1 2.8


3.0 58.9 Grey with black specks EW- 3.11m, 3.15m BP H

3.1 58.8 becoming grey, fine Sandstone, low strength(LS) MW 3.32m J brown lining

3.2 58.7 with frequent defects consisting of horizontal bedding parting 3.41m Sub H BP

3.3 58.6 occasional black and reddish brown horizontal laminations, 3.53m, 3.56m H BP

3.4 58.5 occasional clay seams 3.58m Sub H BP

3.5 58.4 3.64m CS

3.6 58.3 3.64-3.7m FC

3.7 58.2 3.75 BP H

3.8 58.1 3.82m J brown

3.9 58.0 3.89m,3.91m FC

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Significant > 1000L









Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

40

%

Defect Description

NM

LC

16

50

NM

LC

16

50


BH No: BH 7

Sheet: 3 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 57.9 4.0 Grey find Sandstone, low strength(LS) MW

4.1 57.8 4.1 frequent BP, H, horizontal bedding and laminations

4.2 57.7 4.2 Pale brown/ grey Siltstone, Mudstone EW Frequent defects,

4.3 57.6 4.3 extremely low strength(ELS) occ. CS

4.4 57.5 4.4 highly fractured, occasional clay seam

4.5 57.4 4.5

4.6 57.3 4.6

4.7 57.2 4.7

4.8 57.1 4.8

4.9 57.0 4.9 Grey fine Sandstone, low to medium strength (LS-MS) MW-

5.0 56.9 5.0 with frequent mudstone content/ lenses SW 5.03m F H

5.1 56.8 5.1 horizontally bedded, thinly horizontally laminated with 5.07m BP H S

5.2 56.7 5.2 black and white, with frequent bedding parting defects 5.17m BP H S

5.3 56.6 5.3 occasional open joint, crushed band 5.35m BP H S

5.4 56.5 5.4 5.38m F H

5.5 56.4 5.5 5.4m iron rich bedding

5.6 56.3 5.6 5.47m BP Sub H

5.7 56.2 5.7 5.52m BP undulating

5.8 56.1 5.8 5.58m BP undulating

5.9 56.0 5.9 5.74m Sub H BP

6.0 55.9 6.0 1.4A 5.93m Crushed band

6.1 55.8 6.1 6.1m BP H, F

6.2 55.7 6.2 6.195m BP H S

6.3 55.6 6.3 6.22m Diagonal F

6.4 55.5 6.4 0.6A 6.355m BP Sub H

6.5 55.4 6.5 0.3D 6.375m BP Sub H

6.6 55.3 6.6 6.47m open F, Sub H

6.7 55.2 6.7 6.61m H BP R

6.8 55.1 6.8 6.8m vertical crack

6.9 55.1 6.9

7.0 54.9 6.95m H BP R

7.1 54.8 7.16m undulating F

7.2 54.7 0.3A

7.3 54.6 0.5D 7.35m Sub H BP

7.4 54.5

7.5 54.4 EoB at ~7.5m bgl

7.6 54.3

7.7 54.2

7.8 54.1

7.9 54.0

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Significant > 1000L








Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description

40

.6%

60

.4%


Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

NM

LC

16

50

16

50

Co

res

26

00

Co

res

NM

LC

27

50


BH No: BH 8

Sheet: 1 of 3




BH Location: Middle, Eastern Portion Checked by: MK






Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Co

nsis

ten

cy/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Se

nsitiv

ity

Mo

istu

re

Pla

sticity

SP

T

0 1 P

ocke

t2

P

en

etr

om

ete

r

3 P

P k

g/c

m2

4

Geology/ Additional

Notes: Cla

ssific

atio

n

0.0 63.0 Grass/ brown Silt (topsoil) St D MP- Topsoil OL

0.1 62.9 HP

0.2 62.8

0.3 62.7

0.4 62.6 Fill

0.5 62.5 Pale brown clayey SILT St D MP- ML

0.6 HP

0.7

0.8 62.2

0.9

1.0 62.0 Pale grey slightly mottled clayey SILT with Siltstone fragments St D MP ML

1.1 61.9

1.2 61.8

1.3 61.7

1.4 61.6

1.5 61.5 Pale grey slightly mottled clayey SILT with Siltstone fragments St D MP Residual Soils ML

1.6 61.4

1.7 61.3

1.8 61.2

1.9 61.1

2.0 61.0 Reddish brown mottled orange/ grey silty CLAY St M-D HP 3 CH

2.1 60.9 5

2.2 60.8 Becoming pale grey fragments and completely to highly H D MP 14 ML

2.3 60.7 weathered (CW-HW) Siltstone with Siltstone and Mudstone N=19

2.4 60.6 fragments

2.5 60.5 R/W to 3.0m CW-HW Siltstone/

2.6 60.4 Mudstone

2.7 60.3

2.8 60.2

2.9 60.1 Hard drilling with TC bit

3.0 60.0 Change to NMLC at 3.0m bgl

3.1 59.9

3.2 59.8 Groundwater was not encountered

3.3 59.7

3.4 59.6

3.5 59.5

3.6 59.4

3.7 59.3

3.8 59.2

3.9 59.1









Soil Description

15

00

D3

NA

NA

NA

D1

R/W

SP

T1

D4

45

0N

A

D2

AD

AD

NA

10

00

50

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA


BH No: BH 8

Sheet: 2 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

0.0 63.0 0.0

0.1 62.9 0.1

0.2 62.8 0.2 62.8

0.3 62.7 0.3

0.4 62.6 0.4

0.5 62.5 0.5

0.6 62.4 0.6

0.7 62.3 0.7

0.8 62.2 0.8

0.9 62.1 0.9

1.0 62.0 1.0

1.1 61.9 1.1

1.2 61.8 1.2

1.3 61.7 1.3

1.4 61.6 1.4

1.5 61.5 1.5

1.6 61.4 1.6

1.7 61.3 1.7

1.8 61.2 1.8

1.9 61.1 1.9

2.0 61.0 2.0

2.1 60.9 2.1

2.2 60.8 2.2

2.3 60.7 2.3

2.4 60.6 2.4

2.5 60.5 2.5

2.6 60.4 2.6

2.7 60.3 2.7

2.8 60.2 2.8


3.0 60.0 Interbedded fragmented Mudstone, pale grey Siltstone, EW

3.1 59.9 in clay matrix, extremely low strength(ELS)

3.2 59.8

3.3 59.7

3.4 59.6

3.5 59.5 Pale grey/ pale brown fractured/ vertical fractures EW- 3.6m FC V

3.6 59.4 fine Sandstone, extremely low to very low strength MW 3.7m FC H

3.7 59.3 (ELS-VLS) 3.75m FC V R

3.8 59.2 3.85m FC H R

3.9 59.1 3.9m FC H R

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Significant









Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

33

.5%

Defect Description

NM

LC

26

00

NM

LC

26

00


BH No: BH 8

Sheet: 3 of 3










EL

VL

L

M H

VH

EH

30

10

03

00

10

00

30

00

4.0 59.0 4.0

4.1 58.9 4.1 Becoming blackish grey Mudstone MW

4.2 58.8 4.2 extremely low strength (ELS)

4.3 58.7 4.3 ~4.25- 4.35, Pale grey Clay, hard

4.4 58.6 4.4

4.5 58.5 4.5 4.5m BP H S

4.6 58.6 4.4 Grey, fine Sandstone with frequent horizontal bedding partings,MW 4.7m FC Sub H

4.7 58.7 4.3 fractures, conglomerate of reddish brown, 4.8m BP Sub H

4.8 58.8 4.2 dark grey Mudstone, low to medium strength (LS-MS) 4.85m undulating F R

4.9 58.1 4.9 4.9m FC irregular

5.0 58.0 5.0 5.15m

5.1 57.9 5.1 5.2m

5.2 57.8 5.2 5.3m

5.3 57.7 5.3 5.5m

5.4 57.6 5.4 5.6m

5.5 57.5 5.5 5.7m

5.6 57.4 5.6 Grey Mudstone interbedded with fine Sandstone MW- 5.75m

5.7 57.3 5.7 low to medium strength (LS-MS) SW 5.85m

5.8 57.2 5.8 with frequent bedding partings, occasional vertical & 5.88m

5.9 57.1 5.9 diagonal brown lined fractures/bands of reddish brown, 5.9m

6.0 57.0 6.0 black Mudstone and bands of medium grained Sandstone 6.05m

6.1 56.9 6.1 6.15m crushed band

6.2 56.8 6.2 6.25m vertical, stepped

6.3 56.7 6.3 6.55m BP H S

6.4 56.6 6.4 6.6m BP H

6.5 56.5 6.5

6.6 56.4 6.6 0.2A

6.7 56.3 6.7 0.2D

6.8 56.2 6.8

6.9 56.2 6.9

7.0 56.0 6.95m FC Sub H

7.1 55.9 3.8A 7.05m

7.2 55.8 0.2D 7.2m

7.3 55.7 7.25m

7.4 55.6 7.4m

7.5 55.5 0.6A 7.5m

7.6 55.4 End of Borehole at ~7.6m 0.4D

7.7 55.3

7.8 55.2

7.9 55.1

Casing Used: HW to 3.0 m Water Inflow: None Drilling Water Loss: Significant









Me

tho

d

Ru

n L

en

gth

mm

Pie

zo

Lo

g

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

ve

ry m

m

Sa

mp

ling

De

pth

(m

)

RL

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

RQ

D

Core Description

We

ath

eri

ng

/

Ce

me

nta

tio

n

Str

en

gth

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

De

fect

Sp

acin

g

Defect Description

33

.5%

NM

LC

20

00

20

00

Co

res

59

.5%

Co

res

26

00

NM

LC

26

00

12th February 2018 Ref: G2017-40A Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Geotechnical Site Investigation Sheet 1 of 2

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark Kiryakos – Geotechnical Engineer

Table 1: Rock Classification

Borehole BH01

Depth RL Description RQD Strength Defects Class

3.0 56.5 NA NA NA NA Class V Shale

6.1 53.4 Mudstone, EW, EL 50 NT <20mm Class V Shale

6.6 52.4 Mudstone, EW-MW, EL-VL 50 NT >20mm Class IV Shale

7.0 52.5 Sandstone, SW, H 50 H

62-50A 18-18D

>20mm to >60mm Class IV/III Shale

Borehole BH02


2.5 56.7 NA NA NA NA Class V Shale

7.4 51.8 Interbedded Sandstone and Mudstone, EW-MW, EL-M

23 58-12A 42-4D

>20mm to >60mm Class IV/III Shale

Borehole BH03


2.8 56.9 Interbedded Sandstone, Mudstone, with frequent

defects, EW, ELS 29 NT <20mm Class V Shale

4.0 55.7 Sandstone, EW-MW, LS 12 28A 14D

>20mm Class IV Shale

4.9 54.8 Mudstone, EW-SW, ELS-LS 11 NT >20mm Class IV Shale

6.0 53.7 Mudstone, EW-MW, ELS-

VLS 11-51

8A 6D


6.9 51.8 Interbedded Mudstone and

Sandstone, MW-SW, LS-HS 51

38A 20D

>60mm Class III Shale

Borehole BH05


5.3 56.7 Mudstone, EW, ELS NA NT NA Class V Shale

5.7 56.2 Sandstone, MW-SW, LS-

MS 24

34A 22D


6.6 55.3 Mudstone, Fractured, EW,

ELS 20-56

2A 4A

<20mm to >20mm Class V/IV Shale

8.3 53.6 Sandstone SW-F, LS-MS 54 14-12A 16-14A


12th February 2018 Ref: G2017-40A Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Geotechnical Site Investigation Sheet 2 of 2

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Borehole BH06


3.4 59.7 Mudstone, Highly fractured,

EW, ELS 17-47 NT <20mm Class V Shale

4.5 58.1 Interbedded Siltstone and Mudstone, EW-MW, ELS-

VLS 47 NT >20mm Class IV Shale


MS 47-86

6-4A 6-6D


6.5 56.1 Mudstone, EW-SW, ELS-

MS 86

4A 4A


Borehole BH07


3.0 40 Sandstone EW-MW, LS 40 NT <20mm to >20mm Class V/ IV Shale

4.1 40 Mudstone, EW, ELS 40 NT <20mm Class V Shale

4.9 60 Mudstone EW, ELS,

Sandstone MW-SW, LS-MS 60 NT >20mm to >60mm Class IV/III Shale

6.5 60 Sandstone, MW-SW, LS-

MS 60

12-6-4A 6-10D


Borehole BH08


3.0 56.2 Mudstone EW, ELS, highly fractured Sandstone MW,

ELS-LS 33 NT <20mm Class V Shale

4.1 58.9 Mudstone, MW, ELS 33 NT <20mm Class V Shale


MS 33 NT >60mm Class IV Shale

5.5 57.5 Mudstone and Sandstone,

MW-SW, LS 59 NT >20mm to <60mm Class IV/ III Shale

6.5 56.5 Mudstone and Sandstone,

MW-SW, LS-MS 59

4-76-12A 4-4-8D


RL = Reduced Level NT = Not Tested NA = Not Applicable

The R’s were estimated from the provided survey plan.

All depths and RLs are approximate.

RQD = Rock Quality Designation

The depths and elevations of the rock horizons may vary throughout the site and will require confirmation during the detailed design stage

The rock horizons above were classified with reference to the guidelines provided in a paper by Pells et al (Reference 10)

EW = Extremely Weathered

MW = Moderately Weathered

SW = Slightly Weathered

F = Fresh

ELS = Extremely Low Strength

LS = Low Strength

VLS = Very Low Strength

MS = Medium Strength

HS = High strength

Project No: G2017-40A

Sheet: 1 of 3

Client: Date:

Project Name: Test By:

Project Location: Reported by:

DCP Location: Test Type: DCP x

Services Checked: PSP

Notes:

Trace Environmental



Geotrace

Reference Standard: Australian Standard AS 1289.6.3.2-1997

Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the

penetration resistance of a soil - 9kg dynamic cone penetrometer test

DCP No.2

RL 59.2 m

Penetration

mm/blowCBR

100 2

2 50

2 50

Depth

(mm)

100-200

200-300

300-400

400-500

500-600

600-700

700-800

DCP No.1- Continued

RL 59.5 m

Np

12

10 10 22

12 8

0-100 4 25 8

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETERDCP - TEST RECORD

9/01/2017

Hart Geo

M Kiryakos

3800-3900

Depth

(mm)Np

Penetration

mm/blowCBR

Penetration

mm/blowCBR Np

8 27 0-100 1

DCP No. 1

RL 59.5 m Depth

(mm)

4

200-300 8 13 17 4000-4100 27 4

300-400 5 20 10 4100-4200 13 8 30 3 33 6

100-200 6 17 12 3900-4000

25 8

500-600 4 25 8 4300-4400 16 6 38 6 17 12

400-500 5 20 10 4200-4300 15 7 35 4

17 12

700-800 4 25 8 4 25 8

600-700 4 25 8 4400-4500 19 5 46 6

8 27

900-1000 3 33 6 900-1000 6 17 12

800-900 5 20 10 12800-900

8 13 17

1100-1200 5 20 10 1100-1200 11 9 25

1000-1100 5 20 10 1000-1100

10 10 22

1300-1400 7 14 15 1300-1400 10 10 22

1200-1300 5 20 10 1200-1300

8 13 17

1500-1600 7 14 15 1500-1600 7 14 15

1400-1500 7 14 15 1400-1500

8 13 17

1700-1800 3 33 6 1700-1800 10 10 22

1600-1700 6 17 12 1600-1700

8 13 17

1900-2000 10 10 22 1900-2000 8 13 17

1800-1900 9 11 20 1800-1900

8 13 17

2100-2200 8 13 17 2100-2200 8 13 17

2000-2100 9 11 20 2000-2100

7 14 15

2300-2400 8 13 17 2300-2400 5 20 10

2200-2300 9 11 20 2200-2300

6 17 12

2500-2600 6 17 12 2500-2600 7 14 15

2400-2500 6 17 12 2400-2500

5 20 10

2700-2800 4 25 8 2700-2800 4 25 8

2600-2700 6 17 12 2600-2700

4 25 8

2900-3000 3 33 6 14 152900-3000 7

2800-2900 4 25 8 2800-2900

5 20 10

3100-3200 4 25 8 3100-3200 6 17 12

3000-3100 4 25 8 3000-3100

8 13 17

3300-3400 6 17 12 3300-3400 12 8 27

3200-3300 6 17 12 3200-3300

17 6 40

3500-3600 9 11 20 3500-3600 21 5 51

3400-3500 9 11 20 3400-3500

24 4 603600-3700 8 13 17 3600-3700

3700-3800 8 13 17 3700-3800


Sheet: 2 of 3

Client: Date:





Notes:


Trace Environmental 9/01/2017

Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units Hart Geo

Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 M Kiryakos

100 2

0-100 1

Geotrace

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 3

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 4

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 5

RL 59.7 m RL 59.65 m RL 61.9 m

NpPenetration

mm/blowCBR Np

Penetration

mm/blowCBR Np

Penetration

mm/blowCBR

0-100 0 - - 0-100 0 - - 100 2

200-300 3 33 6200-300 1 100 2 200-300 1

1

33 6 300-400 5 20 10300-400 3 33 6 300-400 3

100-200 1 100 2 100-200 0 - - 100-200

100 2

50 4 400-500 3 33 6400-500 5 20 10 400-500 2

20 10 500-600 8 13 17500-600 5 20 10 500-600 5

20 10 600-700 4 25 8600-700 6 17 12 600-700 5

13 17 700-800 5 20 10700-800 4 25 8 700-800 8

17 12 800-900 4 25 8800-900 3 33 6 800-900 6

20 10 900-1000 3 33 6900-1000 4 25 8 900-1000 5

9 25 1000-1100 3 33 61000-1100 6 17 12 1000-1100 11

14 15 1100-1200 4 25 81100-1200 4 25 8 1100-1200 7

25 8 1200-1300 6 17 121200-1300 3 33 6 1200-1300 4

17 12 1300-1400 6 17 121300-1400 3 33 6 1300-1400 6

17 12 1400-1500 7 14 151400-1500 7 14 15 1400-1500 6

14 15 1500-1600 6 17 121500-1600 7 14 15 1500-1600 7

17 12 1600-1700 8 13 171600-1700 5 20 10 1600-1700 6

17 12 1700-1800 6 17 121700-1800 5 20 10 1700-1800 6

13 17 1800-1900 4 25 81800-1900 5 20 10 1800-1900 8

8 27 1900-2000 4 25 81900-2000 4 25 8 1900-2000 12

14 15 2000-2100 4 25 82000-2100 6 17 12 2000-2100 7

20 10 2100-2200 4 25 82100-2200 6 17 12 2100-2200 5

25 8 2200-2300 3 33 62200-2300 8 13 17 2200-2300 4

25 8 2300-2400 7 14 152300-2400 8 13 17 2300-2400 4

25 8 2400-2500 4 25 82400-2500 24 4 60 2400-2500 4

25 8 2500-2600 4 25 82500-2600 2500-2600 4

20 10 2600-2700 3 33 62600-2700 2600-2700 5

20 10 2700-2800 3 33 62700-2800 2700-2800 5

14 15 2800-2900 3 33 62800-2900 2800-2900 7

14 15 2900-3000 3 33 62900-3000 2900-3000 7

3700-3800 19 5 463700-3800 3700-3800




5 20 10

3200-3300 3200-3300 refusal 3200-3300 6 17 12

3100-3200 3100-3200 Bouncing 3100-3200

6 17 12

3400-3500 3400-3500 3400-3500 7 14 15

3300-3400 3300-3400 3300-3400

3600-3700 16 6 38

3500-3600 3500-3600 3500-3600

4 25 83000-3100 3000-3100 8 13 17 3000-3100

12 8 27

3600-3700 3600-3700


Sheet: 3 of 3

Client: Date:





Notes:


Trace Environmental 9/01/2017

Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units Hart Geo

Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 M Kiryakos

50 4

0-100 1

Geotrace

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 6

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 7

Depth

(mm)

DCP No. 8

RL 62.6 m RL 61.9 m RL 63.0 m

NpPenetration

mm/blowCBR Np

Penetration

mm/blowCBR Np

Penetration

mm/blowCBR

0-100 1 100 2 0-100 0 - - 100 2

200-300 1 100 2200-300 9 11 20 200-300 2

2

50 4 300-400 8 13 17300-400 6 17 12 300-400 2

100-200 3 33 6 100-200 1 100 2 100-200

50 4

50 4 400-500 9 11 20400-500 6 17 12 400-500 2

50 4 500-600 7 14 15500-600 4 25 8 500-600 2

100 2 600-700 8 13 17600-700 4 25 8 600-700 1

100 2 700-800 7 14 15700-800 5 20 10 700-800 1

100 2 800-900 9 11 20800-900 8 13 17 800-900 1

100 2 900-1000 5 20 10900-1000 9 11 20 900-1000 1

50 4 1000-1100 6 17 121000-1100 8 13 17 1000-1100 2

33 6 1100-1200 7 14 151100-1200 10 10 22 1100-1200 3

25 8 1200-1300 6 17 121200-1300 8 13 17 1200-1300 4

14 15 1300-1400 6 17 121300-1400 9 11 20 1300-1400 7

13 17 1400-1500 6 17 121400-1500 5 20 10 1400-1500 8

25 8 1500-1600 6 17 121500-1600 11 9 25 1500-1600 4

20 10 1600-1700 5 20 101600-1700 18 6 43 1600-1700 5

17 12 1700-1800 6 17 121700-1800 1700-1800 6

17 12 1800-1900 5 20 101800-1900 1800-1900 6

17 12 1900-2000 4 25 81900-2000 1900-2000 6

17 12 2000-2100 2 50 42000-2100 2000-2100 6

33 6 2100-2200 2 50 42100-2200 2100-2200 3

50 4 2200-2300 3 33 62200-2300 2200-2300 2

33 6 2300-2400 4 25 82300-2400 2300-2400 3

5 49 2400-2500 5 20 102400-2500 2400-2500 20

2500-2600 5 20 102500-2600 2500-2600

2600-2700 6 17 122600-2700 2600-2700

2700-2800 10 10 222700-2800 2700-2800

2800-2900 10 10 222800-2900 2800-2900

2900-3000 10 10 222900-3000 2900-3000




12 8 27

3100-3200 3100-3200 3100-3200 15 7 35

3000-3100 3000-3100 3000-3100

3300-3400 3300-3400 3300-3400

3200-3300 3200-3300 3200-3300

3500-3600 3500-3600 3500-3600

3400-3500 3400-3500 3400-3500

3600-3700 3600-3700 3600-3700

3700-38003700-3800 3700-3800

APPENDIX D

Core Photographs


BH No: 1, 2, 3, 5

Sheet: 1 of 2

Client: Trace Environmental Date: 1/02/2018

Project Name: Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units R.L. Surface:

Project Location: Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Datum: AHD

Prepared By: MK

Core Photographs

Figure No.: 3.1 Revision No.: 0

Borehole BH5 - Surface ~ RL 61.90m AHD

Borehole BH1- Surface ~ RL 59.50m AHD



6.1m

7.0m

7.4m

8.0m

9.0m

5.65 m

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2.8m

3 m

4 m

5 m

6 m

7 m

8 m


BH No: 6,7,8

Sheet: 1 of 1

Client: Trace Environmental Date: 1/02/2018

Project Name: Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units R.L. Surface:

Project Location: Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Datum: AHD

Prepared By: MK


Borehole BH8 - Surface ~ RL 63.0m AHD

Core Photographs


Figure No.: 3.2 Revision No.: 0

2.8m

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

APPENDIX E

Geotechnical Long Sections

Legend: BH2~28m (borehole number and offset distance to the long section) RL = Reduced Level

Notes: 1: Locations of the boreholes & RL at top of boreholes are approximate and based on drawing No. A-01 by Eco-Space design, Job No. 4/13, A-01, dated 30/01/2015. 2: This Long Section should be used with reference to the Geotechnical Report G2017-40A & Figure 1 3: Do not scale from this Long Section. 4: Elevations from drawing titled “Preliminary Bulk Earthworks” by Warren Smith and Partners, Job No. 5619001, SK01-01, dated 09/01/2018.


Drawn By: MK Trace Environmental




Project No.:

G2017-40A


Generalised Geotechnical Long Section A1-A1’

Date: 20/06/2018


4.1 Rev.: 0

Co

nti

nu

e to

Fig

ure

4.2

- C

ross

Sec

tio

n A

2-A

2’

Bu

ildin

g G

Bu

ildin

g F

Bu

ildin

g E

Bu

ildin

g D

Legend: RL = Reduced Level







Project No.:

G2017-40A


Generalised Geotechnical Long Section A2-A2’

Date: 20/06/2018


4.2 Rev.: 0

Co

nti

nu

e to

Fig

ure

4.1

- C

ross

Sec

tio

n A

1-A

1’

Bu

ildin

g A

Bu

ildin

g B

Bu

ildin

g C








Project No.:

G2017-40A


Generalised Geotechnical Long Section B1-B1’

Date: 20/06/2018


4.3 Rev.: 0

Co

nti

nu

e to

Fig

ure

4.4

- C

ross

Sec

tio

n B

2-B

2’

Bu

ildin

g H

Bu

ildin

g I

Bu

ildin

g J








Project No.:

G2017-40A


Generalised Geotechnical Long Section B2-B2’

Date: 20/06/2018


4.4 Rev.: 0

Co

nti

nu

e to

Fig

ure

4.3

- C

ross

Sec

tio

n B

1-B1’

Bu

ildin

g M

Bu

ildin

g L

Bu

ildin

g K

APPENDIX F

Results of Laboratory Testing

Results of Laboratory Testing by STS Laboratory

Point Load Strength Index Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage

Results of Laboratory Testing by Envirolab Services

Soil Salinity Soil Aggressivity

Envirolab Services Pty Ltd

ABN 37 112 535 645

12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067

ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201

[email protected]

www.envirolab.com.au

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 183196

PO Box 422, Camperdown, NSW, 1450Address

Mark KiryakosAttention

Trace Environmental Pty LtdClient

Client Details

12/01/2018Date completed instructions received

12/01/2018Date samples received

12 soilNumber of Samples

G2017-40A Site B Reservoir Rd Arndell ParkYour Reference

Sample Details

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Analysis Details

Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing.

NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

16/01/2018Date of Issue

19/01/2018Date results requested by

Report Details

David Springer, General Manager

Authorised By

Nick Sarlamis, Inorganics Supervisor

Results Approved By

Revision No: R00

183196Envirolab Reference: Page | 1 of 6

Client Reference: G2017-40A Site B Reservoir Rd Arndell Park

270230mg/kgEstimated Salinity*

8068µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

15/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

soilsoilType of sample

09/01/201809/01/2018Date Sampled

1.51.0Depth

BH8-D3BH8-D2UNITSYour Reference

183196-12183196-11Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil

4701,200350570690mg/kgEstimated Salinity*


15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample

08/01/201808/01/201808/01/201808/01/201809/01/2018Date Sampled

1.50.52.01.02.5Depth

BH7-D3BH6-D1BH5-D4BH5-D2BH3-D5UNITSYour Reference

183196-10183196-9183196-8183196-7183196-6Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil

640370300550710mg/kgEstimated Salinity*


15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample

09/01/201809/01/201809/01/201809/01/201809/01/2018Date Sampled

1.01.50.52.01.0Depth


183196-5183196-4183196-3183196-2183196-1Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil

Envirolab Reference: 183196

R00Revision No:

Page | 2 of 6


Soil samples are extracted and measured using a conductivity cell and dedicated meter.Inorg-034

Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25°C in accordance with APHA latest edition 2510 and Rayment & Lyons.

Inorg-002

Methodology SummaryMethod ID


R00Revision No:

Page | 3 of 6


[NT][NT]023023011[NT]Inorg-0345mg/kgEstimated Salinity*

[NT][NT]1696811[NT]Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]15/01/201715/01/201711[NT]-Date analysed

[NT][NT]15/01/201715/01/201711[NT]-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Misc Inorg - Soil

[NT][NT]57507101<5Inorg-0345mg/kgEstimated Salinity*

[NT]10252202101<1Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT]15/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017115/01/2017-Date analysed

[NT]15/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017115/01/2017-Date prepared

[NT]LCS-1RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description



R00Revision No:

Page | 4 of 6


Not ReportedNR

National Environmental Protection MeasureNEPM

Not specifiedNS

Laboratory Control SampleLCS

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

Greater than>

Less than<

Practical Quantitation LimitPQL

Insufficient sample for this testINS

Test not requiredNA

Not testedNT

Result Definitions

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.

Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Surrogate Spike

This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)

A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.

Matrix Spike

This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Duplicate

This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as forsamples.

Blank

Quality Control Definitions


R00Revision No:

Page | 5 of 6


Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates)and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics and speciated phenols is acceptable.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria


R00Revision No:

Page | 6 of 6

Envirolab Services Pty Ltd

ABN 37 112 535 645

12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067

ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201

[email protected]

www.envirolab.com.au

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 183210

PO Box 422, Camperdown, NSW, 1450Address

accounts email, Mark KiryakosAttention

Trace Environmental Pty LtdClient

Client Details

12/01/2018Date completed instructions received

12/01/2018Date samples received

12 SoilNumber of Samples

G2017-40A Site B, Arndell ParkYour Reference

Sample Details

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Analysis Details

Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing.

NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

17/01/2018Date of Issue

19/01/2018Date results requested by

Report Details

David Springer, General Manager

Authorised By

Nick Sarlamis, Inorganics Supervisor

Results Approved By

Revision No: R00

183210Envirolab Reference: Page | 1 of 6

Client Reference: G2017-40A Site B, Arndell Park

590250mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

320530mg/kgChloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water


5.64.9pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

15/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

SoilSoilType of sample

09/01/201808/01/2018Date Sampled

2.02.0Depth

BH8-D4BH7-D5UNITSYour Reference

183210-12183210-11Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil


1101,200107320mg/kgChloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water


8.15.68.67.08.6pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

SoilSoilSoilSoilSoilType of sample

08/01/201808/01/201808/01/201808/01/201808/01/2018Date Sampled

1.01.04.53.01.5Depth


183210-10183210-9183210-8183210-7183210-6Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil


6020<102020mg/kgChloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water


7.58.88.58.79.0pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date analysed

15/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/201715/01/2017-Date prepared

SoilSoilSoilSoilSoilType of sample

09/01/201809/01/201809/01/201809/01/201809/01/2018Date Sampled

2.02.51.02.51.5Depth


183210-5183210-4183210-3183210-2183210-1Our Reference

Misc Inorg - Soil


R00Revision No:

Page | 2 of 6


Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.

Inorg-081

Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25°C in accordance with APHA latest edition 2510 and Rayment & Lyons.

Inorg-002

pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-001

Methodology SummaryMethod ID


R00Revision No:

Page | 3 of 6


[NT][NT]426025011[NT]Inorg-08110mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]455053011[NT]Inorg-08110mg/kgChloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]648045011[NT]Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]04.94.911[NT]Inorg-001pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

[NT][NT]15/01/201715/01/201711[NT]-Date analysed

[NT][NT]15/01/201715/01/201711[NT]-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description


105112959541<10Inorg-08110mg/kgSulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water

1031111022201<10Inorg-08110mg/kgChloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water

[NT]10142302201<1Inorg-0021µS/cmElectrical Conductivity 1:5 soil:water

[NT]10118.99.01[NT]Inorg-001pH UnitspH 1:5 soil:water

15/01/201815/01/201815/01/201715/01/2017115/01/2018-Date analysed

15/01/201815/01/201815/01/201715/01/2017115/01/2018-Date prepared

183210-2LCS-1RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description



R00Revision No:

Page | 4 of 6


Not ReportedNR

National Environmental Protection MeasureNEPM

Not specifiedNS

Laboratory Control SampleLCS

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

Greater than>

Less than<

Practical Quantitation LimitPQL

Insufficient sample for this testINS

Test not requiredNA

Not testedNT

Result Definitions

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.

Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Surrogate Spike

This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)

A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.

Matrix Spike

This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Duplicate

This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as forsamples.

Blank

Quality Control Definitions


R00Revision No:

Page | 5 of 6


Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates)and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics and speciated phenols is acceptable.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria


R00Revision No:

Page | 6 of 6

APPENDIX G

Geotechnical Assessment Summary

20th June 2018 Ref: G2017-40A Site B, Reservoir Rd, Arndell Park NSW 2148 Geotechnical Site Investigation Sheet 1 of 1

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 10: Summary of Geotechnical Assessment

Building No. Proposed Relevant

Boreholes

Idealised Ground Profile Earthworks

Approximate Depths With Reference

to Existing Ground Levels (m) Applicable

Basement Walls

Applicable

Foundations

Additional

Boreholes Required Topsoil/ Fill

– Alluvium

Residual

Soils Bedrock Excavation Filling

Building A 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 5/6 levels above ground

214, BH8 RL63

0m bgl RL61.5

1.5m bgl RL60-60.5

2.5-3.0m bgl 2.5 to 2.8 - Gravity, Soldier Pile

Shallow, Bucket & Pocket Piers, Piles

1 x 10m Borehole

Building B 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 7 levels above ground

214, BH8 RL63

0m bgl RL61.5

1.5m bgl RL60-60.5

2.5-3.0m bgl 2.2 to 2.5 -

Gravity, Possible Soldier Pile

Shallow, Bucket & Pocket Piers, Piles

1 x 10m Borehole

Building C 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 5 levels above ground

217, BH5, BH7

RL61.9-62.3 0mbgl

Alluvium: RL59.4

2.5m bgl

RL57.4-60.4 1.5-4.5m bgl

RL56.7-58.9 3-5.3m bgl

1.4 to 2.2 - Gravity, Soldier Pile Piles, Bucket & Pocket Piers

1 x 10m Borehole

Building D 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 6 levels above ground

213, 216, BH1

RL59.85-59.8 0m bgl

RL57.3-58 1.5-2.3m bgl

RL56.2-57.1 2.7-3.6m bgl

1.2 0.7 Gravity Piles 2 x 10m Borehole

Building E 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 6 levels above ground

213, 216, BH1

RL59.85-59.8 0m bgl

RL57.3-58 1.5-2.3m bgl

RL56.2-57.1 2.7-3.6m bgl

- 0.6 to 0.75 Basement is above

subgrade level Piles 2 x 10m Borehole

Building F 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 6 levels above ground

BH1 RL59.85-59.8

0m bgl RL57.3-58

1.5-2.3m bgl RL56.2-57.1 2.7-3.6m bgl



Building G 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 7 levels above ground

212, BH2 RL59.5 0m bgl

RL58 1.5m bgl

RL56.5 3.0m bgl



Building H 2 basements at RL 57.3m + 14 levels above ground

215, BH2 RL59.2 0m bgl

RL56.2-57.2 2.0-2.4m bgl

RL54-56.7 2.5-5.2m bgl

1.9 to 2.3 - Gravity, Soldier Pile Piles 2 x 14m Borehole

Building I 2 basements at RL 57.3m + 7 levels above ground

BH3 RL59.7 0m bgl

RL57.7 2.0m bgl

RL56.9 2.8m bgl

2.2 to 2.6 - Gravity, Soldier Pile Piles 1 x 12m Borehole

Building J 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 5 levels above ground

218, BH3 RL59.7-62

0m bgl RL57.7-59.6 2.0-2.4m bgl

RL56.9-58.5 2.8-3.5m bgl

1.35 to 1.6 0.45 to 0.65 Gravity Piles 2 x 12m Borehole

Building K 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 6 levels above ground

217, 218, BH6, BH7

RL61.9-62.3 0m bgl

RL59.6-62.4 0.4-2.4m bgl

RL58.5-59.9 2.4-3.5m bgl

1.6 to 2.2 - Gravity, Soldier Pile Shallow, Bucket & Pocket Piers or Piles

1 x 10m Borehole

Building L 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 6 levels above ground

217, BH6, BH8

RL61.9-62.3 0m bgl

RL61.3-62.4 0.4-1.0m bgl

RL58.5-58.9 2.4-3.0m bgl

2 to 2.54 - Gravity, Possible

Soldier Pile Shallow +Piles 1 x 10m Borehole

Building M 1 basement at RL 60.4m + 4 levels above ground

219, BH8 RL63.0-63.4

0m bgl RL61.5-63.2 0.2-1.5m bgl

RL60.5-61.65

1.9-2.5m bgl 2.7 to 3.1 - Gravity, Soldier Pile Shallow, Piles 2 x 10m Borehole

RL – Reduced Level in (m) The RL’s were estimated from the provided survey plan All depths and RLs are approximate Refer to Table 1 for the stratification of the rock horizons and classification Gravity = Gravity Basement/ Retaining Wall Possible Solider Pile = May be required for some sections of the basement walls near the site boundaries, roads, underground services, trees ..etc where temporary cut batter slopes are not feasible Shallow = Shallow spread foundations Bucket and Pocket Piers = May be required at some locations where the depth of the rock is relatively shallow under columns and walls respectively Piles = Reinforced concrete bored piles or similar to be socketed into suitable rock horizons

Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units at

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Blacktown Assisted Living Units at