REPORT TO AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ON … · report to yuwana nominees pty ltd and austindo...
Transcript of REPORT TO AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ON … · report to yuwana nominees pty ltd and austindo...
REPORT
TO
YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND
AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
ON
GEOTECHNICAL AND
HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT
15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
4 August 2014
Ref: 27577ZHrpt
JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
PO Box 976, North Ryde BC NSW 1670 Tel: 02 9888 5000 Fax: 02 9888 5003 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801
27577ZHrpt Page ii
Date: 4 August 2014 Report No: 27577ZHrpt Revision No: 0
Report prepared by: Adrian Hulskamp Senior Associate | Geotechnical Engineer
Report reviewed by: Agi Zenon Principal | Geotechnical Engineer For and on behalf of
JK GEOTECHNICS
PO Box 976
NORTH RYDE BC NSW 1670
Document Copyright of JK Geotechnics.
This Report (which includes all attachments and annexures) has been prepared by JK Geotechnics (JK) for its Client, and is intended for the use only by that Client. This Report has been prepared pursuant to a contract between JK and its Client and is therefore subject to:
a) JK’s proposal in respect of the work covered by the Report;
b) the limitations defined in the Client’s brief to JK;
c) the terms of contract between JK and the Client, including terms limiting the liability of JK.
If the Client, or any person, provides a copy of this Report to any third party, such third party must not rely on this Report, except with the express written consent of JK which, if given, will be deemed to be upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as apply by virtue of (a), (b), and (c) above. Any third party who seeks to rely on this Report without the express written consent of JK does so entirely at their own risk and to the fullest extent permitted by law, JK accepts no liability whatsoever, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any such third party.
27577ZHrpt Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE 2
3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 3 3.1 Site Description 3 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 4 3.3 Laboratory Test Results 6 3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results 7
3.4.1 BH1 7 3.4.2 BH3 7
4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS 8 4.1 Methodology 8 4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions 8 4.3 Analysis Results 8
5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 5.1 Geotechnical Issues 9 5.2 Excavation Conditions 9
5.2.1 Dilapidation Surveys 10 5.2.2 Excavation Methods 10 5.2.3 Seepage 12
5.3 Excavation Support 12 5.3.1 Support Systems 12 5.3.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters 13
5.4 Footings 15 5.5 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab 16 5.6 Soil Aggression 16 5.7 Hydrogeological Issues 16 5.8 Further Geotechnical Input 17
6 GENERAL COMMENTS 18
STS TABLE A: MOISTURE CONTENT TEST REPORT
STS TABLE B: FOUR DAY SOAKED CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT
STS TABLE C: POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX TEST REPORT
TABLE D: SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS
BOREHOLE LOGS 1, 2 AND 3 (INCLUDING COLOUR ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPHS)
FIGURE 1: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 2: GRAPHICAL BOREHOLE SUMMARY
FIGURE 3: BH1 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE VERSUS TIME PLOT
FIGURE 4: BH3 PUMP-OUT TEST GROUNDWATER LEVEL RECHARGE VERSUS TIME PLOT
FIGURE 5: GEOTECHNICAL SECTION A-A
FIGURE 6: SECTION A-A SEEPAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS
VIBRATION EMISSION DESIGN GOALS
REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES
APPENDIX A: ENVIROLAB SERVICES REPORT NO: 113601
27577ZHrpt Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation for the
proposed residential development at 15 Crane Street, Homebush, NSW. The investigation was
commissioned by Mr Bing Yuwana of Yuwana Nominees Pty Ltd and Austindo International
Pty Ltd, by signed ‘Acceptance of Proposal’ form, dated 7 July 2014. The investigation was
completed in accordance with Option B of our proposal, Ref: P38916ZH3, dated 4 July 2014.
We have been supplied with the following information:
1. A survey plan prepared by Land Development Solutions (Ref: 6115, dated 17 December
2013);
2. Architectural drawings prepared by Zhinar Architects Pty Ltd (Job No. 8313, Drawing Nos.
DA-00 to DA-19, dated June 2014); and
3. An undated extract from a pre-development application report prepared by Council,
indicating that a geotechnical report is required to satisfy Council that the proposed
basement excavation will not require referral to the NSW Office of Water (NOW).
Based on the supplied architectural drawings, we understand that following demolition of the
existing house and garage on site, a seven storey apartment building underlain by a two to three
level basement car park, is proposed. The finished floor level (FFL) of the lowest proposed
basement level (B3) is between reduced level (RL) 6.00m and RL7.20m. To achieve these
levels, excavation to a maximum depth of about 8.5m below existing grade, will be required. We
have assumed that the final bulk excavation level (BEL) will be about 0.3m below the lowest FFL.
The approximate outline of the proposed basement is shown on the attached Figure 1.
We have not been provided with any structural loads for the proposed development, however, we
assume that the loads would be in the moderate to high range.
The purpose of the investigation was to obtain geotechnical information on subsurface conditions
at three borehole locations and to carry out a seepage analysis. Based on the information
obtained, we present our comments and recommendations on excavation conditions and support,
retaining walls, seepage, footings, hydrogeological issues, the basement on-grade floor slab and
soil aggression.
27577ZHrpt Page 2
2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Prior to the commencement of the fieldwork, the borehole locations were electromagnetically
scanned by a specialist sub-contractor for buried services.
The fieldwork was carried out on 16 and 17 July 2014 and comprised the auger drilling of three
boreholes (BH1, BH2 and BH3) to depths of 5.25m, 5.8m and 5.35m, respectively, using our track
mounted JK250 drilling rig. Each borehole was extended by diamond core drilling using NMLC
coring techniques to final depths of 11.68m (BH1), 11.80m (BH2) and 11.07m (BH3).
Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes. A 50mm diameter slotted uPVC
standpipe was installed into BH1 and BH3 for groundwater level monitoring purposes. The
standpipe installation details are shown on the respective borehole logs.
The borehole locations were set out by taped measurements from apparent site boundaries and
are shown on Figure 1. The surface RLs shown on the attached borehole logs were estimated by
interpolation between spot levels and contour lines shown on the supplied survey plan and are
therefore only approximate. The survey datum is the Australia Height Datum (AHD). Figure 1 is
based on the supplied survey plan.
The nature and composition of the subsurface soil and rock horizons were assessed by logging
the materials recovered during drilling. The strength of the residual soil profile was assessed from
the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values, augmented by hand penetrometer readings on
clayey samples recovered in the SPT split spoon sampler and tactile examination. The strength
of the upper weathered bedrock profile was assessed by observation of auger penetration
resistance when using a tungsten carbide (TC) bit, together with examination of recovered rock
cuttings. We note that rock strengths assessed in this way are approximate and variances in one
order of rock strength should not be unexpected. The strength of the cored bedrock was
assessed by examination of the recovered rock cores, together with correlations with subsequent
laboratory Point Load Strength Index (IS(50)) tests. Further details of the methods and procedures
employed in the investigation are presented in the attached Report Explanation Notes.
Our geotechnical engineer (David Fisher) was present on a full-time basis during the fieldwork to
set out the borehole locations, direct the electromagnetic scanning, nominate the testing and
sampling, direct the standpipe installations and prepare the attached borehole logs. The Report
Explanation Notes define the logging terms and symbols used.
27577ZHrpt Page 3
Selected soil and rock cutting samples were returned to NATA registered laboratories (Soil Test
Services Pty Ltd [STS] and Envirolab Services Pty Ltd) for moisture content, Standard
compaction and four day soaked CBR and soil pH, chloride and sulphate testing. The test results
are summarised in the attached STS Tables A and B and Table D. The Envirolab Services Pty
Ltd “Certificate of Analysis” is attached to this report in Appendix A.
The recovered rock cores were photographed and returned to STS for Point Load Strength Index
testing. The photographs are enclosed facing the relevant cored borehole logs. The Point Load
Strength Index test results are plotted on the borehole logs and are also summarised in the
attached STS Table C. The unconfined compressive strengths (UCS), as estimated from the
Point Load Strength Index test results, are also summarised in STS Table C.
Contamination testing of site soils and groundwater was outside the scope of this investigation.
On 24 July 2014, our geotechnical engineer returned to site and pumped out the groundwater
from each standpipe, for the purpose of undertaking rising head infiltration tests (also known as a
pump-out test). A water level data logger was programmed and installed into each standpipe to
measure the groundwater recharge rate. On 25 July 2014, our geotechnical engineer returned to
site to retrieve and download the water level data loggers. The groundwater RL (mAHD)
recharge versus time plots for BH1 and BH3 are presented as Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Using established seepage formulae (and their assumptions), an approximate insitu permeability
coefficient for the subsurface profile was calculated. The pump-out test results are discussed in
Section 3.4 below.
3 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Site Description
The site is located within slightly undulating topography. Ground surface levels within the site
sloped gently down to the north-east at about 2°. Crane Street bound the site along its eastern
side.
At the time of the fieldwork, the eastern end of the site was occupied by a single storey brick and
weatherboard house. A clad garage and timber/metal shed were located in the central portion of
the site, adjacent to the northern boundary. The structures on site were observed be in fair
condition, based on a cursory inspection from within the subject site. The ground surface
surrounding the structures on site were covered with mostly grass and small shrubs. However,
27577ZHrpt Page 4
an on-grade concrete driveway ran along the northern side of the house and was in poor
condition, with numerous cracks observed.
The neighbouring three to four storey brick apartment building to the north of the site (No. 11-13
Crane Street) was set back about 4m from the common boundary. However, the neighbouring
building was underlain by at least one basement level, which abutted the common boundary. The
depth and extent of the neighbouring basement footprint is unknown. The neighbouring southern
basement retaining wall, where visible from Crane Street, supported the northern side of the
subject site and was of brick and concrete block construction. A concrete driveway used to
access the neighbouring basement was located between the subject site and above ground
portion of the neighbouring apartment building. Ground surface levels across the common
boundary were generally between 0.5m (eastern end) and at least 2.5m (western end) lower than
the subject site.
The neighbouring single storey brick house located towards the western end of the site to the
south (No. 17A Crane Street) was set back at least 1m from the common boundary. The
neighbouring single storey brick house located towards the eastern end of the site to the south
(No. 17 Crane Street) was set back about 4m from the common boundary. Ground surface levels
across the common boundary were similar.
The neighbouring single storey fibro and weatherboard house to the west of the site was set back
at least 15m from the common boundary. Ground surface levels across the common boundary
were similar.
With the exception of the neighbouring house to the west of the site which was in poor condition,
the other above described neighbouring structures all appeared to be in generally good condition,
based on a cursory inspection from within the subject site.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The 1:100,000 Series Geological Map of Sydney indicates the site to be underlain by Ashfield
Shale of the Wianamatta Group.
Generally, the boreholes encountered a concrete pavement (BH1 only), fill and/or residual silty
clay overlying shale bedrock at relatively shallow depth. Reference should be made to the
attached borehole logs for details at each specific location. A graphical borehole summary, which
27577ZHrpt Page 5
also shows the level of the proposed basement, is presented as Figure 2. A summary of the
encountered subsurface characteristics is provided below:
Pavements
A 90mm thick concrete pavement was present at the ground surface of BH1.
Fill
Fill comprising silty clay topsoil was present at the ground surface of BH2 and extended down to
a depth of 0.4m.
Residual Silty Clay
Residual silty clay of assessed low, medium and high plasticity and hard strength was
encountered directly below the concrete pavement in BH1, below the fill in BH2 and at the ground
surface in BH3.
Shale Bedrock
Shale bedrock was encountered in each borehole at depths of either 1.6m (BH1 and BH2) or
1.0m (BH3) and extended down to the borehole termination depths.
The shale bedrock was generally extremely and distinctly weathered and of extremely low to very
low strength at first contact, but improved in quality with depth to slightly weathered and fresh
shale of medium and high strength. Low and medium strength iron indurated bands were often
encountered within the upper weaker shale bedrock profile.
The diamond cored portions of the boreholes encountered frequent defects including extremely
weathered bands and seams, crushed seams, fragmented seams and inclined joints.
The ‘core loss’ zone encountered in BH1 at a depth of 7.90m was 100mm thick and is inferred to
be an extremely weathered band or clay band, which has ‘washed away’ during the coring
process.
An indicative engineering classification of the shale bedrock (in accordance with Pells et al. 1998)
has been carried out and is tabulated below:
27577ZHrpt Page 6
Borehole Approx. Surface RL (m)
Indicative Engineering Classification of Shale Bedrock Depths (m)
Class V Class IV Class III Class II Class I
1 13.8 1.6 – 6.81*, 8.00 – 9.43
6.81 – 8.00 9.43 – 11.68 - -
2 14.5 1.6 – 6.86* - 6.86 – 11.80 - -
3 14.9 1.0 – 6.50* - - 6.50 – 11.07 -
* based (wholly or in part) on the augered portion of the borehole.
Groundwater
All boreholes were ‘dry’ during auger drilling and on completion of auger drilling.
On completion of coring, groundwater was measured at depths of 4.5m (BH1), 4.0m (BH2) and
2.0m (BH3). As water is introduced into the borehole during the coring process, these
groundwater levels are almost certainly influenced by the drill flush water. There was a full return
of the drill flush water during coring, which indicates a relatively impermeable rock mass.
When we returned to site on 24 July 2014, groundwater was measured in the standpipes at
depths of 3.8m (BH1) and 2.6m (BH3). No further groundwater observations were made.
3.3 Laboratory Test Results
The results of the moisture content and Point Load Strength Index tests carried out on recovered
rock cutting and rock core samples correlated well with our field assessment of bedrock strength.
The estimated UCSs ranged between 1MPa and 50MPa.
The four day soaked CBR test carried out on a residual silty clay sample from BH2 resulted in a
value of 2.5% when compacted to 98% of Standard Maximum Dry Density (SMDD) and
surcharged with 4.5kg, indicating a poor quality subgrade is present at existing ground surface
level. The insitu moisture content of the sample was 3.1% ‘wet’ of its Standard Optimum Moisture
Content (SOMC).
The soil pH test results were either 4.5 (BH1 and BH3) or 5.7 (BH2), which show the samples
tested to be acidic. The soil sulphate and chloride test results were less than or equal to
230mg/kg, which indicate low sulphate and chloride contents.
27577ZHrpt Page 7
3.4 Borehole Pump-Out Test Results
3.4.1 BH1
On arrival to site on 24 July 2014, the groundwater level in the BH1 standpipe was measured at
3.8m depth (RL 10.0m). Based on the plot provided in Figure 3, constant steady-state inflow
conditions occurred immediately after completion of pumping until the groundwater level had risen
back up to RL 10.0m, where the groundwater level stabilised after a period of about 2½ hours. At
the end of the 24 hour monitoring period, the groundwater level was measured at RL 10.0m.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH1, the groundwater is confined to within
the shale bedrock profile (ie. groundwater within defects, such as bedding partings, joints, etc.).
The result of the borehole pump-out (rising head) test indicates a low permeability for the shale
bedrock at BH1. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the calculated
coefficient of permeability (k) for the rising head test carried out in the BH1 standpipe was
5.9 x 10-7 m/sec.
3.4.2 BH3
On arrival to site on 24 July 2014, the groundwater level in the BH3 standpipe was measured at
2.6m depth (RL 12.3m). Based on the plot provided in Figure 4, constant steady-state inflow
conditions occurred immediately after completion of pumping and the groundwater level rose to
5.5m depth (RL9.4m) during the 24 hour monitoring period. The groundwater level did not appear
to stabilise within the 24 monitoring period.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH3, the groundwater is confined to within
the shale bedrock profile (ie. groundwater within defects, such as bedding partings, joints, etc.).
The result of the borehole pump-out (rising head) test indicates a very low permeability for the
shale bedrock at BH3. Using established seepage formulae and their assumptions, the
calculated coefficient of permeability (k) for the rising head test carried out in the BH3 standpipe is
3.5 x 10-8 m/sec.
We note that the calculated permeability for BH3 was almost one order of magnitude lower than
the calculated permeability for BH1. We infer the reason for this is most likely due to the fewer
defects encountered in the shale bedrock profile at BH3 compared to BH1.
27577ZHrpt Page 8
4 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ANALYSIS
The purpose of the groundwater seepage analysis was to prepare a geotechnical model of the
site, based on the investigation results, and to assess the potential seepage volume into the
proposed basement excavation during construction and in the long-term.
4.1 Methodology
We nominated one section (Section A-A) through the proposed basement excavation, as shown
on Figure 1. An idealised geotechnical model for the section was established, based on the
subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, site survey and the proposed basement
design. Reference should be made to Figure 5 for the geotechnical model of Section A-A.
The seepage analysis was carried out using a 2D finite element computer program SEEP/W 2012
(from Geo-Slope International Ltd).
4.2 Hydraulic Model and Boundary Conditions
The saturated coefficient of permeability values adopted in the geotechnical model for the
residual silty clay and shale bedrock is presented below. Based on the known geological
structure of residual silty clay and since groundwater can flow within the bedrock through defects,
we have assumed anisotropic permeability conditions. From established literature, we have
adopted a ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability of 10 (ie. one order of magnitude).
For the residual silty clay profile, we have assumed a horizontal coefficient of permeability
(kh) of 1 x 10-8 m/sec and a vertical coefficient of permeability (kv) of 1 x 10-9 m/sec. These
values are based on our experience and published literature.
Based on the borehole pump-out test results, we have adopted for the shale bedrock profile
a kh value of 3 x 10-7 m/sec (ie. the average to the ‘k’ values calculated) and a kv value of
3 x 10-8 m/sec. These values are consistent with published literature.
The model has been set up with boundary conditions equivalent to the highest groundwater
levels measured ie. 2.6m depth in BH3 and 3.8m depth in BH1.
4.3 Analysis Results
For Section A-A, the calculated inflow was 1.41 x 10-6 m3/sec per metre width of section. For the
proposed 15m wide basement (measured north to south), this equates to an inflow of about
0.67ML/year. Reference should be made to the seepage analysis results presented as Figure 6.
27577ZHrpt Page 9
Based on the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation results at 15 Crane Street,
Homebush, and for the proposed three level basement excavation, it is our understanding that the
proposed development will not require referral to the NSW Office of Water. It is also our
understanding that Council decides whether such referral is required.
5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Geotechnical Issues
Based on the investigation results, we consider the following items to be the primary geotechnical
issues associated with the proposed residential development:
The excavation cuts, which will extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, will require
support by shoring walls, that will need to be installed prior to the commencement of bulk
excavation;
Excavation for the proposed basement will need to be carried out carefully due to the
presence of neighbouring structures that are located on, or close to, the site boundaries.
Care must be taken during excavation so as to not damage, undermine or remove lateral
support from the neighbouring structures;
Groundwater seepage into the bulk excavation will need to be controlled;
Vibrations will need to be controlled during rock excavation, if hydraulic impact rock
hammers are used; and
The presence of medium and high strength shale bedrock, which will present ‘hard’ rock
excavation and piling conditions, will require careful consideration as to the type of plant
and equipment used.
The above geotechnical issues are addressed in detail in the following sections of this report.
5.2 Excavation Conditions
The excavation recommendations provided below should be complemented by reference to the
Safe Work Australia ‘Code of Practice – Excavation Work’ and AS3798 ‘Guidelines on Earthworks
for Commercial and Residential Developments’.
27577ZHrpt Page 10
5.2.1 Dilapidation Surveys
Prior to the commencement of demolition and excavation, we recommend that detailed
dilapidation reports be compiled on the neighbouring apartment building to the north (No. 11-13
Crane Street) and the neighbouring houses to the south (Nos. 17 and 17A Crane Street).
The dilapidation surveys should include detailed inspections of the above buildings and any
surrounding structures and pavements within the respective properties, where all defects
including defect location, type, length and width are rigorously described and photographed.
The respective owners should be asked to confirm that the dilapidation reports present a fair
record of existing conditions. The dilapidation reports may then be used as a benchmark against
which to assess possible future claims for damage arising from the works. We could prepare a
proposal for the dilapidation reports, if requested.
5.2.2 Excavation Methods
Prior to the commencement of bulk excavation, demolition of the existing structures on site and
stripping of grass and other vegetation within the development footprint, will be required. Any
deleterious or contaminated fill should be stripped and disposed appropriately off-site. Reference
should be made to Section 6 for the guidance on the off-site disposal of soil.
We note that there are neighbouring structures which either bound, or are located within close
proximity to, the subject site. Demolition of existing structures and subsequent excavation will
need to be carried out with care, so as to not destabilise, undermine or remove lateral support
from these neighbouring structures. All demolition and excavation work will need to be carried
out by suitably experienced and insured contractors.
Following or during the demolition process, but prior to the commencement of bulk excavation, we
recommend that details be obtained, such as by excavation of test pits or review of as-built
structural drawings, for any adjoining building footings which are located within H of the bulk
excavation, where H is the depth of excavation. Furthermore and prior to the commencement of
bulk excavation, confirmation must be made of the configuration and number of basement levels
below the neighbouring apartment building to the north. This will enable appropriate
consideration to be made during the shoring design phase.
Based on the investigation results, excavation for the proposed basement to a maximum depth of
about 8.5m will extend through the soil and shale bedrock profiles.
27577ZHrpt Page 11
Excavation of the soils may be readily completed using buckets fitted to hydraulic excavators. It
will be possible to excavate Class V and IV shale bedrock using a ‘digging’ bucket fitted to a large
excavator. However, ripping tyne and/or rock hammer assistance will be required for excavation
of Class III shale bedrock, as well as medium and high strength bands present within the Class V
and IV shale bedrock.
Excavation of Class III and II shale bedrock will also be possible using a large dozer of at least
Caterpillar D9 size or equivalent, but with a generous allowance for rock hammer assistance. The
rock hammer must be fitted to a large excavator. Excavation production rates are likely to be low
and shoe wear rates high, particularly in the Class II shale bedrock. Higher wear and tear rates of
the excavation equipment should be expected. Grid sawing the shale bedrock in conjunction with
ripping will help to facilitate excavation.
Rock excavation using hydraulic impact rock hammers will need to be strictly controlled as there
will be direct transmission of ground vibrations to the neighbouring structures and any nearby
buried services. We recommend that quantitative vibration monitoring be carried out whenever
hydraulic impact rock hammers are used on this site. With reference to German Standard
DIN4150-3:1999-02, which is reproduced in the attached Vibration Emission Design Goals Sheet,
the vibrations along the site boundaries should be limited to a peak particle velocity of 5mm/s (at
10Hz), subject to review of the dilapidation survey reports. If it is found that transmitted vibrations
are excessive, then it would be necessary to change to a smaller rock hammer or change the
method of excavation ie. grid sawing in conjunction with ripping. The following procedures are
recommended to reduce vibrations, if rock hammers are used:
Rock saw the sides of the excavation which extend into shale bedrock of at least low
strength, provided the base of the rock saw slot is maintained at a lower level than the
adjacent excavation level at all times;
Maintain the rock hammer orientation towards the face of the excavation and enlarge the
excavation by breaking small wedges off face;
Operate the rock hammer in short bursts only, to reduce the amplification of vibrations;
and
Use excavation contractors with appropriate experience and a competent supervisor who
is aware of vibration damage risks, etc. The contractor should have all appropriate
statutory and public liability insurances and should be provided with a full copy of this
report.
27577ZHrpt Page 12
The excavation contractor must make their own assessment on bedrock excavation, based on a
review of this report, including the attached borehole logs and laboratory test results. The ease at
which bedrock can be excavated and how long it will take to excavate the bedrock, depends upon
the equipment used, the skill and experience of the operator, and the characteristics of the
bedrock. The excavation contractor must make their own judgement on all of these factors.
5.2.3 Seepage
Groundwater inflows into the excavation are expected as local seepage flows through joints and
bedding partings within the bedrock profile. However, seepage may also occur within the fill, at
the fill/residual soil interface and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy rain.
Seepage volumes into the excavation are expected to be controllable by conventional sump and
pump methods.
A toe drain should be provided at the base of all rock cuttings to collect groundwater seepage and
lead it to a sump for pumping to the stormwater system.
5.3 Excavation Support
5.3.1 Support Systems
As the proposed basement is to extend to, or close to, the site boundaries, temporary batter
slopes through the soil and Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles will not be possible, and
therefore the proposed vertical cuts will need to be supported by an engineered retention system.
Based on the investigation results, a suitable retention system includes an anchored soldier pile
retaining wall with reinforced shotcrete infill panels. Conventional bored piles will be a suitable
pile type. The shoring system must be installed prior to the commencement of bulk excavation
and would need to be anchored and/or internally propped as excavation proceeds. Careful
control of the construction sequence will be required to reduce potential movements.
The shoring piles should be founded with sufficient embedment below bulk excavation level to
satisfy stability and founding considerations. We recommend that the shoring piles located within
the eastern half of the proposed basement footprint terminate at a depth of not less than 0.5m
below bulk excavation level (including an allowance for footings, services and other localised
excavations below bulk excavation level). A greater depth of embedment may be required for
27577ZHrpt Page 13
stability of the shoring wall. The piles can also be used as load bearing piles for the proposed new
building, if founded in the appropriate strength/quality shale.
However, the shoring piles located within western half of the basement footprint can be
terminated no less than 0.5m into Class III or better quality shale bedrock above bulk excavation
level. Toe restraint for the piles may be achieved by using an additional row of temporary
anchors, which must be installed prior to excavating in front of the pile toe. A vertical face may be
excavated below the toe of the piles, but must not undermine the pile toes. Ideally, the pile toe
levels should be designed so that the pile toe is just below a basement floor slab, which could
provide long term support.
The rock face below the toe of the piles must be progressively inspected by a geotechnical
engineer at no more than 1.5m depth increments to assess the need for temporary support (eg.
rockbolts, dowels, shotcrete etc.) of potentially unstable rock wedges. In addition, an allowance
should be made for temporary rock bolts below the pile toes to provide lateral restraint for the rock
below the pile toes.
Where the shoring piles terminate within Class III or better quality shale bedrock above bulk
excavation level, shotcrete and pattern bolting will be the minimum long term requirement to
protect the shale bedrock from deterioration.
Due to the presence of medium and high strength bedrock, only high torque drilling rigs equipped
with rock augers and coring buckets should be brought to this site. We strongly recommend that
a full copy of this report be provided to the prospective piling contractors.
We assume that permanent support of the shoring system will be provided by bracing from the
proposed structure.
5.3.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters
The major consideration in the selection of earth pressures for the design of the retaining walls is
the need to limit deformations occurring outside the excavations. The following characteristic
earth pressure coefficients and subsoil parameters may be adopted for a static design for
permanent retention systems.
All shoring piles should be uniformly founded on the underlying shale bedrock. For
allowable bearing pressure recommendations, refer to Section 5.4 below.
27577ZHrpt Page 14
For anchored or propped walls, where minor movements can be tolerated eg where there
are no movement sensitive structures or buried services within 2H of the excavation, we
recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 6H (kPa) for the soil and
Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles, where H is the retained height in metres. These
pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system.
For anchored or propped walls, supporting areas sensitive to lateral movement eg where
there are movement sensitive buried service present within 2H of the excavation, a
trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 8H (kPa) should be adopted for the soil profile
and Class V and IV shale bedrock profiles, where H is the retained height in metres.
These pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support
system.
Any surcharge affecting the walls (eg. immediately adjacent building footings, traffic,
construction loads, inclined backfill surface, etc.) should be allowed in the design using an
‘at rest’ earth pressure coefficient (K0) of 0.55 for the soil and Class V and IV shale
bedrock profiles, assuming a horizontal backfill surface.
A 10kPa lateral pressure should be adopted for the Class III or better quality shale
bedrock.
A bulk unit weight of 20kN/m3 should be adopted for the soil and Class V and IV shale
bedrock profiles.
The retaining walls should be designed as drained and measures taken to induce
complete and permanent drainage of the ground behind the wall. Strip drains
incorporating a non-woven geofabric to act as a filter against subsoil erosion are
appropriate for soldier piled retaining walls with reinforced shotcrete infill panels.
For piles embedded into the underlying shale bedrock below bulk excavation level across
the eastern half of the site in Class IV or better quality shale bedrock, an allowable lateral
toe resistance of 250kPa may be adopted. This value assume that excavation is not
carried out within the zone of influence of the wall toe and the rock does not contain
unfavourable defects etc. The upper 0.5m depth of the socket below bulk excavation level
should not be taken into account in the lateral resistance calculations to allow for tolerance
and disturbance effects during excavation.
Temporary anchors should have a free length of not less than 4m and should be bonded
at least 3m into shale bedrock, with the bond length being fully beyond a line drawn up at
45˚ from bulk excavation level. The wall designer must check their design assuming there
is a planar defect inclined at 45° through the shale bedrock which extends up behind the
retaining wall from bulk excavation level, assuming an effective friction angle along the
27577ZHrpt Page 15
defect of 26°. Temporary anchors may be designed on the basis of a maximum allowable
bond stress of 150kPa (Class V shale) and 250kPa (Class IV or better quality shale).
All anchors must be proof tested to 1.3 times the working load under the direction of an
experienced engineer independent of the anchor contractor, with anchors ‘locked off’ at
85% of the design working load. The testing may allow an upgrading of the above bond
stress. We recommend only experienced contractors be considered for the anchor
installation.
As temporary anchors will run below neighbouring properties, the permission from the owners
must be obtained prior to installation. We recommend that requests for permission commence
early in the construction process as our experience has shown that it can take significant time for
such permission to be granted. If permission is not forthcoming, then the alternative is to provide
lateral support by internal bracing or propping.
5.4 Footings
Based on the investigation results, shale bedrock will be exposed at bulk excavation level and
therefore for uniformity of support, we recommend that the proposed building be uniformly
founded within the shale bedrock.
The quality of shale bedrock exposed is expected to be at least Class III across the western half
of the basement, and at least Class IV across the eastern half of the basement. However, where
Class IV shale is present at bulk excavation level, the depth to the underlying Class III or better
quality shale bedrock is expected to be relatively shallow ie. within 1.5m below bulk excavation
level.
Pad and/or strip footings, internal bored piles and any shoring piles founded in Class III or better
quality shale bedrock may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500kPa,
provided each footing/pile is inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to pouring.
The provided bearing pressure above is based upon serviceability criteria of deflections at the
footing base of less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension/pile diameter.
All footings/bored piles should be excavated/drilled, cleaned out, inspected and poured with
minimal delay. All pile holes should be cleaned out using a cleaning bucket for effective removal
of sludge and loose material. Due to expected groundwater seepage, the piles should only be
cleaned out when concrete is ready to be tremie poured.
27577ZHrpt Page 16
5.5 Basement Level On-Grade Floor Slab
Based on the investigation results, the proposed lowest basement level on-grade floor slab will
directly overlie shale bedrock.
We therefore recommend that underfloor drainage be provided. The underfloor drainage should
comprise a strong, durable, single-sized washed aggregate such as ‘blue metal’ gravel. The
underfloor drainage should connect with the perimeter drains and lead groundwater seepage to a
sump for pumped disposal to the stormwater system.
Joints in the concrete basement level on-grade floor slabs should be designed to accommodate
shear forces but not bending moments by using dowelled or keyed joints.
We note that the proposed entrance driveway ramp into the basement off Crane Street may be
partly underlain by soil and partly underlain by bedrock. We therefore recommend that the
proposed entrance driveway be designed as a suspended slab, so as to reduce the potential for
damage due to differential movements from shrink-swell of the underlying clayey soils and
settlements arising from founding in different materials.
5.6 Soil Aggression
Based on the laboratory soil chemistry results and in accordance with Table 6.4.2(C) of AS2159-
2009 (“Piling – Design and Installation”), the exposure classification for concrete piles is ‘Mild’.
5.7 Hydrogeological Issues
We recommend that during construction an inspection of the bulk excavation be carried out by
both JK Geotechnics and the hydraulic engineer and the inflow rate measured. The results of the
seepage analysis may be used for the design of the basement drainage. If the basement
drainage design is based on the results of the analysis in this report, then we recommend a
suitable factor of safety (not less than 2) be applied to the calculated seepage volume and that
the drainage system should have some redundancy for the potential for siltation (or clogging) of
drainage layers over time.
The groundwater in the surrounding area is expected to flow in a north-easterly direction from the
relatively small catchment uphill (to the south-west) of the site. Based on the investigation results,
we expect minor groundwater seepage is occurring through the shale bedrock profile.
27577ZHrpt Page 17
For the proposed development, we expect that the seepage inflows into the excavation will occur
predominantly through joints and bedding partings within the bedrock profile. However, it is also
possible that local seepage flows may occur through the fill, gravel bands or relic joints/fissures
within the residual silty clay and at the soil/rock interface, particularly after heavy rainfall. Based
on the low permeability characteristics of the shale bedrock, we expect slow inflow rates and low
seepage volumes into the bulk excavation, as discussed above in Section 4. We further expect
that the seepage volumes will reduce over time once the immediate surrounding area has
drained, as a result of the excavation being carried out.
A build-up of the groundwater level behind the basement retaining walls to the extent that it will
adversely affect neighbouring properties, is considered unlikely, as drainage will be provided
behind the basement retaining walls.
The underfloor drainage must include a sump and pump dewatering system. The retaining wall
drains must be connected into the underfloor drainage system. Groundwater monitoring of
seepage volumes must be carried out during basement excavation prior to finalising the design of
the pump out facility, as discussed above in Section 4.4. The sump(s) must have an automatic
level control pump to avoid flooding of proposed basement. Outlets into the stormwater system
will require Council approval.
Further to considering the inflows into the basement, the drawdown of groundwater outside the
proposed basement has also been considered. Some drawdown of groundwater will occur
immediately adjacent to the basement, however, as the lowering of the groundwater will occur
within the shale bedrock profile, this will have no adverse effects on surrounding properties, as
the shale bedrock is relatively ‘incompressible’ with respect to dewatering induced settlements.
5.8 Further Geotechnical Input
We summarise below the recommended additional geotechnical input that needs to be carried
out:
Dilapidation surveys on the neighbouring buildings to the north and south;
Quantitative vibration monitoring when using rock hammers during excavation;
Groundwater monitoring of seepage volumes into the excavation;
Where exposed, inspection of toe restraint bedrock for soldier piles;
Proof testing of anchors;
27577ZHrpt Page 18
Footing/pile inspections.
6 GENERAL COMMENTS
The recommendations presented in this report include specific issues to be addressed during the
construction phase of the project. In the event that any of the construction phase
recommendations presented in this report are not implemented, the general recommendations
may become inapplicable and JK Geotechnics accept no responsibility whatsoever for the
performance of the structure where recommendations are not implemented in full and properly
tested, inspected and documented.
Occasionally, the subsurface conditions between the completed boreholes may be found to be
different (or may be interpreted to be different) from those expected. Variation can also occur
with groundwater conditions, especially after climatic changes. If such differences appear to
exist, we recommend that you immediately contact this office.
This report provides advice on geotechnical aspects for the proposed civil and structural design.
As part of the documentation stage of this project, Contract Documents and Specifications may
be prepared based on our report. However, there may be design features we are not aware of or
have not commented on for a variety of reasons. The designers should satisfy themselves that all
the necessary advice has been obtained. If required, we could be commissioned to review the
geotechnical aspects of contract documents to confirm the intent of our recommendations has
been correctly implemented.
A waste classification will need to be assigned to any soil excavated from the site prior to offsite
disposal. Subject to the appropriate testing, material can be classified as Virgin Excavated
Natural Material (VENM), General Solid, Restricted Solid or Hazardous Waste. If the natural soil
has been stockpiled, classification of this soil as Excavated Natural Material (ENM) can also be
undertaken, if requested. However, the criteria for ENM are more stringent and the cost
associated with attempting to meet these criteria may be significant. Analysis takes seven to
10 working days to complete, therefore, an adequate allowance should be included in the
construction program unless testing is completed prior to construction. If contamination is
encountered, then substantial further testing (and associated delays) should be expected. We
strongly recommend that this issue is addressed prior to the commencement of excavation on
site.
27577ZHrpt Page 19
This report has been prepared for the particular project described and no responsibility is
accepted for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose.
If there is any change in the proposed development described in this report then all
recommendations should be reviewed. Copyright in this report is the property of JK Geotechnics.
We have used a degree of care, skill and diligence normally exercised by consulting engineers in
similar circumstances and locality. No other warranty expressed or implied is made or intended.
Subject to payment of all fees due for the investigation, the client alone shall have a licence to
use this report. The report shall not be reproduced except in full.
Reference No: 27577ZH
Project: Proposed Residential Development
Borehole Sample Depth Sample Description pH Sulphate Chloride
Number (m) Units (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
BH1 0.5 - 0.95 Residual SILTY CLAY 4.5 91 <10
BH2 0.1 - 0.2 Fill: Silty Clay topsoil 5.7 49 41
BH3 0.6 - 0.95 Residual SILTY CLAY 4.5 230 42
TABLE D
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS
SOIL pH, SULPHATE AND CHLORIDE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRY ONCOMPL-ETION
OFAUGER
-ING
ONCOMPL-ETION
OFCORING
N = 136,6,7
N = SPT16/150mm
REFUSAL
CH
-
CONCRETE: 90mm.t.
SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, orangebrown and brown, trace of fine tomedium grained ironstone gravel.
SHALE: light grey.
SHALE: grey, with L-M strength ironindurated seams.
as above,but dark grey.
REFER TO CORED BOREHOLELOG
MC»PL
XW-DW
H
EL-VL
>600>600>600
NO OBSERVEDREINFORCEMENT
RESIDUAL
VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE WITHMODERATE BANDS
LOW TO MODERATERESISTANCE
50mm DIA. PVCSTANDPIPEINSTALLED TO11.07m DEPTH.SLOTTED FROM5.07m TO 11.07mDEPTH. UNSLOTTEDFROM 0.0m TO 5.07mDEPTH. BACKFILLEDWITH 2mm SANDBETWEEN 5m AND11.07m DEPTH.BENTONITE SEAL
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
11/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250
R.L. Surface: » 13.8m
Date: 17-7-14 Datum: AHD
Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Re
co
rd
ES
SA
MP
LE
SU
50
DB
DS
Fie
ld T
ests
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Un
ifie
d
Cla
ssific
atio
n
DESCRIPTION
Mo
istu
re
Co
nd
itio
n/
We
ath
erin
g
Str
en
gth
/
Re
l. D
en
sity
Ha
nd
Pe
ne
tro
me
ter
Re
ad
ing
s (
kP
a.)
Remarks
CO
PY
RIG
HT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
BETWEEN 4.5m AND5.0m DEPTH.BACKFILLED TO0.2m DEPTH.CONCRETE ANDCAST IRON GATICCOVER TOSURFACE
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
12/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250
R.L. Surface: » 13.8m
Date: 17-7-14 Datum: AHD
Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Re
co
rd
ES
SA
MP
LE
SU
50
DB
DS
Fie
ld T
ests
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Un
ifie
d
Cla
ssific
atio
n
DESCRIPTION
Mo
istu
re
Co
nd
itio
n/
We
ath
erin
g
Str
en
gth
/
Re
l. D
en
sity
Ha
nd
Pe
ne
tro
me
ter
Re
ad
ing
s (
kP
a.)
Remarks
CO
PY
RIG
HT
Ref: 27577ZH Borehole 1
JK Geotechnics
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
FULLRET-URN
START CORING AT 5.25m
SHALE: dark grey, with orangebrown seams and L-M strengthseams .
SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.
CORE LOSS: 0.10m
SHALE: dark grey with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.
END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.68m
XW-DW
SW
SW-FR
EL-VL
M-H
M-H
- XWS, 0-5°, 2mm.t
- Cr, 0°, 50mm.t
- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
- Cr, 0°, 15mm.t- Cr, 0°, 30mm.t- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
- Cr, 0°, 100mm.t
- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 100mm.t
- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 90mm.t
- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 30mm.t
- J, 40°, P, R
- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 15mm.t- XWS, 0°, 5mm.t- Cr, S, 20mm.t- J, 50°, P, S
- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
- Cr, 0°, 20mm.t
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
CORED BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
13/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Core Size: NMLC R.L. Surface: » 13.8m
Date: 17-7-14 Inclination: VERTICAL Datum: AHD
Drill Type: JK250 Bearing: - Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Wa
ter
Lo
ss/L
eve
l
Ba
rre
l L
ift
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Rock Type, grain character-istics, colour, structure,
minor components.
CORE DESCRIPTIONW
ea
the
rin
g
Str
en
gth
POINTLOAD
STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)
EL VL
L M
H VH EH
DEFECT DETAILS
DEFECTSPACING
(mm)
500
300
100
50
30
10
DESCRIPTIONType, inclination, thickness,
planarity, roughness, coating.
Specific General
CO
PY
RIG
HT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRY ONCOMPL-ETION
OFAUGER
-ING
ONCOMPL-ETION
OFCORING
.
N = 104,5,5
N = SPT13/100mm
CH
-
FILL: Silty clay topsoil, low plasticity,brown, trace of roots and sand.
SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, redbrown and brown.
as above,but light grey and orange brown.
SHALE: light grey and dark grey withL-M strength iron indurated bands.
as above,but dark grey, with XW bands.
SHALE: dark grey and brown.
REFER TO CORED BOREHOLELOG
MC<PL
MC>PL
MC»PL
XW-DW
DW
H
EL-VL
VL-L
M
480520540
RESIDUAL
VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE WITHMODERATE BANDS
LOW RESISTANCEWITH VERY LOWBANDS
MODERATERESISTANCE
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
21/2
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250
R.L. Surface: » 14.5m
Date: 17-7-14 Datum: AHD
Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Re
co
rd
ES
SA
MP
LE
SU
50
DB
DS
Fie
ld T
ests
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Un
ifie
d
Cla
ssific
atio
n
DESCRIPTION
Mo
istu
re
Co
nd
itio
n/
We
ath
erin
g
Str
en
gth
/
Re
l. D
en
sity
Ha
nd
Pe
ne
tro
me
ter
Re
ad
ing
s (
kP
a.)
Remarks
CO
PY
RIG
HT
Ref: 27577ZH Borehole 2
JK Geotechnics
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
FULLRE-
TURN
START CORING AT 5.80m
SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0-5°.
END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.80m
DW
XW
SW
FR
M
EL
M
M-H
H
M-H
- XWS, 0°, 10mm.t- XWS, 0°, 20mm.t- XWS, 5°, 100mm.t- J, 70°, P, S- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 25mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 15mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 30mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 70mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 65mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 90mm.t
-J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
- XWS, 0-5°, 15mm.t
- J, 60°, P, R
FRAGMENTED BAND, 200mm.t
- Cr, 0-5°, 10mm.t
- J, 80°, P, S- FRAGMENTED SEAM, 120mm.t
- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t- XWS, 0-5°, 10mm.t
- XWS, 0-5°, 90mm.t
- FRAGMENTED SEAM,150mm.t
- XWS, 0-5°, 5mm.t
- XWS, 0-5°, 50mm.t
- XWS, 0-5°, 30mm.t
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
CORED BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
22/2
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Core Size: NMLC R.L. Surface: » 14.5m
Date: 17-7-14 Inclination: VERTICAL Datum: AHD
Drill Type: JK250 Bearing: - Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Wa
ter
Lo
ss/L
eve
l
Ba
rre
l L
ift
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Rock Type, grain character-istics, colour, structure,
minor components.
CORE DESCRIPTIONW
ea
the
rin
g
Str
en
gth
POINTLOAD
STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)
EL VL
L M
H VH EH
DEFECT DETAILS
DEFECTSPACING
(mm)
500
300
100
50
30
10
DESCRIPTIONType, inclination, thickness,
planarity, roughness, coating.
Specific General
CO
PY
RIG
HT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRY ONCOMPL-ETION
OFAUGER
-ING
ONCOMPL-ETIONOF COR
-ING
N = 187,9,9
CL
CL-CH
-
SILTY CLAY: low to medium plasticity,brown, trace of fine grained ironstonegravel and root fibres.
SILTY CLAY: medium to highplasticity, grey and orange brown,trace of fine to coarse grainedironstone gravel.
SHALE: grey and light grey, with Mstrength iron indurated bands and XWbands.
as above,but without M strength bands.
as above,but dark grey and orange brown.
REFER TO CORED BOREHOLELOG
MC<PL
DW
H
VL
L
VL-L
L
>600>600>600
GRASS COVERRESIDUAL
VERY LOW 'TC' BITRESISTANCE WITHMODERATE BANDS
LOW RESISTANCE
LOW RESISTANCE
50mm DIA. PVCSTANDPIPEINSTALLED TO10.95m DEPTH.SLOTTED FROM4.5m TO 10.95mDEPTH. UNSLOTTEDFROM 0.0m TO 4.5mDEPTH. BACKFILLEDWITH 2mm SANDBETWEEN 4.5m AND10.95m DEPTH.
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
31/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250
R.L. Surface: » 14.9m
Date: 16-7-14 Datum: AHD
Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Re
co
rd
ES
SA
MP
LE
SU
50
DB
DS
Fie
ld T
ests
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Un
ifie
d
Cla
ssific
atio
n
DESCRIPTION
Mo
istu
re
Co
nd
itio
n/
We
ath
erin
g
Str
en
gth
/
Re
l. D
en
sity
Ha
nd
Pe
ne
tro
me
ter
Re
ad
ing
s (
kP
a.)
Remarks
CO
PY
RIG
HT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
BENTONITE SEALBETWEEN 4.0m AND4.5m DEPTH.BACKFILL TO 0.2mDEPTH. CONCRETEAND CAST IRONGATIC COVER TOSURFACE
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
32/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK250
R.L. Surface: » 14.9m
Date: 16-7-14 Datum: AHD
Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Re
co
rd
ES
SA
MP
LE
SU
50
DB
DS
Fie
ld T
ests
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Un
ifie
d
Cla
ssific
atio
n
DESCRIPTION
Mo
istu
re
Co
nd
itio
n/
We
ath
erin
g
Str
en
gth
/
Re
l. D
en
sity
Ha
nd
Pe
ne
tro
me
ter
Re
ad
ing
s (
kP
a.)
Remarks
CO
PY
RIG
HT
Ref: 27577ZH Borehole 3
JK Geotechnics
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
FULLRE
-TURN
START CORING AT 5.35m
SHALE: dark grey and brown, withL-M strength seams.
SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae, bedded at 0.5°.
END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.07m
XW-DW
SW-FR
FR
EL-VL
M-H
H
- Cr, 0°, 70mm.t
- Cr, 0°, 50mm.t
- J, P, S, SUB VERTICAL
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
CORED BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.
33/3
Client: YUWANA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND AUSTINDO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Project: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: 15 CRANE STREET, HOMEBUSH, NSW
Job No. 27577ZH Core Size: NMLC R.L. Surface: » 14.9m
Date: 16-7-14 Inclination: VERTICAL Datum: AHD
Drill Type: JK250 Bearing: - Logged/Checked by: D.A.F./A.J.H.
Wa
ter
Lo
ss/L
eve
l
Ba
rre
l L
ift
De
pth
(m
)
Gra
ph
ic L
og
Rock Type, grain character-istics, colour, structure,
minor components.
CORE DESCRIPTIONW
ea
the
rin
g
Str
en
gth
POINTLOAD
STRENGTHINDEXIs(50)
EL VL
L M
H VH EH
DEFECT DETAILS
DEFECTSPACING
(mm)
500
300
100
50
30
10
DESCRIPTIONType, inclination, thickness,
planarity, roughness, coating.
Specific General
CO
PY
RIG
HT
C
OP
YRIG
HT
BH3
BH2
BH1
APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT
CR
AN
E
STR
EE
T
Notes1. To be read in conjuction with the text of the report.2. Refer to Figure 5 for details of Section A - A.
A A
115 Wicks Road PO Box 978 T: 61 2 9888 5000 E: [email protected] Macquarie Park NSW 2113 North Ryde BC NSW 1670 F: 61 2 9888 5001 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au
VIBRATION EMISSION DESIGN GOALS
German Standard DIN 4150 – Part 3: 1999 provides guideline levels of vibration velocity for evaluating the effects of vibration in structures. The limits presented in this standard are generally recognised to be conservative.
The DIN 4150 values (maximum levels measured in any direction at the foundation, OR, maximum levels measured in (x) or (y) horizontal directions, in the plane of the uppermost floor), are summarised in Table 1 below.
It should be noted that peak vibration velocities higher than the minimum figures in Table 1 for low frequencies may be quite ‘safe’, depending on the frequency content of the vibration and the actual condition of the structures.
It should also be noted that these levels are ‘safe limits’, up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been observed for the particular class of building. ‘Damage’ is defined by DIN 4150 to include even minor non-structural effects such as superficial cracking in cement render, the enlargement of cracks already present, and the separation of partitions or intermediate walls from load bearing walls. Should damage be observed at vibration levels lower than the ‘safe limits’, then it may be attributed to other causes. DIN 4150 also states that when vibration levels higher than the ‘safe limits’ are present, it does not necessarily follow that damage will occur. Values given are only a broad guide. Table 1: DIN 4150 – Structural Damage – Safe Limits for Building Vibration
Group Type of Structure
Peak Vibration Velocity in mm/s
At Foundation Level at a Frequency of:
Plane of Floor of Uppermost
Storey
Less than 10Hz
10Hz to 50Hz
50Hz to 100Hz
All Frequencies
1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design.
20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40
2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or use.
5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15
3 Structures that because of their particular sensitivity to vibration, do not correspond to those listed in Group 1 and 2 and have intrinsic value (eg. buildings that are under a preservation order).
3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8
NOTE: For frequencies above 100Hz, the higher values in the 50Hz to 100Hz column should be used.
•
JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801
JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 1 of 4
REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES
INTRODUCTION
These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnicalreport in regard to classification methods, field proceduresand certain matters relating to the Comments andRecommendations section. Not all notes are necessarilyrelevant to all reports.
The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety ofcharacteristics and properties which vary from place to placeand can change with time. Geotechnical engineeringinvolves gathering and assimilating limited facts about thesecharacteristics and properties in order to understand orpredict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site undercertain conditions. This report may contain such factsobtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling,testing or other means of investigation. If so, they aredirectly relevant only to the ground at the place where andtime when the investigation was carried out.
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS
The methods of description and classification of soils androcks used in this report are based on Australian Standard1726, the SAA Site Investigation Code. In general,descriptions cover the following properties – soil or rock type,colour, structure, strength or density, and inclusions.Identification and classification of soil and rock involvesjudgement and the Company infers accuracy only to theextent that is common in current geotechnical practice.
Soil types are described according to the predominatingparticle size and behaviour as set out in the attached UnifiedSoil Classification Table qualified by the grading of otherparticles present (e.g. sandy clay) as set out below:
Soil Classification Particle Size
Clay
Silt
Sand
Gravel
less than 0.002mm
0.002 to 0.075mm
0.075 to 2mm
2 to 60mm
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relativedensity, generally from the results of Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) as below:
Relative DensitySPT ‘N’ Value(blows/300mm)
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very Dense
less than 4
4 – 10
10 – 30
30 – 50
greater than 50
Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer, laboratorytesting or engineering examination. The strength terms aredefined as follows.
ClassificationUnconfined CompressiveStrength kPa
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Friable
less than 25
25 – 50
50 – 100
100 – 200
200 – 400
Greater than 400
Strength not attainable
– soil crumbles
Rock types are classified by their geological names,together with descriptive terms regarding weathering,strength, defects, etc. Where relevant, further informationregarding rock classification is given in the text of the report.In the Sydney Basin, ‘Shale’ is used to describe thinlybedded to laminated siltstone.
SAMPLING
Sampling is carried out during drilling or from otherexcavations to allow engineering examination (andlaboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide informationon plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minorconstituents and, depending upon the degree of disturbance,some information on strength and structure. Bulk samplesare similar but of greater volume required for some testprocedures.
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walledsample tube, usually 50mm diameter (known as a U50), intothe soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soilcontained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samplesyield information on structure and strength, and arenecessary for laboratory determination of shear strengthand compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generallyeffective only in cohesive soils.
Details of the type and method of sampling used are givenon the attached logs.
INVESTIGATION METHODS
The following is a brief summary of investigation methodscurrently adopted by the Company and some comments ontheir use and application. All except test pits, hand augerdrilling and portable dynamic cone penetrometers requirethe use of a mechanical drilling rig which is commonlymounted on a truck chassis.
JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 2 of 4
Test Pits: These are normally excavated with a backhoe or
a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitusoils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth ofpenetration is limited to about 3m for a backhoe and up to6m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are the problemsassociated with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatementand the consequent effects on close-by structures. Caremust be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pitlocations to either properly recompact the backfill duringconstruction or to design and construct the structure so asnot to be adversely affected by poorly compacted backfill atthe test pit location.
Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of 50mm to 100mm
diameter is advanced by manually operated equipment.Premature refusal of the hand augers can occur on a varietyof materials such as hard clay, gravel or ironstone, and doesnot necessarily indicate rock level.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers: The borehole is
advanced using 75mm to 115mm diameter continuousspiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allowsampling and insitu testing. This is a relatively economicalmeans of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table.Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may becollected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they canbe very disturbed and layers may become mixed.Information from the auger sampling (as distinct fromspecific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is ofrelatively lower reliability due to mixing or softening ofsamples by groundwater, or uncertainties as to the originaldepth of the samples. Augering below the groundwatertable is of even lesser reliability than augering above thewater table.
Rock Augering: Use can be made of a Tungsten Carbide
(TC) bit for auger drilling into rock to indicate rock qualityand continuity by variation in drilling resistance and fromexamination of recovered rock fragments. This method ofinvestigation is quick and relatively inexpensive but providesonly an indication of the likely rock strength and predictedvalues may be in error by a strength order. Where rockstrengths may have a significant impact on constructionfeasibility or costs, then further investigation by means ofcored boreholes may be warranted.
Wash Boring: The borehole is usually advanced by a
rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods andreturned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings.Only major changes in stratification can be determined fromthe cuttings, together with some information from “feel” andrate of penetration.
Mud Stabilised Drilling: Either Wash Boring or
Continuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as acirculating fluid to stabilise the borehole. The term ‘mud’encompasses a range of products ranging from bentonite topolymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to maskthe cuttings and reliable identification is only possible fromintermittent intact sampling (eg from SPT and U50 samples)or from rock coring, etc.
Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core sample is
obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Provided fullcore recovery is achieved (which is not always possible invery low strength rocks and granular soils), this techniqueprovides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method ofinvestigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel,which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually usedwith water flush. The length of core recovered is comparedto the length drilled and any length not recovered is shownas CORE LOSS. The location of losses are determined onsite by the supervising engineer; where the location isuncertain, the loss is placed at the top end of the drill run.
Standard Penetration Tests: Standard Penetration Tests
(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can alsobe used in cohesive soils as a means of indicating density orstrength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbedsample. The test procedure is described in AustralianStandard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for EngineeringPurposes” – Test F3.1.
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mmdiameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under theimpact of a 63kg hammer with a free fall of 760mm. It isnormal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150mmincrements and the ‘N’ value is taken as the number ofblows for the last 300mm. In dense sands, very hard claysor weak rock, the full 450mm penetration may not bepracticable and the test is discontinued.
The test results are reported in the following form:
In the case where full penetration is obtained withsuccessive blow counts for each 150mm of, say, 4, 6and 7 blows, as
N = 134, 6, 7
In a case where the test is discontinued short of fullpenetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and30 blows for the next 40mm, as
N>3015, 30/40mm
The results of the test can be related empirically to theengineering properties of the soil.
Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mmdiameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In suchcircumstances, the test results are shown on the boreholelogs in brackets.
A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving
system is used with a solid 60 tipped steel cone of thesame diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid conecan be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays orloose sands, or may be used where damage wouldotherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid ConePenetration Test (SCPT) are shown as "N c” on the boreholelogs, together with the number of blows per 150mmpenetration.
JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 3 of 4
Static Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation:
Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as aDutch Cone) described in this report has been carried outusing an Electronic Friction Cone Penetrometer (EFCP).The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test F5.1.
In the tests, a 35mm diameter rod with a conical tip ispushed continuously into the soil, the reaction beingprovided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fittedwith an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made ofthe end bearing resistance on the cone and the frictionalresistance on a separate 134mm long sleeve, immediatelybehind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly areelectrically connected by wires passing through the centre ofthe push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted onthe control truck.
As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm persecond) the information is output as incremental digitalrecords every 10mm. The results given in this report havebeen plotted from the digital data.
The information provided on the charts comprise:
Cone resistance – the actual end bearing force dividedby the cross sectional area of the cone – expressed inMPa.
Sleeve friction – the frictional force on the sleeve dividedby the surface area – expressed in kPa.
Friction ratio – the ratio of sleeve friction to coneresistance, expressed as a percentage.
The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistancewill vary with the type of soil encountered, with higherrelative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands andoccasionally very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiffclays and peats. Soil descriptions based on coneresistance and friction ratios are only inferred and mustnot be considered as exact.
Correlations between EFCP and SPT values can bedeveloped for both sands and clays but may be site specific.
Interpretation of EFCP values can be made to empiricallyderive modulus or compressibility values to allow calculationof foundation settlements.
Stratification can be inferred from the cone and frictiontraces and from experience and information from nearbyboreholes etc. Where shown, this information is presentedfor general guidance, but must be regarded as interpretive.The test method provides a continuous profile ofengineering properties but, where precise information on soilclassification is required, direct drilling and sampling may bepreferable.
Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers: Portable
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out bydriving a rod into the ground with a sliding hammer andcounting the blows for successive 100mm increments ofpenetration.
Two relatively similar tests are used:
Cone penetrometer (commonly known as the ScalaPenetrometer) – a 16mm rod with a 20mm diametercone end is driven with a 9kg hammer dropping 510mm(AS1289, Test F3.2). The test was developed initiallyfor pavement subgrade investigations, and correlationsof the test results with California Bearing Ratio havebeen published by various Road Authorities.
Perth sand penetrometer – a 16mm diameter flat endedrod is driven with a 9kg hammer, dropping 600mm(AS1289, Test F3.3). This test was developed fortesting the density of sands (originating in Perth) and ismainly used in granular soils and filling.
LOGS
The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are anengineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions, and their reliability will depend to someextent on the frequency of sampling and the method ofdrilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbedsampling or core drilling will enable the most reliableassessment, but is not always practicable or possible tojustify on economic grounds. In any case, the boreholes ortest pits represent only a very small sample of the totalsubsurface conditions.
The attached explanatory notes define the terms andsymbols used in preparation of the logs.
Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and itsapplication to design and construction, should therefore takeinto account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, themethod of drilling or excavation, the frequency of samplingand testing and the possibility of other than “straight line”variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurfaceconditions between boreholes or test pits may varysignificantly from conditions encountered at the borehole ortest pit locations.
GROUNDWATER
Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes, thereare several potential problems:
Although groundwater may be present, in lowpermeability soils it may enter the hole slowly or perhapsnot at all during the time it is left open.
A localised perched water table may lead to anerroneous indication of the true water table.
Water table levels will vary from time to time withseasons or recent weather changes and may not be thesame at the time of construction.
The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask anygroundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of thehole and drilling mud must be washed out of the hole or‘reverted’ chemically if water observations are to bemade.
JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 4 of 4
More reliable measurements can be made by installingstandpipes which are read after stabilising at intervalsranging from several days to perhaps weeks for lowpermeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particularstratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or wherethere may be interference from perched water tables orsurface water.
FILL
The presence of fill materials can often be determined onlyby the inclusion of foreign objects (eg bricks, steel etc) or bydistinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification ofthe extent of fill materials will also depend on investigationmethods and frequency. Where natural soils similar tothose at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult withlimited testing and sampling to reliably determine the extentof the fill.
The presence of fill materials is usually regarded withcaution as the possible variation in density, strength andmaterial type is much greater than with natural soil deposits.Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverseengineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume andquality of fill is of importance to a project, then frequent testpit excavations are preferable to boreholes.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance withAustralian Standard 1289 ‘Methods of Testing Soil forEngineering Purposes’. Details of the test procedure usedare given on the individual report forms.
ENGINEERING REPORTS
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel andare based on the information obtained and on currentengineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Wherethe report has been prepared for a specific design proposal(eg. a three storey building) the information andinterpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal ischanged (eg to a twenty storey building). If this happens,the company will be pleased to review the report and thesufficiency of the investigation work.
Every care is taken with the report as it relates tointerpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion ofgeotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestionsfor design and construction. However, the Company cannotalways anticipate or assume responsibility for:
Unexpected variations in ground conditions – thepotential for this will be partially dependent on boreholespacing and sampling frequency as well as investigationtechnique.
Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutoryauthorities.
The actions of persons or contractors responding tocommercial pressures.
If these occur, the company will be pleased to assist withinvestigation or advice to resolve any problems occurring.
SITE ANOMALIES
In the event that conditions encountered on site duringconstruction appear to vary from those which were expectedfrom the information contained in the report, the companyrequests that it immediately be notified. Most problems aremuch more readily resolved when conditions are exposedthat at some later stage, well after the event.
REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FORCONTRACTUAL PURPOSES
Attention is drawn to the document ‘Guidelines for theProvision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents’ ,
published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Whereinformation obtained from this investigation is provided fortendering purposes, it is recommended that all information,including the written report and discussion, be madeavailable. In circumstances where the discussion orcomments section is not relevant to the contractual situation,it may be appropriate to prepare a specially editeddocument. The company would be pleased to assist in thisregard and/or to make additional report copies available forcontract purposes at a nominal charge.
Copyright in all documents (such as drawings, borehole ortest pit logs, reports and specifications) provided by theCompany shall remain the property of Jeffery andKatauskas Pty Ltd. Subject to the payment of all fees due,the Client alone shall have a licence to use the documentsprovided for the sole purpose of completing the project towhich they relate. License to use the documents may berevoked without notice if the Client is in breach of anyobjection to make a payment to us.
REVIEW OF DESIGN
Where major civil or structural developments are proposedor where only a limited investigation has been completed orwhere the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quitecomplex, it is prudent to have a joint design review whichinvolves a senior geotechnical engineer.
SITE INSPECTION
The company will always be pleased to provide engineeringinspection services for geotechnical aspects of work towhich this report is related.
Requirements could range from:
i) a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are noworse than those interpreted, to
ii) a visit to assist the contractor or other site personnel inidentifying various soil/rock types such as appropriatefooting or pier founding depths, or
iii) full time engineering presence on site.
JKG Graph
GEOTEC
hic Log Symbols fo
HNICAL & ENVI
or Soils and Rock
GRAPHI
RONMENTAL E
s Rev1 July12
IC LOG SY
NGINEERS
MBOLS FOOR SOILS AAND ROCKSKS
Pag
ge 1 of 1
JK GEOTECHN
Note:
GeotecNICAL & ENVIRONMEN
1 Soils possessing2 Soils with liquid
chnics NTAL ENGINEERS
g characteristics of twolimits of the order of 3
UNIF
o groups are designat35 to 50 may be visual
FIED SOIL
ted by combinations olly classified as being
CLASSIFIC
of group symbols (eg. Gof medium plasticity.
CATION TA
GW-GC, well graded g
ABLE
gravel-sand mixture wwith clay fines).
JKG Log S
LOG
Groundw
Samples
Field Te
Moisture(Cohesiv (Cohesio
Strength(ConsistCohesiv
Density Relative(Cohesio
Hand PeReading
Remarks
GEOTEC
ymbols Rev1 Jun
G COLUMN
water Record
s
ests
e Condition ve Soils)
onless Soils)
h tency)
ve Soils
Index/ e Density onless Soils)
enetrometer gs
s
CHNICAL & ENV
e12
SYMBOL
ES U50 DB DS
ASB ASS SAL
N = 17 4, 7, 10
Nc = 5
7
3R
VNS = 25
PID = 100
MC>PL MC≈PL MC<PL
D M W
VS S F St
VSt H
( )
VL L
MD D
VD ( )
300 250
‘V’ bit
‘TC’ bit
60
VIRONMENTAL
C
4
Standing wa
Extent of bo
Groundwate
Soil sample Undisturbed Bulk disturbeSmall disturbSoil sample Soil sample Soil sample
Standard Peshow blows
Solid Cone Pfigures show ‘R’ refers to
R
Vane shear
Photoionisat
Moisture conMoisture conMoisture conDRY –MOIST –WET –
VERY SOFTSOFTFIRMSTIFFVERY STIFFHARDBracketed sy
Density IndVery LooseLooseMedium DenDenseVery DenseBracketed sy
Numbers indnoted otherwise.
Hardened st
Tungsten caPenetration rotation of au
ENGINEERS
LOG SYM
ater level. Time d
rehole collapse s
er seepage into b
taken over depth 50mm diametered sample takenbed bag sample taken over depthtaken over depthtaken over depth
enetration Test (Sper 150mm pen
Penetration Testw blows per 150mo apparent hamm
reading in kPa o
tion detector rea
ntent estimated tntent estimated tntent estimated t
– Runs freely t– Does not run– Free water vi
T – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin – Unconfin
F – Unconfin -– Unconfin
ymbol indicates
ex (ID) Range (%<1515-35
nse 35-6565-85>85
ymbol indicates
dicate individual
teel ‘V’ shaped b
arbide wing bit. of auger string inugers.
MBOLS
D
delay following c
shortly after drilli
borehole or exca
h indicated, for er tube sample ta
n over depth indictaken over dept
h indicated, for ah indicated, for ah indicated, for s
SPT) performed etration. ‘R’ as n
t (SCPT) performmm penetration fmer refusal within
of Undrained She
ding in ppm (So
to be greater thato be approximatto be less than phrough fingers. freely but no freisible on soil surf
ned compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressivened compressiveestimated consis
%)
estimated densit
test results in kP
bit.
n mm under stat
EFINITION
completion of dril
ng.
vation noted dur
environmental anken over depth incated. h indicated.
asbestos screeniacid sulfate soil asalinity analysis.
between depthsnoted below.
med between depfor 60 degree son the correspond
ear Strength.
il sample headsp
n plastic limit. tely equal to plas
plastic limit.
ee water visible oface.
e strength less the strength 25-50e strength 50-10e strength 100-2e strength 200-4e strength greatestency based on
SPT ‘N
ty based on ease
Pa on representa
ic load of rig app
lling may be sho
ring drilling or ex
nalysis. ndicated.
ing. analysis.
s indicated by lin
pths indicated byolid cone driven bing 150mm dept
pace test).
stic limit.
on soil surface.
han 25kPa 0kPa 00kPa 200kPa 400kPa er than 400kPa n tactile examina
N’ Value Range ( 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50
e of drilling or ot
ative undisturbed
plied by drill head
Pag
own.
xcavation.
es. Individual fig
y lines. Individuaby SPT hammer.th increment.
tion or other test
(Blows/300mm)
0 0
her tests.
d material unless
d hydraulics with
ge 1 of 2
gures
al .
ts.
)
s
hout
JKG Log Symbols Rev
ROCK M
Residual
Extremel
Distinctly
Slightly w
Fresh roc
ROCK SRock strenbedding. Abstract V
TE
Extremel
------------
Very Low
------------
Low:
------------
Medium
------------
High:
------------
Very Hig
------------
Extremel
ABBRE
ABBR
v1 June12
MATERIAL W
TERM
l Soil
ly weathered roc
y weathered rock
weathered rock
ck
STRENGTH ngth is defined bThe test proc
Volume 22, No 2,
ERM SY
ly Low:
------------
w:
------------
------------
Strength:
------------
------------
h:
------------
ly High:
----
----
----
----
-----
-----
EVIATIONS U
REVIATION
Be CS J P
Un S R IS
XWS Cr 60t
WEATHERIN
SYMBO
RS
ck XW
k DW
SW
FR
by the Point Loacedure is desc 1985.
YMBOL Is (5
EL
-----------
VL
-----------
L
-----------
M
-----------
H
-----------
VH
-----------
EH
USED IN DE
DES
Bedding Plane Clay Seam Joint Planar Undulating Smooth Rough Ironstained Extremely WeaCrushed Seam Thickness of de
LO
NG CLASSIF
OL
Soil develoevident; th
Rock is weremoulded
Rock strenironstainingweathering
Rock is slig
Rock show
d Strength Indexribed by the
50) MPa
0.03
0.1
0.3
1
3
10
Eas May A pieknife
A piewith A piescra
A pieone
A pieRing
EFECT DESC
SCRIPTION
Parting
thered Seam
efect in millimetre
OG SYMBOL
FICATION
oped on extremelyhere is a large cha
eathered to such , in water.
ngth usually chang. Porosity mayg products in pore
ghtly discoloured
ws no sign of deco
x (Is 50) and refInternational Jo
ily remoulded by
y be crumbled in t
ece of core 150me. Sharp edges o
ece of core 150m knife.
ece of core 150matched or scored w
ece of core 150mblow. Cannot be
ece of core 150mgs when struck wi
CRIPTION
es
Defec(ie re
LS continue
D
y weathered rockange in volume bu
an extent that it
nged by weathery be increased bes.
but shows little or
omposition or stain
fers to the strengournal of Rock
hand to a materia
he hand. Sandst
mm long x 50mm dof core may be fria
mm long x 50mm d
mm long x 50mm dwith knife; rock ri
mm long x 50mm de scratched with p
mm long x 50mm dith a hammer.
ct orientations melative to horizont
d
DEFINITION
k; the mass strucut the soil has not
has “soil” proper
ring. The rock y leaching, or m
r no change of str
ning.
gth of the rock sk Mechanics, M
FIELD GUIDE
al with soil propert
one is “sugary” an
dia. may be brokeable and break du
dia. can be broken
dia. core cannot bngs under hamme
dia. may be brokeen knife; rock rin
dia. is very difficul
NOT
measured relativetal for vertical ho
cture and substant been significantl
rties, ie it either d
may be highly dmay be decreased
rength from fresh
substance in theMining, Science
E
ties.
nd friable.
en by hand and eauring handling.
n by hand with dif
be broken by hander.
en with hand-held ngs under hamme
lt to break with ha
TES
e to the normal oles)
Page
nce fabric are no y transported.
disintegrates or c
discoloured, usuad due to deposit
rock.
direction normae and Geomec
asily scored with a
fficulty. Readily s
d, can be slightly
pick after more ther.
and-held hammer.
to the long core
2 of 2
longer
can be
ally by tion of
al to the chanics.
a
cored
han
.
e axis
APPENDIX A
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 113601
Client:
Environmental Investigation Services
PO Box 976
North Ryde BC
NSW 1670
Attention: D Fisher
Sample log in details:
Your Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
No. of samples: 3 Soils
Date samples received / completed instructions received 24/07/2014 / 24/07/2014
Analysis Details:
Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.
Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.
Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.
Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.
Report Details:
Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 31/07/14 / 31/07/14
Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued
NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.
Results Approved By:
Page 1 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
Miscellaneous Inorg - soil
Our Reference: UNITS 113601-1 113601-2 113601-3
Your Reference ------------- BH3 BH1 BH2
Depth ------------ 0.6-0.95 0.5-0.95 0.1-0.2
Date Sampled
Type of sample
17/07/2014
Soil
18/07/2014
Soil
18/07/2014
Soil
Date prepared - 30/07/2014 30/07/2014 30/07/2014
Date analysed - 30/07/2014 30/07/2014 30/07/2014
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.5 4.5 5.7
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 42 <10 41
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 230 91 49
Page 2 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
Method ID Methodology Summary
Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA 22nd ED, 4500-H+. Please note that
the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.
Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA 22nd ED, 4110
-B.
Page 3 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %
Recovery
Miscellaneous Inorg - soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date prepared - 30/07/2
014
113601-1 30/07/2014 || 30/07/2014 LCS-1 30/07/2014
Date analysed - 30/07/2
014
113601-1 30/07/2014 || 30/07/2014 LCS-1 30/07/2014
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 113601-1 4.5 || 4.4 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 101%
Chloride, Cl 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 113601-1 42 || 41 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 99%
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 113601-1 230 || 210 || RPD: 9 LCS-1 106%
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Miscellaneous Inorg - soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - [NT] [NT] 113601-2 30/07/2014
Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 113601-2 30/07/2014
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] 113601-2 87%
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] 113601-2 #
Page 4 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
Report Comments:
Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job
Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job
INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested
NA: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required
<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample
Page 5 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 27577ZH, Homebush
Quality Control Definitions
Blank: 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 for samples.
Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample
selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.
Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix
spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.
LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank
sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.
Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds
which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.
Laboratory Acceptance Criteria
Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency
to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix
spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is
generally extracted during sample extraction.
Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.
For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.
Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.
Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%
for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and speciated phenols is acceptable.
In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or
1 in 20 samples respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy
laboratory QA/QC protocols.
When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical
holding times (THTs), the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge
of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT
or as soon as practicable.
Page 6 of 6Envirolab Reference: 113601
Revision No: R 00