GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd ABN 62 084 294 762 · GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd ABN 62 084 294 762 Unit 5, 39-41 Fourth Avenue, Blacktown, NSW 2148, Australia Tel : (02) 9679 8733

GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd ABN 62 084 294 762 Unit 5, 39-41 Fourth Avenue, Blacktown, NSW 2148, Australia Tel : (02) 9679 8733

PO Box 1543, Macquarie Centre. North Ryde, NSW 2113 Fax : (02) 9679 8744

Report

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Townhouse Development

No 119 Cudgegong Road

Rouse Hill NSW 2141

Prepared for

Poly Australia

Suite 4001, Level 40 Australia Square

264 George Street

SYDNEY NSW 2000 Ref: JC17292B-r1 July 2018

GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd ABN 62 084 294 762 Unit 5/39-41 Fourth Avenue, Blacktown, NSW 2148, Australia Tel : (02) 9679 8733

PO Box 1543, Macquarie Centre. North Ryde, NSW 2113 Fax : (02) 9679 8744

3rd July 2018

Our Ref: JC17292B-r1

Poly Australia

Suite 4001, Level 40 Australia Square

264 George Street

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Attention: Mr Mitchell Say

Dear Sir

Re: Geotechnical Report

Proposed Townhouse Development

No 119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill

We are pleased to submit our geotechnical report for the proposed townhouse development to

be constructed at the above address.

This report contains information on sub-surface conditions and our comments and

recommendations on geotechnical issues for the proposed development.

Should you have any queries, please contact the undersigned.

Yours faithfully

GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd

Solern Liew CPEng (NPER)

Director

D:\17JOB\292\JC17292A-r1.DOC

Poly Australia i JC17292B-r1

No 119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill July 2018

GeoEnviro Consultancy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. THE SITE ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2

4. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 3

4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 3 4.2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................. 5

5. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 6

5.1 BULK EXCAVATION AND BUILDING PLATFORM PREPARATION ................................................ 6 5.2 BASEMENT SHORING AND SUPPORTS ....................................................................................... 8 5.3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 11 5.4 BASEMENT DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................... 12

6. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 13

LIST OF DRAWINGS

Drawing No 1 Borehole Location Plan

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Borehole and Cored Borehole Reports

Appendix B Laboratory Test Reports

Appendix C Explanatory Notes and Graphic Symbols

Poly Australia 1 JC17292B-r1



1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed townhouse

development to be constructed at No 119 Cudgegong Road in Rouse Hill as shown in the

attached Drawing No 1. The investigation was commissioned by Mr Mitchell Say of Poly

Australia following our fee proposal referenced JC17292A-L1 dated 12th April 2018.

We understand that the proposed development will include the construction of 88 three-

storey townhouses with a single-level basement over the majority of the site deepening to a

three-level basement at the south-western corner of the site. Excavation for the basement

carpark is expected to be between 3m to 5m deep to Reduced Level (RL) 67m Australian

Height Datum (AHD) for Basement 1 and RL 61m AHD for Basement 3.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the nature of the subsurface soil, rock and

groundwater conditions of the site and based upon the information obtained, to present the

following;

• Assessment of subsurface conditions including groundwater conditions.

• Classification of bedrock in accordance to Pells et al Classification system

(Reference 3).

• Comments and recommendation on basement excavation and vibration issues.

• Recommendations on temporary and permanent batters.

• Recommendations on shoring and retaining walls.

• Recommendations on footing design for the proposed buildings including allowable

bearing capacity and settlement estimates (ie total and differential).

• Assessment on site classification in accordance to AS2870 “Residential Slabs and

Footings” (Reference 10).

• Recommendations on pavement design parameters and pavement thickness.




2. THE SITE

The site is located at the north western corner of Cudgegong Road and Macquarie Road in

Rouse Hill and is referred to as No 119 Cudgegong Road. The proposed townhouse

development site occupies the western portion of the site to the west of the existing

transmission line easement as shown on the attached Drawing No 1.

The site is situated on gently undulating terrain with surrounding ground surface dropping in

a general south-western direction at angles ranging from 2 to 5 degrees. Based on the survey

drawings provided, ground surface within the proposed townhouse development area ranges

from at about Reduced Level (RL) 70m Australian Height Datum (AHD) to RL 62m AHD.

The 1:100,000 Geological Map of Penrith Series 9030 (Reference 1) indicates the underlying

bedrock to consist of Bringelly shale of the Wianamatta Group consisting of shale,

carbonaceous claystone, claystone, laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone, rare

coal and tuff.

3. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

The fieldwork for the investigation consisted of drilling nine boreholes (BH 1 to BH 9) at the

using a truck mounted B80 drill rig equipped for site investigation purpose. The boreholes

were initially drilled using spiral augers attached to a V-bit followed by a Tungsten Carbide

(TC) bit through the topsoil, natural clay and into bedrock to depths ranging from 1.6m to

3.24m below existing ground surface. Borehole No 1 and 3 were further advanced into the

bedrock using NMLC diamond bit coring technique to depths of about 7.83m and 7.0m

below existing ground surface respectively in order to obtain bedrock core samples.

The field investigation was supervised on a full-time basis by our geotechnical engineer. The

locations of the boreholes, which were established by offset measurement from site

boundaries, are indicated on Drawing No 1.




The strength of the subsurface clayey soil was assessed by Standard Penetration Tests (SPT).

The SPT tests involved driving a split tube steel spoon into the ground using a standard

weight (ie 63.5kg) hammer and measuring the penetration resistance in number of blow

counts per 150mm penetration. A hand penetrometer was also used to assess the strength of

the soil.

The cored bedrock samples were carefully boxed on site before returning to our laboratory

for testing to assess the strength of the bedrock. The strength of the bedrock from the

augered boreholes was subjectively assessed by examining the rock cuttings and observing

the penetration resistance of the TC bit during drilling.

The bedrock cored samples were Point Load tested in our laboratory to assess the strength of

the bedrock material. The point load test is an in-direct tensile strength test which provides

an approximate Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) value of the rock core sample

based on a semi-empirical formula. Prior to point load testing, the cored samples were

photographed for inclusion in this report.

The boreholes were observed for groundwater seepage, during and upon completion of spiral

augering. Groundwater monitoring was not possible during coring as water was used in the

process.

Details of the subsurface profiles and field testing results are summarised on the Borehole

and Cored Borehole Reports in Appendix A. The point load test results are summarised on

the Laboratory Test Report in Appendix B. Explanatory notes and graphic symbols used in

the Borehole Reports are attached in Appendix C.

4. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

Reference should be made to the Borehole and Cored Borehole Reports in Appendix A for

details of the subsurface profile encountered. The following is a summary of the subsurface

profile encountered in the boreholes;

Topsoil and Topsoil/Fill

Topsoil and topsoil/fill was encountered on the surface of all boreholes consisting of

Clayey Silt of low liquid limit. The thickness of the topsoil was found to range from

100mm to 300mm.




Natural Soil

Underlying the topsoil and topsoil/fill, natural soil generally consisting of high

plasticity Silty Clay was encountered. In general, the plasticity of the clay reduces to

medium at lower depths with some ironstaining and the inclusion of shale and

siltstone bands.

Based on the SPT and hand penetrometer test results, the consistency of the natural

clay was generally assessed to be hard with the moisture content generally found to

be less than the plastic limit.

Bedrock

Bedrock consisting of Shale and Siltstone was encountered at depths of about 0.9m

to 2m below existing ground surface in all boreholes except BH 1, where Shaley Clay

and extremely weathered shale (Soil-liked properties) were encountered at about

3.24m below existing ground surface. Bedrock consisting of Siltstone was

encountered in the cored samples of BH 1 at a depth of about 4.8m below existing

ground surface.

Judging from the disturbed shale samples obtained during augering, the shale and

siltstone were subjectively assessed to be low strength to medium strength and

extremely weathered to distinctly weathered.

The cored boreholes (ie. BH 1 and 3) indicate the bedrock to be generally assessed to

be high to very high strength with Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) values

ranging from 21MPa to 99MPa. Some low and medium strength bands were

encountered with UCS ranging from 2MPa to 19MPa.

The upper 300mm of cored bedrock in BH 3 was found to be relatively poor with

defect spacing ranging from 20mm to 100mm (ie. fragmented to fractured). The

remainder of the cored bedrock obtained from both BH 1 and 3 was generally found

to be fractured to slightly fractured (ie defect spacing 100mm to 300mm).

Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes during or upon completion

of the site investigation.




4.2 Laboratory Test Results

Bedrock Assessment

The point load tests generally confirm our field classification of the rock strength. The

bedrock quality may be classified to Class I (good quality) to V (poor quality) in accordance

with Pells et al – 1998 (Reference 3) based on the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS),

degree of fracturing and allowable defects. The following is a summary of the point load

results and our assessment of the bedrock quality.

BH Depth (m) Point Load Index

Is(50) (MPa)

Class

Start End Min. Max Based on

Strength only

Based on Strength

& Defects

1 3.24 5.20 0.11 0.11 III V

5.20 6.00 1.52 3.03 I IV – III

6.00 7.83 0.94 2.99 I II

2 1.50 2.00 - - - V*

3 2.10 2.49 - - - V*

2.49 2.80 - - - IV

2.80 5.60 0.97 4.97 I III

5.60 7.00 1.05 3.05 I II

4 1.60 1.90 - - - V*

5 1.00 2.80 - - - V*

6 0.90 1.80 - - - V*

7 0.90 1.70 - - - V*

8 1.00 2.10 - - - V*

9 1.00 1.60 - - - V*

Note: * Subjective rock class assessment based on auger resistance and visual inspection of disturbed samples

Note that the strength of the shale was generally found to be higher than the assigned

classification (ie based on Strength and Defects) and this was due to the presence of defects,

therefore the overall classification of the bedrock was downgraded (ie poorer quality). Refer

to Laboratory Test Reports in Appendix B for Point Load Test results and correlated UCS of

the bedrock at specific depths.




Atterberg Limits

Sample Liquid

Limit (%)

Plastic

Limit (%)

Plasticity

Index (%)

Linear

Shrinkage (%)

BH 2 (0.6-1.0m) 40 21 19 11.0

BH 5 (0.2-0.8m) 52 26 26 15.5

Based on the Atterberg Limit test results, the insitu natural clays are assessed to correlate to a

soil with a low to moderate reactivity to moisture variation.

5. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We understand that the proposed development will include the construction of 88 three-

storey townhouses with a single-level basement over the majority of the site deepening to a

three-level basement at the south-western corner of the site. Excavation for the basement

carpark is expected to be between 3m to 5m deep to Reduced Level (RL) 67m Australian

Height Datum (AHD) for Basement 1 and RL 61m AHD for Basement 3.

5.1 Bulk Excavation and Building Platform Preparation

The investigation revealed the site to be generally underlain by topsoil overlying natural

ground consisting of natural clayey soil overlying shale and siltstone bedrock at depths

varying from 0.9m to 4.8m below existing ground surface.

Based on the cored boreholes, the siltstone and shale bedrock was generally assessed to be

relatively high to very high strength (eg Class III to II) with estimated Unconfined

Compressive Strength (UCS) values typically ranging from 21 to 99 MPa.

Excavation into the upper clayey soil may be carried out using a conventional tracked

excavator. Excavation of the upper more fractured shale or siltstone may be carried out using

the same excavator but equipped with rock teeth bucket and an impact hammer.




Deeper excavation into the shale or siltstone will require a large dozer (eg D10 sized

bulldozer or equivalent), complimented with hydraulic rock breakers. As the rippability of

rock will be governed by the strength, number of defects and defects orientation of the shale

material, we recommend that trial runs at different directions be carried out to obtain

maximum production rates. We note that the shale and siltstone has relatively tight defects

and joints particularly at lower depths and hence potential difficulty in initiating the ripping

run. Therefore, ripping is likely to require the aid of hydraulic rock breakers.

Care should be taken to ensure excavation into shale does not result in excessive vibration

result in damage to nearby structures. We recommend that dilapidation reports be carried

out on buildings within close proximity to the proposed excavation prior to commencement

of excavation works.

To reduce risks associated with excessive vibration causing damage to adjacent buildings, the

following one or more measures may be adopted;

• We recommend that excavation works be carefully monitored and may involve using

geophones and electronic equipment at strategic locations. It is normally considered

that a limiting peak particle velocity of 10 mm/s be considered acceptable and this

should be confirmed by specialist consultants.

• Excavation works be carried out by an experienced operator who is aware of factors

affecting vibration and transmission of vibration such as orientation of hammer,

duration of hammering, size of excavation bite and speed of vibration of the hammer.

Though we do not expect the basement excavation to intercept the permanent ground water

table, some groundwater seepage may exist in rock seams and at the interface between clay

and rock particularly during and after prolonged wet periods, therefore some provision for

dewatering by sump and pump should be allowed for during basement excavation to keep the

area dry.




Our general comments on reusability of onsite excavated material are as follows;

• The topsoil encountered on the surface in the boreholes are not considered

suitable to support permanent structures such as pavements, slabs and buildings.

The topsoil may be reused in future landscaping areas (eg deep planting zone,

earth mounds and footpaths).

• Fill containing foreign inclusion (eg rubbish and building waste) or chemical

contaminants if encountered are not considered suitable for reuse without

treatment or remedial works. Our borehole investigation revealed the site to be

generally underlain by natural ground

• The underlying natural clayey soil and shale are generally considered suitable for

reuse as structural fill provided the fill is well graded with maximum particle size

of not greater than 75mm. We note that ripping of high strength shale will result

in large oversize cobbles and boulders and to ensure suitability of this material

for reuse as structural fill, some crushing using a mechanical crusher will be

required.

5.2 Basement Shoring and Supports

Excavation for the proposed basement will not require shoring if;

• The excavation is situated at least 1.5 times the depth of excavation away from

building structures or services present at time of construction.

• The excavation is battered to not steeper than the following:

Material Temporary Batter Permanent Batter

Natural Clay 1V : 1.5H 1V : 2H

Shale/Siltstone (Class V) 1V : 1H 1V : 1.5H

Shale/Siltstone (Class IV) 1V : 0.5H 1V : 1H

Shale/Siltstone (Class III or better) 1V : 0.25H 1V : 0.5H

NOTE: The above batters in particular Class III and above should be inspected by geotechnical

engineer for unfavourable defects/subsurface moisture and may need to be reduced or shotcreted if

unfavourable conditions are encountered

If shoring is required, a soldier pile wall system may be adopted and this system will involve

drilling of bored or CFA piles at regular spaced intervals to form a line of soldier piles and

shotcreting of the area between the soldier piles after each excavation stage.




For basement excavation situated within the zone of influence of buildings or structures, a

rigid wall system such as a contiguous pile wall arrangement should be adopted in order to

prevent potential undermining of existing footings causing damage. Construction of the

contiguous pile wall would involve drilling a continuous line of bored or continuous flight

auger (CFA) piles along the length of the excavation to form a concrete wall.

Soldier piles and contiguous piles should be taken down to the full height of the excavation

and should be socketed a minimum of 0.5m below proposed excavation level (including

footing excavations) to provide toe restraint. For soldier pile system, shotcrete infill should

be reinforced and designed to span laterally between the soldiers. It should cover the full

height of the exposed excavation face to minimise the risk of potential problems associated

with degradation and weathering of the face.

Shoring wall may be temporarily restrained by anchors or internal bracing for the short term

before building floor slabs are constructed to provide permanent restraints.

If anchors are required and the anchors extend beyond the property boundaries, permission

should be obtained from the adjoining property owners and various authorities. Rock anchors

should be inclined through the soil profile and into sandstone.

Preliminary design of any anchors should be based on the following criteria;

• Anchors should be taken into minimum Class IV shale. A maximum allowable

bond stress between anchor grout zone and Class IV shale of 100kPa may be

adopted,

• The bond length of the anchor should be in the range of 3m to 10m.

• All temporary anchors should be proof stressed to at least 1.5 times the design

working load before releasing and locking off at the required working load.

Sufficient anchor strand should be left protruding from the grips to allow lift off

testing of the anchors during the operational life to enable periodic checks to be

made on the support system.

• Anchors should be de-stressed once permanent lateral support is provided for the

retaining wall.




For retaining wall which will be propped by floor slabs or fixed at the top, thus limiting

deflection, an “at-rest” lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) should be adopted. For other

retaining walls designed as “cantilevered” or gravity walls, an “active” lateral earth pressure

coefficient (Ka) may be adopted. We recommend the following design parameters be adopted

in preliminary design;

Material Ka Ko Bulk Density (kN/m3)

Very Stiff Natural Clay 0.30 0.50 21.0

Shale/Siltstone 0.15 0.25 22.0

Permanent subsurface drains should be provided at the back of the retaining wall, or half

hydrostatic ground water pressures should be taken into account in the design. Surcharge due

to adjacent structures, construction loads and sloping backfill should be taken into account in

the design.

For piers socketed into shale bedrock at below proposed basement excavation level to

achieve lateral passive pressure for cantilever walls, an allowable passive pressure of 300kPa

may be adopted.




5.3 Foundations

Excavation of the basement up to a depth of between 3m to 5m below existing ground surface

is expected to encounter shale or siltstone bedrock. We therefore recommend the proposed

building be supported on footings founded on shale or siltstone bedrock.

Based on the cored borehole results, we recommend that the footings be designed based on

the following allowable capacities,

BH Depth (m) Class Allowable

Bearing

Capacity (kPa)

Allowable Shaft

Adhesion *(kPa) Start End

1 3.24 5.20 V 600 50

5.20 6.00 IV – III 1200 120

6.00 7.83 II 3500 350

2 1.50 2.00 V 600 50

3 2.10 2.49 V 600 50

2.49 2.80 IV 1000 100

2.80 5.60 III 2500 250

5.60 7.00 II 3500 350

4 1.60 1.90 V 600 50

5 1.00 2.80 V 600 50

6 0.90 1.80 V 600 50

7 0.90 1.70 V 600 50

8 1.00 2.10 V 600 50

9 1.00 1.60 V 600 50

Note: * Shaft adhesion not applicable for pad or spread footings




For piles designed using Ultimate values based on “Limit State Design”, the Ultimate End

Bearing of 2.5 times the above Allowable values may be adopted. The ultimate bearing

pressures should be used in conjunction with the appropriate “Geotechnical Strength

Reduction Factor” (Øg) and this factor will depend on the amount and quality of geotechnical

data, construction supervision/control and pile proof load testing.

A “Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor” of 0.5 may be adopted for both end bearing and

shaft adhesion. A lower reduction factor may be adopted subject to additional investigations

to more accurately assess the bedrock conditions.

Footings proportioned to the above allowable loads may expect settlement to be within

acceptable limits of 1% or less of the width/diameter of footings. All footings should be

founded on similar geological stratum to ensure even bearing, otherwise adequate articulation

should be provided to accommodate some differential settlements.

For other light weight structures and ancillary buildings, shallow footings founded on natural

very stiff clay with an allowable bearing capacity of 100kPa may be adopted for the footing

design. The shallow footings should accommodate shrink-swell movements proportioned to

a Class ‘M’ site.

5.4 Basement Drainage

Although permanent groundwater was not encountered during the site investigation, some

groundwater seepage into the excavation is likely to occur during and after construction

particularly after prolonged wet weather.

Perimeter drains should be constructed to collect seepage from the cut faces. Provision of a

sub floor drainage layer and a permanent sump and pump within the basement floor will also

be required.

Slab on ground construction is considered feasible provided the slab has regularly spaced

dowelled or keyed movement joints and is underlain by a compacted granular sub-base layer.

This sub-base layer could also act as the floor drainage layer provided the material consists of

low percentage fines, hence relatively permeable




6. LIMITATIONS

The interpretation and recommendations submitted in this report are based on data obtained

from a limited number of boreholes drilled on the site. The nature and extent of variations

between test locations may not become evident until construction. Additional investigation

may be carried out to assess more accurately the subsurface conditions after the site has been

cleared of buildings.

Groundwater conditions are only briefly examined in this investigation. As the site is located

within close proximity to the channel, groundwater conditions may vary seasonally.

In view of the above, the subsurface soil and rock conditions between the test locations may

be found to be different or interpreted to be different from those expected. If such

differences appear to exist, we recommend that this office be contacted without delay.

The report is solely for the use of the client or client’s representative and relevant authorities

and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this report or part by third parties

Your attention is drawn to the attached “Explanatory Notes” in Appendix C. This document

should be read in conjunction with our report. The statements presented in this document are

intended to advise you of what should be your realistic expectations of this report and to

present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risk associated with groundworks

for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted

by GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this

report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in to doing.

D:\17JOB\292\JC17292B-r1.DOC

9/7/18 8:44 AM

Poly Australia JC17292B-r1



REFERENCE

1. 1:100,000 Geological Map of Penrith– Geological Series Sheet 9030 (Edition 1) 1991

2. 1:100,000 Soil Landscape Map of Penrith – Soil Conservation Service of NSW; Sheet

9030

3. Pells, PJN, Mostyn, GM. And Walker, BF (1998) Foundation on shale and sandstone

in the Sydney Region.

4. Department of Land and Water Conservation – “Site Investigation for Urban

Salinity”.2002

5. Salinity Code of Practice – Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd –

2002

6. What do all the numbers mean? A guide for the interpretation of soil test results. –

Department of Conservation and Land Management, 1992

7. Australian Standard, AS 2159-2009 “Piling – Design and Installation”

8. Australian Standard, AS 3600 -2009 “Concrete Structures”

9. Australian Standard, AS 3798 - 2007“Bulk Earthworks for Commercial and

Residential Site”

10. Australian Standard, AS 2870-2011 “Residential Slabs and Footings

Legend

Borehole GeoEnviro Consultancy Unit 5, 39-41 Fourth Avenue, Blacktown NSW 2148, Australia

Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

A3

c:\\lab\report\R012 Form No. R012/Ver02/06/07

Date:

Date: 3/7/18

Date: 3/7/18

Revision By:

Checked By: SL

Drawn By: AT

Drawing No: 1 Project No: JC17292B Scale: Not to Scale

Poly Australia

119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill

Borehole Location Plan

BH 1

BH 9

BH 2

BH 6

BH 7

BH 8BH 3

BH 4

BH 5




APPENDIX A

Borehole and Cored Borehole Reports

GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd Unit 5, 39-41 Fourth Avenue, Blacktown NSW 2148, Australia

Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Client: Poly Australia Job no: JC17292B

Project: Proposed Townhouse Development Date: 18/6/18

Location: 119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill Logged by: AT

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation

Material Description Soil Type, Plasticity or Particle Characteristic, colour, secondary

and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a

Structure and Additional

Observations

V L Y Topsoil: Clayey Silt: low liquid limit, brown with

I R gravel

N D CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, red brown D

Vst

1.0 V bit refusal at 1.0m

C CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey with ironstaining,

T and ironstone and shale/siltstone bands

2.0

Shaley Clay and Extremely Weathered Shale

(Soil-liked properties) H >600

3.0 Hard at 3.1m

TC bit refusal at 3.24m

Refer to Cored BH 1 below 3.24m

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

c:\\Lab\report\R007 Form no. R007/Ver04/06/10

4,11,17

N=28

Borehole no: 1

Hole Diameter: 100mm

Drill Model and Mounting: B80 R.L. Surface: -

Datum: AHD




Photograph No 1: Cored Borehole No 1


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Cored Borehole Report Borehole no: 1




Drill Model and Mounting: B80 Slope: R.L Surface: -

Hole Diameter: 100mm Bearing: Datum: AHD

Defect Details

Meth

od

Support

Barr

el Lift

Wate

r Loss/

Level

Depth

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

Core Description

Rock type, grain characteristics, colour,

structure, minor components.

Weath

ering

Str

ength Point Load

Index Strength

Is(50)

Defect Spacing

(mm)

Description

type, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating

VL M VH 300 50 10

EL L H EH 500 100 30

Start Coring BH 1 at 3.24m

C L Extremely Weathered Shale EW EL Clay-liked Properties

L I with hard ironstone bands

M N

N 4

5 Siltstone: brown grey EW L

Core Loss: 60mm.t

Siltstone: brown grey EW M XWS: 4mm.t

- XWS: 4mm.t

VH

6 As above but grey DW XWS: 6mm.t

7

Cr: 13mm.t

XWS: 15mm.t

8 End of BH 1 at 7.83m Defects not described are

either extremely weathered

seams or bedding partings.

Drilling breaks throughout.

9

10

11

c:\\Lab\reports\R025 Form no. R025/Ver04/06/10

LL

UF

NR

UT

ER

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations

V L Y Topsoil: Clayey Silt: low liquid limit, brown D

I R CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, red brown D

N D

CT 1.0 CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey brown with

ironstaining, and ironstone and shale bands H >600 SPT refusal at 1.27m

Shale: grey brown, low to medium strength, extremely

2.0 weathered TC bit refusal at 2.0m

End of BH 2 at 2.0m

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Datum: AHD

7,20

/120mm

N>20

Borehole no: 2







Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations



C N D

T CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey brown with

1.0 ironstaining, and ironstone and shale/siltstone bands

SPT terminated

H >600

2.0

Siltstone: grey, low strength, extremely weathered TC bit refusal at 2.49m

Refer to Cored BH 3 below 2.49m

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


8,16,14

N>30

Logged by: AT


Hole Diameter: 100mm Datum: AHD

Borehole no: 3



Location: 119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill




Photograph No 2: Cored Borehole No 3


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Cored Borehole Report Borehole no: 3




Drill Model and Mounting: B80 Slope: R.L Surface: -

Hole Diameter: 100mm Bearing: Datum: AHD

Defect Details

Meth

od

Support

Barr

el Lift

Wate

r Loss/

Level

Depth

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

Core Description

Rock type, grain characteristics, colour,

structure, minor components.

Weath

ering

Str

ength Point Load

Index Strength

Is(50)

Defect Spacing

(mm)

Description

type, inclination, thickness,

planarity, roughness, coating

VL M VH 300 50 10

EL L H EH 500 100 30

Start Coring BH 3 at 2.49m

C L Siltstone/Shale: grey brown with some DW M Cr: 30mm.t

L I 3 ironstaining -

M N

VH

N

4

Joint: 40°

XWS: 7mm.t

5

XWS: 11mm.t

6

XWS: 12mm.t

7

End of BH 3 at 7.0m Defects not described are

either extremely weathered

seams or bedding partings.

Drilling breaks throughout.

8

9

10

c:\\Lab\reports\R025 Form no. R025/Ver04/06/10

UF

TE

RL

LN

RU

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations

V L Y Topsoil: Clayey Silt: low liquid limit, brown with gravel D

I R CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey brown with ironstone D

N D and siltstone bands

1.0

C H SPT terminated at 1.3m

T

Siltstone: brown, low to medium strength, extremely TC bit refusal at 1.9m

2.0 weathered

End of BH 4 at 1.9m

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0



9,18

N>18

Job no: JC17292B




Borehole no: 4

Client: Poly Australia


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations



N D

(H)

1.0 CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey V bit refusal at 0.9m

C Shale/Siltstone: grey brown, low strength, extremely SPT bouncing at 1.13m

T weathered with clay and ironstone bands

2.0


3.0 End of BH 5 at 2.8m

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


15,130mm

N>15



Borehole no: 5





Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations


I R

N D CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, red brown D

C CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey red with shale/siltstone (H)

T 1.0 bands

Shale/Siltstone: grey brown, low strength, extremely

weathered



3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Datum: AHD

Borehole no: 6







Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations


I R

N D CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, brown red D V bit refusal at 0.6m

C CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey brown with (H)

T 1.0 shale/siltstone bands

Shale/Siltstone: grey brown, low strength, extremely

weathered



3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0






Borehole no: 7



Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations


I R

N D CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, dark red brown D V bit refusal at 0.6m

C CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey with shale bands (H)

T 1.0

Shale/Siltstone: grey, low strength, extremely weathered

2.0 TC bit refusal at 2.1m

End of BH 8 at 2.1m

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


R.L. Surface: -


Borehole no: 8




Drill Model and Mounting: B80


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Borehole Report

Slope: 90°

Bearing: Vertical

Meth

od

Support

Wate

r

Note

s: S

am

ple

s,

Tests

, etc

Depth

(m)

Cla

ssific

ation S

ym

bol

Unifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssific

ation


and minor component

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Consis

tency/D

ensity Index

Hand P

enetr

om

ete

r kP

a


Observations

V L Y Topsoil/Fill: Clayey Silt: low liquid limit, brown D

I R

N D CH Silty Clay: high plasticity, red brown D V bit refusal at 0.6m

C CI Silty Clay: medium plasticity, grey brown with siltstone (H)

T 1.0 bands

Siltstone: grey brown, low to medium strength, extremely SPT bouncing at 1.17m

weathered


End of BH 9 at 1.6m

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


4,10

/20mm

N>10

Date: 19/6/18




Borehole no: 9


Project: Proposed Townhouse Development




APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Reports


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Test Results - Atterberg Limits

Client / Address: Poly Australia / Sydney Job No: 23/6/18


Location: 119 Cudgegong Road Rouse Hill Report No: R01A

Remarks

c:/lab/reports/R004

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14208.

Authorised Signatory

Description

Sample Procedure

Test Procedure: AS 1289 3.3.1

40 52

Plastic Limit (%)

-

Test Procedure:

-Natural Moisture

Content %

AS 1289 2.1.1

(CI) Silty Clay: medium

plasticity, brown

(CH) Silty Clay: high

plasticity, red brown

Material

23-Jun-18 23-Jun-18

19-Jun-18

SR12120

Plasticity Index (%)

Linear Shrinkage (%)

AS 1289 3.4.1

11.0

19

Test Procedure:

Test Procedure:

Test Results

AS 1289 3.1.2

21

Test Procedure: AS 1289 3.2.1

Liquid Limit (%)

Test Date

Sample Identification

Sample Register No

Sample Date

AS 1289 1.1, 1.2.1 (6.5.3)

SR12119

BH 2 (0.6-1.0m)

18-Jun-18

BH 5 (0.2-0.8m)

26

AS 1289 3.2.1

26

AS 1289 1.1, 1.2.1 (6.5.3)

AS 1289 3.1.2

AS 1289 2.1.1

AS 1289 3.3.1

AS 1289 3.4.1

15.5

Form No. R004/Ver 08/07/13

This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Solern Liew Date 3/7/18


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Test Results

Client: Poly Australia Job Number: JC17292B



Test Method : RTA T223

ESTIMATED (U.C.S)

MPa

0.11 2

1.52 30

3.03 61

2.25 45

2.17 43

0.94 19

2.26 45

2.99 60

c:/lab/reports/R024 Form No. R024/Ver 03/06/07

MPa

Notes:

1. In the above table testing was completed in the Axial direction

2. The Estimated Unconfined Compressive Strength (Estimated U.C.S) was calculated from the point load strength

Index by the following approximate relationship and rounded off to the nearest number:

U.C.S = 20 IS(50)

BH 1

Depth (m)

7.70-7.76

6.40-6.45

6.80-6.85

7.30-7.35

5.30-5.36

5.75-5.80

6.10-6.15

4.80-4.85

IS(50)


Tel: (02) 96798733 Fax: (02) 96798744

Test Results

Client: Poly Australia Job Number: JC17292B



Test Method : RTA T223

ESTIMATED (U.C.S)

MPa

2.30 46

2.26 45

1.61 32

3.46 69

4.97 99

2.12 42

0.97 19

2.09 42

1.05 21

3.05 61

2.63 53

c:/lab/reports/R024 Form No. R024/Ver 03/06/07

BH 3 IS(50)

Depth (m) MPa

4.90-4.95

2.80-2.85

3.30-3.35

3.70-3.75

5.40-5.45

5.80-5.85

4.20-4.25

4.50-4.55

6.90-6.95

6.10-6.15

6.50-6.55

Notes:

1. In the above table testing was completed in the Axial direction

2. The Estimated Unconfined Compressive Strength (Estimated U.C.S) was calculated from the point load strength

Index by the following approximate relationship and rounded off to the nearest number:

U.C.S = 20 IS(50)




APPENDIX C

Explanatory Notes and Graphic Symbols


Explanatory Notes – Rock Material (In accordance with AS1726 – 1993)

Rock Material Weathering Classification Term Symbol Definition Residual soil RS Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and substance

fabric are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume but the soil has not been significantly transported.

Extremely weathered rock

XW Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has “soil”properties, i.e. it either disintegrates or can be remoulded, in water.

Distinctly weathered rock

DW Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly discoloured , usually be ironstaining. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores.

Slightly weathered rock

SW Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.

Fresh rock FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining.

Rock Strength

Term Symbol Is (50) MPa

Field Guide

Extremely Low EL Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties ----------------------- ------------ 0.03 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very Low VL May be crumbled in the hand. Sandstone is “sugary” and friable. ----------------------- ------------ 0.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Low L A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm dia. May be broken by hand and easily

scored with a knife. Sharp edges of core may be friable and break during handling.

----------------------- ------------ 0.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medium Strength M A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm dia. Can be broken by hand with

difficulty. Readily scored with knife. ---------------------- ------------ 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- High H A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm dia core cannot be broken by hand, can

be slightly scratched or scored with knife; rock rings under hammer. ---------------------- ------------ 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very High VH A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm dia may be broken with hand-held pick

after more than one blow. Cannot be scratched with pen knife; rock rings under hammer.

---------------------- ------------ 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Extremely High EH A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm dia is very difficult to break with hand

held hammer. Rings when struck with a hammer.

Rock Material Weathering Classification Abbreviation Description Notes Be CS J P Un S R IS XWS Cr 600mm t

Bedding Plan Parting Clay seam Joint Planar Undulating Smooth Rough Ironstained Extremely Weathered Seam Crushed Seam Thickness of defect in millimeters

Defect orientations measured to the normal to the long core axis (is relative to horizontal for vertical holes).

C:\\lab\reports\r021 Form No. R021/Ver01/1198


EXPLANATORY NOTES Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnical report with regard to investigation procedures, classification methods and certain matters relating to the Discussion and Comments sections. Not all notes are necessarily relevant to all reports. Geotechnical reports are based on information gained from finite sub-surface probing, excavation, boring, sampling or other means of investigation, supplemented by experience and knowledge of local geology. For this reason they must be regarded as interpretative rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Description and Classification Methods The methods the description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian standard 1726, the SSA Site investigation Code, in general descriptions cover the following properties - strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and inclusions. Identification and classification of soil and rock involves to a large extent, judgement within the acceptable level commonly adopted by current geotechnical practices. Soil types are described according to the predominating particle size, qualified by the grading or other particles present (eg sandy clay) on the following bases:

Soil Classification Particle Size Clay Less than 0.002mm Silt 0.002 to 0.6mm

Sand 0.6 to 2.00mm Gravel 2.00m to 60.00mm

Soil Classification Particle size Clay less than 0.002mm Silt 0.002 to 0.06mm Sand 0.06 to 2.00mm Gravel 2.00mm to 60.00mm Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength, either by laboratory testing or engineering examination. The strength terms are defined as follows:

Classification Undrained Shear Strength kPa Very Soft Less than 12

Soft 12 - 25 Firm 25 - 50 Stiff 50 - 100

Very Stiff 100 - 200 Hard Greater than 200

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from the results of standard penetration tests (SPT) or Dutch cone penetrometer test (CPT), as below: Relative Dense SPT 'N' Value

(blows/300mm) CPT Cone

Value (qc-Mpa) Very Loose Less than 5 Less than 2

Loose 5 - 10 2 - 5 Medium Dense 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense 30 - 50 15 - 25 Very Dense > 50 > 25

Rock types are classified by their geological names, together with descriptive terms on degrees of weathering strength, defects and other minor components. Where relevant, further information

regarding rock classification, is given on the following sheet. Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provided information on plasticity, grained size, colour, type, moisture content, inclusions and depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin walled sample tube (normally know as U50) into the soil and withdrawing a sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such Samples yield information on structure and strength and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Details of the type and method of sampling are given in the report. Field Investigation Methods The following is a brief summary of investigation methods currently carried out by this company and comments on their use and application. Hand Auger Drilling The borehole is advanced by manually operated equipment. The diameter of the borehole ranges from 50mm to 100mm. Penetration depth of hand augered boreholes may be limited by premature refusal on a variety of materials, such as hard clay, gravels or ironstone. Test Pits These are excavated with a tractor-mounted backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about 3.0m for a backhoe and up to 6.0m for an excavator. A potential disadvantage is the disturbance caused by the excavation. Care must be taken if construction is to be carried out near, or within the test pit locations, to either adequately recompact the backfill during construction, or to design the structure or accommodate the poorly compacted backfill. Large Diameter Auger (eg Pengo) The hole is advanced by a rotating plate or short spiral auger generally 300mm or larger in diameter. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally of not more than 05m) and are disturbed, but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube sampling. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The hole is advanced by using 90mm - 115mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or insitu testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the augers flights, but they are very disturbed and may be highly mixed with soil of other stratum. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPT or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low reliability due to remoulding, mixing or softening of samples by ground water, resulting in uncertainties of the original sample depth.

C:\\lab\reports\r016-1 Form No. R016-1/Ver02/0104 1

ii

C:\\lab\reports\r016-2 Form No. R016-2/Ver02/0104

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers (continued) The spiral augers are usually advanced by using a V - bit through the soil profile refusal, followed by Tungsten Carbide (TC) bit, to penetrate into bedrock. The quality and continuity of the bedrock may be assessed by examination of the recovered rock fragments and through observation of the drilling penetration resistance. Non - core Rotary Drilling (Wash Boring) The hole is advanced by a rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rod and returned up the annulus, carrying the cuttings, together with some information from the "feel" and rate of penetration. Rotary Mud Stabilised Drilling This is similar to rotary drilling, but uses drilling mud as a circulating fluid, which may consist of a range of products, from bentonite to polymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable identification is again only possible from separate intact sampling (eg SPT and U50 samples). Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample is obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Providing full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in very weak rock and granular soils) this technique provides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation. In rocks an NMLC triple tube core barrel which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually used with water flush. Portable Proline Drilling This is manually operated equipment and is only used in sites which require bedrock core sampling and there is restricted site access to truck mounted drill rigs. The boreholes are usually advanced initially using a tricone roller bit and water circulation to penetrate the upper soil profile. In some instances a hand auger may be used to penetrate the soil profile. Subsequent drilling into bedrock involves the use of NMLC triple tube equipment, using water as a lubricant. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in cohesive soils, as a means of determining density or strength and of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of testing Soils for Engineering Purpose"- Test F31. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63Kg hammer with a free fall of 769mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150mm increments and the "N" value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rocks, the full 450mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form:

In a case where full penetration is obtained with successive blows counts for each 150mm of, say 4, 6, and 7 blows.

as 4, 6, 7

N = 13

In a case where the test is discontinued short of full penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows for the next 40mm.

as 15,30/40mm

The results of the tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soil. Occasionally the test

methods is used to obtain samples in 50mm diameter thin walled samples tubes in clays. In these circumstances, the best results are shown on the bore logs in brackets. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving system is used with a solid 600 tipped steel cone of the same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The cone can be continuously driven into the borehole and is normally used in areas with thick layers of soft clays or loose sand. The results of this test are shown as 'Nc' on the bore logs, together with the number of blows per 150mm penetration. Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as Dutch Cone-CPT) described in this report, has been carried out using an electrical friction cone penetrometer and the test is described in Australian Standard 1289 test F5.1. In the test, a 35mm diameter rod with cone tipped end is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction being provided by a specially designed truck or rig, which is fitted with a hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the friction resistance on a separate 130mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone. Transducer in the tip of the assembly are connected by electrical wires passing through the centre of the push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck. As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm per second) the information is output on continuous chart recorders. The plotted results in this report have been traced from the original records. The information provided on the charts comprises:

Cone resistance - the actual end bearing force divided by the cross sectional area of the cone, expressed in Mpa.

Sleeve friction - the frictional force on the sleeve divided by the surface area, expressed in kPa.

Friction ratio - the ratio of sleeve friction to cone resistance, expressed in percentage.

There are two scales available for measurement of cone resistance. The lower "A" scale (0-5Mpa) is used in very soft soils where increased sensitivity is required and is shown in the graphs as a dotted line. The main "B" scale (0-50Mpa) is less sensitive and is shown as a full line. The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistance will vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative frictions in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands and very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiff clays. In sands, the relationship between cone resistance and SPT value is commonly in the range: qc (Mpa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows per 300mm) In clays the relationship between undrained shear strength and cone resistance is commonly in the range: qc = (12 to18) Cu

Interpretation of CPT values can also be made to allow estimate of modulus or compressibility values to allow calculation of foundation settlements. Inferred stratification, as shown on the attached report, is assessed from the cone and friction traces, from experience and information from nearby boreholes etc.

iii

C:\\lab\reports\r016-3 Form No. R016-3/Ver02/0104

Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation continued This information is presented for general guidance, but must be regarded as being to some extent interpretive. The test method provides a continuous profile of engineering properties and where precise information or soil classification is required, direct drilling and sampling may be preferable. Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (AS1289) Portable dynamic cone penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a rod in to the ground with a falling weight hammer and measuring the blows per successive 100mm increments of penetration. There are two similar tests, Cone Penetrometer (commonly known as Scala Penetrometer) and the Perth Sand Penetrometer. Scala Penetrometer is commonly adopted by this company and consists of a 16mm rod with a 20mm diameter cone end, driven with a 9kg hammer, dropping 510mm (AS 1289 Test F3.2). Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes". Details of the test procedures are given on the individual report forms. Engineering Logs The engineering logs presented herein are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, however, this is not always practicable or possible to justify economically. As it is, the boreholes represent only a small sample of the total sub-surface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should take into account the spacing of boreholes, frequency of sampling and the possibility of other than "straight line" variations between the boreholes. Ground water Where ground water levels are measured in boreholes, there are several potential problems:

In low permeability soils, ground water although present, may enter the hole slowly, or perhaps not at all, during the investigation period.

A localised perched water table may lead to a erroneous indication of the true water table.

Water table levels will vary from time to time, due to the seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as indicated in the report.

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

More reliable measurements can be made by installing stand pipes, which are read at intervals over several days, or weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers sealed in a particular stratum may be interference from a perched water table or surface water. Engineering Reports Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel and are based on the information obtained and on current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal is changed, say to a twenty storey building. If this occurs, the company will be pleased to review the report and sufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of sub-surface conditions, discussions of geotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, the company cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for:

Unexpected variations in ground conditions. The potential for this will depend partly on bore spacing and sampling frequency.

Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory authorities.

The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

If these occur, the company will be pleased to assist with investigation or advice to resolve the matter. Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, the company request immediate notification. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed than at some later stage, well after the event. Reproduction of Information for Contractual Purposes Attention is drawn to the document “Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Information trader Documents”, published by the Institute of Engineers Australia. Where information obtained for this investigation is provided for tender purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. The Company would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or make additional copies of the report available for contract purpose, at a nominal charge.

Site Inspection

The Company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical aspect of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that the conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site Review of Design Where major civil or structural developments are proposed, or where only a limited investigation has been completed, or where the geotechnical conditions are complex, it is prudent to have the design reviewed by a Senior Geotechnical Engineer.