Download - R : G I R 31-35 S A , H NSW 1 P I€¦ · geotechnical engineer taking care to describe the presence and depth of fill material / previously disturbed ground, the natural stratum,

On Lyons Pty Ltd

C/- Ghazi Al Ali Architect

Suite 2H, 9-13 Redmyre Rd,

Strathfield NSW 2135

Attention: Terence Zeng

Email: [email protected]

29 January 2016

RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

31-35 SMALLWOOD AVENUE, HOMEBUSH NSW

Report ID: G15005HOM-R01F

Dear Charlie,

Please find below a report on the geotechnical investigation carried out at 31-35 Smallwood

Avenue, Homebush, New South Wales (herein referred to as the ‘site’).

1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Geo-Environmental Engineering Pty Ltd (GEE) was commissioned by Ghazi Al Ali

Architect, on behalf of On Lyons Pty Ltd, to complete a geotechnical investigation of

the site in relation to the proposed construction of a multi-storey, residential

development with a basement. The site is currently occupied by two single storey

dwellings each with their own detached garage at the rear.

GEE understands that the investigation was required to support a Development

Application (DA) with Strathfield Council for the proposed development, which will

comprise the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of an apartment

building comprising seven levels above ground and a two-level basement for car

parking and storage.

Geotechnical Investigation Report31-35 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush NSW

Page 2 of 20

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

As previously mentioned, the proposed development will comprise the demolition of the

existing structures and the construction of a seven storey residential apartment building

over a two level basement.

The finished floor level of the lowest basement is 6.38m above the Australian Height

Datum (AHD). Taking into account the existing surface level across the site and the

necessary over excavation to accommodate the basement floor slab, this equates to an

excavation of between approximately 4.0m and 6.5m below ground surface (bgs).

Based on the proposed development plans (Appendix A), the basement levels will

extend up to the northern and southern boundaries, within 1.0m from the eastern

boundary and 12m from the western boundary.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work undertaken by GEE, to satisfy the above objectives, was as follows:

◊ Visual appraisal of the site conditions and locality,

◊ Review of published geological maps for the area,

◊ The drilling of boreholes and the performance of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

(DCP) tests in an accessible part of the site to assess the subsurface conditions,

◊ The installation of a groundwater monitoring well to determine the presence and

depth of groundwater and assess the rate of groundwater inflow, and

◊ Engineering assessment and reporting.

Geotechnical Investigation Report

31-35 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush NSW

Page 3 of 20

2 SITE INFORMATION

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located on the western side of Smallwood Avenue and covers an area of

approximately 1,150m2. The legal description for the site is lot B & C in Deposited Plan

307288.

At the time of the investigation the site was occupied by two single storey dwellings

located in the eastern portion of their respective allotments, with detached vehicle

garages at the rear (western end) of the site. Vehicle access to each garage was from

Hudson Street which adjoins the western boundary. With the exception of a pool

located in the western portion of No. 35 Smallwood Avenue, the remainder of the site

was predominately covered by a landscaped lawns, concrete pavements and garden

beds.

Of particular significance to the proposed development is the presence of a Sydney

Water sewer pipeline which cuts across the rear of site, approximately 13m to 15m

from the western boundary. Based on information from Sydney Water (Appendix B),

the sewer comprises a 150mm diameter vitreous clay pipe and has an invert depth of

between approximately 1.2m and 2.0m. With the existing development plans, this

sewer will require realignment to facilitate construction of the proposed basement.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY

Based on the preliminary development plans (Appendix A), the surface elevation

across the site is between 10.0m and 12.5m above Australian Height Datum (AHD).

The highest ground is located at the front (eastern end) of the site, and the site slopes

down towards the opposite (western end) at a grade of between 5% and 10%.

2.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOILS

A review of the Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet (reference 1) indicates that

the site is underlain by the Middle Triassic aged Ashfield Shale formation of the

Wianamatta Group which typically consists of black to dark grey shale and laminite.

A review of the regional soils map indicates that the site is located within the Blacktown

Soil Landscape Group (reference 2). Soils of the Blacktown group are typically heavy

clays derived from the weathering process of shale bedrock, and have low fertility and

are often strongly acidic.



Page 4 of 20

2.4 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY

The regional and permanent groundwater in the vicinity of the site is expected to be

confined or partly confined, discrete, water-bearing zones within the bedrock

formation. However, intermittent ‘perched’ water seepage is likely to occur at the soil /

bedrock interface following heavy and prolonged rainfall events.

Permanent groundwater associated with the Wianamatta group of Shale bedrock is

characterised by high salinity (reference 3 and 4) and high ammonia concentrations

(>10 mg L-1, reference 5). In this regard, groundwater within the shale formation is

not extracted for potable use and rarely extracted for any commercial / industrial

purposes. This is supported by a review of the NSW Water Information database

(http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/gw/) for registered groundwater bores in the vicinity of

the site. The only bores within a 500m radius of the site were used for monitoring

purposes which are typically installed for environmental purposes to assess the quality

of groundwater within a property.

The rate of groundwater movement is likely to be low as a result of low relief, low

altitude (approximately 10m AHD) and the low permeability of the Ashfield Shale

(between 10-13 and 10-9 m/sec – reference 6). Groundwater flow is dominated by

water movement through fractures (or joints), where stress has caused partial loss of

cohesion in the rock and evidence of potential water bearing fractures is usually the

presence of clay or iron-staining along face of the joints.

2.5 ACID SULFATE SOIL RISK

Acid Sulfate Soil is naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides

(principally iron sulfide, iron disulfide or their precursors). Oxidation of these soils

through exposure to the atmosphere or through lowering of groundwater levels results

in the generation of sulfuric acid.

Land that may contain potential acid sulfate soils was mapped by the NSW Department

of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) and based on these maps local Councils

produced their own acid sulfate soil maps to be used for planning purposes.

The DLWC ‘Prospect – Parramatta River’ Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map (reference 3),

indicates that the site lies within an area with no known occurrences of acid sulphate

soil and land activities within this area are “...not likely to be affected by acid sulphate

soil materials”.



Page 5 of 20

The ASS Planning Map produced by Strathfield Council, via interactive online mapping,

indicates that the site lies within an area defined as “Class 5”. In accordance with the

acid sulphate soil manual (reference 8) and clause 6.1 of Council’s Local Environment

Plan (LEP) 2012, a preliminary assessment of acid sulfate soil and potentially a

management plan is recommended for any “Works within 500 metres of adjacent Class

1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum by which the

watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent

Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land”.

It is pointed out that the minimum surface elevation of the site is approximately 10m

AHD which is much higher than the 5m AHD limit specified above. Secondly, the

proposed excavation is expected to extend no deeper than 6m AHD, which is also

significantly higher than 1m AHD limit specified in Section 6.1 of the LEP. In this

regard, there is no need for an acid sulphate soil assessment or management plan.

Additionally, as mentioned in Section 2.4, groundwater in this part of the Sydney exists

within the discrete natural fractures and defects of the bedrock formation and has a

very low permeability (between 10-13 and 10-9 m/sec – reference 6) and therefore any

water seepage will be able to be controlled by pumping from a sump excavated into

the base of the excavation. Such pumping, will not reduce the water table in

surrounding Class 1 to 4 acid sulphate areas, which according to the Strathfield

Council’s interactive mapping tool, is approximately 100m to the west of the site.



Page 6 of 20

3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS

3.1 FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

Fieldwork was undertaken on the 28th January 2015 by Joshua Long from GEE, and

comprised:

The drilling and logging of four boreholes (BH1 to BH4) in accessible areas of the

site to assess the soil conditions and depth to bedrock1,

The performance of DCP tests adjacent to each borehole to assess the

consistency and/or relative density of the soil profile and to assist with

determining the depth to bedrock,

The installation of a groundwater monitoring well within one of the four

boreholes (BH4), and

The performance of in-situ permeability tests (or slug tests) within the wells.

Boreholes BH2, BH3 and BH4 were drilled using a mechanical drill rig mounted on the

rear of a Toyota Landcruiser, utilising solid flight augers which were equipped with a

tungsten carbide drill-bit. The Landcruiser could not access the rear of No. 33

Smallwood Avenue and therefore the remaining borehole (BH1) was drilled using a

85mm diameter, hand operated auger.

Borehole BH1 was advanced through the natural soil profile before practical refusal on

completely weathered shale bedrock at a depth of 2.2m below ground surface (bgs).

The other three boreholes (BH2, BH3 and BH4) were advanced through the natural soil

profile and into the shale bedrock formation before terminating at depths of 7.5m

(BH2), 7.0m (BH3) and 7.5m (BH4) which is well beyond the depth of the proposed

basement levels.

During drilling, the encountered fill and natural soils were geologically logged by a

geotechnical engineer taking care to describe the presence and depth of fill material /

previously disturbed ground, the natural stratum, moisture, seeps or water bearing

zones, elevation of the water level/hydraulic head, and adverse aesthetics such as

discolouration, odours or obvious evidence of contamination.

1 At the time of the field assessment GEE only had access to No. 31 and 33 Smallwood Avenue, however,

it is the opinion of GEE that sufficient information was obtained.



Page 7 of 20

The DCP tests were performed in accordance with Australian Standard Test Method

AS1289.6.3.2-1997 (reference 9) and were terminated due to practical refusal which

occurred at the soil / bedrock interface.

A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered is provided in Section 3.2, while a

summary of the borehole information, including total depth, is provided in Table 1 and

their locations are shown on Figure 1.

Table 1: Summary of the Borehole Information

Borehole

ID Date

Completed Drilling

Method

Total

Depth

Depth of

Filling Depth to

Bedrock

Well

Screen Interval

(m BGS) (m BGS) (m BGS) (m BGS)

BH1

28 Jan 15

Hand Auger

2.2

0.2

--

--

BH2

28 Jan 15

SFA

7.5

0.4

4.0

--

BH3

28 Jan 15

SFA

7.0

0.5

3.0

--

BH4

4 Feb 15

SFA

7.5

0.15

2.3

4.3 – 7.3

m BGS = metres below ground surface

SFA – Solid Flight Auger

3.1.1 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION

A groundwater monitoring well was installed within borehole BH4 in accordance with

the Land and Water Biodiversity Committee (2003) Minimum Construction

Requirements for Water Bores in Australia (reference 10), using 50 mm diameter uPVC

pipe, with a machine slotted screen section, 2 mm sand pack and a bentonite seal.

The depths of the screened section of the well is provided in Table 1.

The purpose of the groundwater monitoring wells was to assess the presence and

depth of stabilised groundwater at the site and to monitor the rate of groundwater

inflow. The groundwater well installation details are shown on the borehole logs in

Appendix C and the location of the well is shown on Figure 1.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The site stratigraphy, as observed in the boreholes, typically comprised clayey silt /

gravelly silt topsoil, over natural silty clay soil, which then graded into weathered shale

bedrock. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions on site are provided in the



Page 8 of 20

borehole logs provided in Appendix B, while the soil profile is also summarised in

Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Layer / Unit Description Depth to Base of

Layer (m)1

Consistency /

Relative Density1

Topsoil and/or

Fill

Clayey SILT: dark brown, moist, with fine to

medium sand, low plasticity. 0.15 – 0.2 Soft to Firm

Gravelly SILT: brown, low plasticity, moist with

fine to medium gravel 0.4 – 0.5 Soft to Firm

NATURAL SOIL

Silty CLAY: orange-brown becoming pale grey /

orange-brown with depth, moist, medium to

high plasticity with some ironstone gravel.

1.8 - 2.2 Stiff to Very Stiff

Silty CLAY: pale grey / orange-brown, medium

to high plasticity with minor shale fragments

(completely weathered shale / residual soil

profile)

2.3 – 4.0 Very Stiff to Hard

BEDROCK

SHALE: pale grey and light orange-brown,

extremely weathered and estimated to be of

very low strength.

5 – 6.5 --

SHALE: dark grey, extremely to moderately

weathered and estimated to be low to medium

strength.

>7.5 --

Note 1: Determined from the borehole and DCP test observations

3.2.1 GROUNDWATER

Permanent groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of each borehole.

However, groundwater seepage did eventually occur in the monitoring well installed

within borehole BH4. The stabilised level of groundwater within the well was measured

on the 6 February 2015 at 2.8m bgs. The water within the well was purged dry using

a 12Volt pump and the rate of recovery measured. The recovery of groundwater

within the well was very slow which is typical of water within the shale bedrock

formation.

Permanent groundwater within the bedrock exists within the discrete natural fractures

and defects and as previously mentioned, the permeability of the shale matrix is very



Page 9 of 20

low (between 10-13 and 10-9 m/sec – reference 6). The water seepage encountered

within BH1 was likely to comprise perched water from the soil / bedrock interface which

is highly influenced by rainfall events.



Page 10 of 20

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 SITE PREPARATION

Material removed from site will need to be managed in accordance with the provisions

of current legislation and may include segregation by material type classification in

accordance with the NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines (reference 11)

and disposal at facilities appropriately licensed to receive the particular materials. GEE

notes that the natural soil and shale bedrock may be classified as Virgin Excavated

Natural Material (VENM) and re-used on other sites rather than disposed at a landfill,

although it must be proven to be free of contamination.

GEE notes that the natural clay soil profile is expected to be susceptible to loss of

strength when wet. In this regard, it may be necessary to construct a working

platform above the prepared sub-grade in areas of high construction vehicle traffic,

comprising a minimum of 150 mm of gravel or recycled concrete.

4.2 EARTHWORKS

As mentioned in Section 1.2, earthworks at the site are expected to comprise

excavation of between approximately 4.0m and 6.5m depth. The basement levels will

extend to within close proximity to the northern, southern and eastern boundaries and

over 12m from the western boundary.

Additionally, the excavation is expected to intercept a Sydney Water sewer pipe which

crosses the rear of the site (Appendix B) and has an invert depth of between

approximately 1.2m to 2.0m. In this regard, the pipe will require re-alignment and

discussions with Sydney Water are recommended.

4.2.1 EXCAVATION

Based on the fieldwork undertaken as part of this investigation, the excavation will

encounter minor topsoil material and/or pavements then silty clay soil before

encountering shale bedrock below approximately 3.0m to 4.0m depth. GEE notes that

the strength of the bedrock has not been assessed as part of this geotechnical

investigation, however, based on the performance of the drilling rig, it is likely to be

very low to low strength and then low to medium strength within the depth of the

basement. To confirm the strength of the bedrock within the depth of proposed

excavation, a more detailed investigation would be required (preferably following

demolition of the existing dwelling) and would need to include the coring and strength

testing of the bedrock formation.



Page 11 of 20

The majority of the excavation, through the soil profile and any very low strength rock

(which is typically able to be excavated using mechanical equipment), is expected to be

readily excavated using standard equipment such as excavators. However, the use of

an impact hammer will be required upon encountering low to medium strength (or

better), especially when combined with unfavourable rock-defect geometry. When

using an impact hammer the effects of vibration should be considered and are

discussed further in Section 1.2.

4.2.2 GROUNDWATER INFLOW

Permanent groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes during drilling although

some slow seepage did occur over time in the monitoring well installed within borehole

(BH4). The stabilised groundwater level recorded within BH4 was 2.8m bgs.

Considering that the proposed basement excavation will extend to at least 7m bgs,

groundwater will need to be managed during the earthworks phase and is likely to

include pumping from a designated sump at the base of the excavation. Additionally,

the lower basement will need to be ‘tanked’ or waterproofed to negate long term de-

watering, which is considered to be impractical.

To estimate the volume of water expected to flow into the excavation during the

excavation phase of work (and below the water table), GEE conducted a slug test (or

rising head permeability test) in the well (BH4). From the slug test data, GEE used the

Hvorslev method for a well within an infinite, homogenous and isotropic aquifer, the

hydraulic conductivity was calculated (reference 20), to calculate the permeability of

the shale formation and then the Dupuit Thiem Equation (reference 21) to estimate

the potential inflows to the excavation area for the proposed basement foundations.

Using the above equations the estimated inflow of groundwater for the site was less

than 5 m3/day or 5 kL/day. With this in mind and assuming a 6-month period of

basement construction below the water table, this equates to a cumulative volume of

less than 1 Mega Litres, which will need to be withdrawn from the excavation. Of

course this estimate is based on only one borehole and the hydraulic conductivity for

fractured shale bedrock is expected to be highly variable. Likewise, the 6-month

estimate of time period during which de-watering will be necessary is considered to be

very conservative according to contractors that have undertaken similar work in the

locality. More likely is a 1 to 2 month timeframe.



Page 12 of 20

4.2.3 CONSTRUCTION / EXCAVATION INDUCED VIBRATION

When using a hydraulic hammer, vibrations will be transmitted through the ground and

potentially impact on adjoining structures including the adjoining heritage building.

Where possibly the use of other techniques not involving impact (e.g. rock saws),

should be adopted as they would reduce or possibly eliminate risks of damage due to

vibrations.

The adjoining structures are sensitive to vibrations above certain threshold levels

(regarding potential for cracking). Given that the proposed basement excavation will

extend to within close proximity of the boundaries, close controls by the excavation

contractor over the rock excavation are necessary, and are recommended, so that

excessive vibration effects are not generated.

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is usually the adopted measure of ground vibration and the

safe limits depend on the sensitivity of the adjoining structures and services. There is a

number of Australian and overseas publications which provide vibration velocity

guideline levels (or safe limits) including:

Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006 Explosives - Storage and use - Use of

explosives - Appendix J: Ground Vibrations and Airblast Overpressure (reference

12).

Australian Standard AS41670.2-1990 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body

vibration - Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80

Hz) (reference 13).

DIN 4150 – Part 3 – 1999. Effects if Vibration on Structures (reference 14).

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2006. Assessing Vibration: a

technical guideline (reference 15).

British Standard BS 7385-1:1990. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on

buildings (reference 16).

British Standard BS 7385-2:1993. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration (reference 17).

The most appropriate guideline levels for the proposed excavation work are provided in

AS2187.2-2006, which refers to guideline values from BS7385-2 for the prevention of

minor or cosmetic damage occurring in structures from ground vibration. Additionally,



Page 13 of 20

the guideline levels provided in DIN 4150 Part 3 is considered an appropriate source for

guideline levels.

Ideally, safe limits should be determined by a specialist vibration consultant. However,

as a preliminary and conservative guide, and considering the above guidelines and the

type of adjoining structures present, GEE recommend that excavation methods should

be adopted which limit ground vibrations at the adjoining developments to not more

than 10mm/sec. Vibration monitoring will be required to verify that this is achieved.

However, if the contractor adopts methods and/or equipment which limit ground

vibration to 5mm/sec, vibration monitoring may not be required.

The PPV limits of 5mm/sec and 10mm/sec are expected to be achievable if rock

breaker equipment or other excavation methods are restricted as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: Recommendations for Rock Hammer Equipment

Distance

from

adjoining

structure

(m)

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

5mm/sec

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

10mm/sec*

Equipment Operating Limit

(% of Maximum

Capacity)

Equipment Operating Limit

(% of Maximum

Capacity)

1.0 to 2.0 Hand operated

jackhammer only

100 300 kg rock hammer 50

2.0 to 5.0 300 kg rock hammer 50 300 kg rock hammer

or

600 kg rock hammer

100

50

5.0 to 10.0 300 kg rock hammer 100 600 kg rock hammer 100

or or

600 kg rock hammer 50 900 kg rock hammer 50

* Vibration monitoring is recommended for 10mm/sec vibration limit.

GEE notes human discomfort levels caused by vibration are typically less than the levels

that are likely to cause cosmetic or structural damage to structures. Therefore,

complaints may be lodged by neighbours before any cosmetic or structural damage

occurs. In this regard, consideration may be given to adopting more stringent vibration

limits recommended for human amenity or, as a minimum, ensuring that vibration

monitoring is undertaken as reassurance to confirm that vibrations are within safe

limits. Acceptable vibration limits for human comfort caused by construction and

excavation equipment are provided in DEC (2006) (reference 15). Specifically



Page 14 of 20

maximum acceleration limits as specified in Table 2.2 of the guideline should be

adopted.

Finally, at all times, the excavation equipment should be operated by experienced

personnel, according to the manufactures instructions, and in a manner consistent with

minimising vibration effects. Measures which may be used to minimise vibration

include:

Progressive breakage from open excavated faces,

Selective breakage along open joints, where present,

Use of rock hammers in short bursts to prevent generation of resonant

frequencies,

Orientation of the rock hammer pick away from property boundaries and into the

existing open excavation,

Commencement of excavation as far away from other structures as possible, and

The use of a rock sawing or grinder adjacent to the site boundaries. GEE notes

that this equipment also reduces the possibility of overbreak and loosening of the

rock mass.

4.2.4 EXCAVATION SUPPORT

Based on the proposed development plans (Appendix A), the excavation of the

basement will extend to within close proximity of the site boundaries, as such either

temporary shoring or the early construction of permanent walls designed to shore up

the boundaries, will be required.

The soil profile and shale formation, within the depth of the proposed basement, will

require full support during excavation. Given the ground conditions, the options for

shoring include the use of soldier piles or contiguous piling combined with a pile cap.

Open bored piles or CFA piles are considered feasible and should be designed by a

suitably experienced structural engineer in accordance with AS 4678-2002 Earth

Retaining Structures (reference 18) and should consider the short and long term

configurations. In the short term, should the shoring walls be cantilevered or

supported by a single row of anchors and some wall movements can be tolerated

(flexible wall), the pressure acting on the wall can be estimated on the basis of a

triangular earth pressure distribution.



Page 15 of 20

When internal props, such as the ground floor slab, restrain retaining wall movement,

or where significant movements cannot be tolerated (rigid wall), an ‘at-rest’ earth

pressure coefficient (Ko) should be adopted with either a uniform or trapezoidal

pressure distribution. It should be noted that shoring which is designed for this ‘at rest’

coefficient will still undergo some lateral movements, depending on the final

configuration of the wall and construction sequence.

The design of any retaining structures should make allowance for all applicable

surcharge loadings including construction activities around the perimeter of the

excavation and adjacent buildings. Consideration should be given to the possibility of a

hydrostatic pressure due to build-up of water behind the wall (e.g. from broken

services), unless permanent subsurface drainage can be provided.

Finally, computer aided analysis may be carried out to assess potential ground

movements based on different wall designs and construction sequence, so as to control

deflections to within tolerable limits. It is also considered prudent to carry out surveys

before and after installation to measure the actual movement of the wall or soil.

Preliminary geotechnical parameters for the soil and bedrock profile encountered at the

site are provided in Table 4 and it is recommended that further investigation, including

the coring of the bedrock throughout the full depth of the basement level be

undertaken to confirm these parameters and the depth of the various soil/ bedrock

units.

Table 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters – Retaining Walls

Units

Depth to

Top of

Layer (m)

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Active Lateral

Earth Pressure

(Ka)

Lateral

Earth

Pressure

at Rest

(Ko)

Passive

Lateral

Earth

Pressure

(Kp) Temporary Long Term

Soil Profile 0.0 19 0.35 0.38 0.50 --

SHALE - Class V/IV

(typically very low

to low strength)

2.3 – 4.0 20 0.30 0.33 0.50 --

SHALE - Class III

or better(typically

low to medium

strength)

Estimated

5.0 – 6.5 22 0.20 0.25 0.40 4.5



Page 16 of 20

4.2.5 TEMPORARY ANCHORS

Temporary ground anchors are likely to be required for the lateral restraint of boundary

shoring walls until such time that the walls are permanently strutted by the building

floor slabs. Suggested allowable bond stresses for the design of temporary ground

anchors in very low to low strength shale is 150kPa.

Ground anchors should be designed to have a free length that extends beyond an

imaginary line drawn upwards at an angle of 45° from the toe of the wall, to cater for

possible 45° faults or joints behind the wall. The minimum free length should be 3 m.

After installation, each anchor should be proof loaded to 125% of the design working

load and locked-off at about 80% of the working load. Periodic checks should be

carried out during the construction phase to ensure that the lock-off load is maintained

and not lost due to creep effects or other causes. The above parameters are based on

the assumption that the anchor holes are clean and thoroughly flushed, with grouting

and other installation procedures carried out carefully and in accordance with normal

good anchoring practice. The successful anchoring contractor should be required to

demonstrate that the above bond values are achievable with the proposed anchor

construction methods.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

Following excavation of the basement, the bulk excavation level will comprise shale

bedrock and at this preliminary stage, is assessed as being capable of providing an

allowable bearing capacity of 700kPa (Pells et al reference 19). Should higher bearing

capacity be required, further geotechnical investigation will be required to assess the

strength and quality of the bedrock formation.

Footing systems should be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced structural

engineer and GEE recommends that inspection by a geotechnical engineer is

undertaken during the footing excavation stage, to confirm that the design founding

conditions have been achieved.



Page 17 of 20

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEE considers that sufficient information has been gained to be confident of the

subsurface conditions across the site, to assist with design of the proposed

development and to provide Council with assurances regarding the geotechnical

feasibility of the proposed development.

Based on the results of the investigation, the proposed development is considered

feasible, although a Sydney Water sewer pipeline will need re-alignment to facilitate

the proposed basement. Additionally, GEE concludes that the existing rock formation is

capable of withstanding the proposed loads to be imposed, and standard shoring works

(provided they are designed by a structural engineer), will ensure the stability of the

excavation and provide protection and support of adjoining properties.

The geotechnical issues associated with the proposed development have been

addressed by the investigation and are discussed in this report. If, during construction,

any conditions are encountered that vary significantly from those described or inferred

in the above report, it is a condition of the report that we be advised so that those

conditions, and the conclusions discussed in the report, can be reviewed and

alternative recommendations assessed, if appropriate.

GEE will be pleased to assist with any further advice or geotechnical services required

in regard to the proposed development.



Page 18 of 20

6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

Soil and rock formations are variable. The logs or other information presented as part

of this report indicate the approximate subsurface conditions only at the specific test

locations. Boundaries between zones on the logs or stratigraphic sections are often not

distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted.

The precision with which subsurface conditions are indicated depends largely on the

frequency and method of sampling, and on the uniformity of subsurface conditions.

The spacing of test sites also usually reflects budget and schedule constraints.

Groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the

place and under circumstances noted in the report. The conditions may vary

seasonally or as a consequence of construction activities on the site or adjacent sites.

Where ground conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those

anticipated in the report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or

construction activities, it is a condition of this report that GEE be notified of any

variations and be provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this

report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is

recommended that a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer be engaged to visit

the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.

The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the design

engineer, or for other purposes specifically noted in the report. The number of

boreholes or test excavations necessary to determine all relevant underground

conditions which may affect construction costs, techniques and equipment choice,

scheduling, and sequence of operations would normally be greater than has been

carried out for design purposes. Contractors should therefore rely on their own

additional investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the borehole data in

this report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work.



Page 19 of 20

If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Stephen McCormack

Principal

REFERENCES

1. Department of Mineral Resources, 1983: Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Map Sheet

9130 (Edition 1).

2. Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC), 2004: Sydney 1:100 000 Soil

Landscape Series Sheet 9130 (second edition).

3. Wooley, D.R., 1983: Groundwater. In Herbert, C., (Ed), Geology of the Sydney

1:100,000 Sheet 9130, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral

Resources, pp. 145-148.

4. Krumins, H., Bradd, J., and McKibbon, D., 1998: Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment

Groundwater Availability Map: Map Notes. Department of Land and Water Conversation,

December, 1998, Parramatta, 12 pp.

5. Old, A. N., 1942: The Wianamatta Shale Waters of the Sydney District. Agricultural

Gazette of New South Wales, Miscellaneous Publication 3225.

6. Cook P.G., 2003: A Guide to Regional Groundwater Flow in Fractured Rock Aquifers.

Seaview Press, Henley Beach (South Australia), 108pp.

7. DLWC, 1997: Department of Land and Water Conservation of NSW, 1997: Prospect –

Parramatta River Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map – Edition Two.

8. ASSMAC, 1998: Acid Sulfate Soils Management Advisory Committee, 1998a: Acid Sulfate

Soil Manual.

9. Australian Standards, 1997. AS1289.6.3.2 Determination of the penetration resistance of

a soil – 9kg dynamic cone penetrometer test.

10. Land and Water Biodiversity Committee (2003): Minimum Construction Requirements

for Water Bores in Australia. Edition 2 Revised September 2003.

11. New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA), 2014: Waste

classification guidelines – Part 1 classifying waste. November 2014.



Page 20 of 20

12. Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006 Explosives - Storage and use - Use of explosives -

Appendix J: Ground Vibrations and Airblast Overpressure.

13. Australian Standard AS41670.2-1990: Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body

vibration - Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz).

14. DIN 4150 – Part 3 – 1999. Effects if Vibration on Structures.

15. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2006. Assessing Vibration: a

technical guideline.

16. British Standard BS 7385-1:1990. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on

buildings.

17. British Standard BS 7385-2:1993. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration.

18. Australian Standard AS4678-2002: Australian Standard, 2002: Earth Retaining

Structures.

19. Pells et al, 1998: Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the Sydney Region, Australian

Geomechanics Society, 1998.

20. Hvorslev, M.J., 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground-Water Observations,

Bull. No. 36, Waterways Exper. Sta. Corps of Engrs, U.S. Army, Vicksburg, Mississippi,

pp. 1-5.

21. Dupuit, J. 1863. E´tude the´orique et pratique sur le movement des eaux dans les

canaux de´couverts et a travers les terrains permeables. 2nd ed. Paris, France: Dunod



FIGURE 1

SITE PLAN

SITE PLAN31-35 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush NSW

Aerial Image Source: provided by Nearmap Ltd (www.nearmap.com.au) - Image date: 29th November 2014

A

182 BRIDGE STREETLANE COVE NSW 2066P - 61 (2) 9420 3361E - [email protected]

DRAWN:

DATE:SCALE:

JOB No.: REVISION:

N.T.S

J.Long

TITLE: FIGURE No.:29 Jan 16

G15005HOM

North

Approximate Site Boundary

Approximate Location of Proposed Basement

BH1

BH2

BH3

BH4



APPENDIX A

Architectural Plans (10 Sheets)

GSPublisherVersion 24.0.79.71

ARCHITECT:PROJECT:

31-35 SMALLWOOD AVE, HOMEBUSHCLIENT:

MR CHARLIE AYOUBSCALE: DATE: CAD FILE NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED 1: CHECKED 2: APPROVED:

1:200

DRAWING NAME

BASEMENT 02

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1200

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4

ACCESS: ACOUSTIC: HYDRAULIC: BCA: PLANNING:TRAFFIC:

GEOTECHNICAL:QUANTITY SURVEY: BASIX:

WILLANA & ASSOCIATESa: PO BOX 170, Randwick NSW 2031e: [email protected]: 9399 6500w: www.willana.com.au

WASTE MANAGEMENT:LANDSCAPING:

ML TRAFFICa: Suite 5.04 Level 5, 365 Little CollinsStreet, Melbourne Vic 3000p: 03 9016 9865

Ghazi Al Ali Architect9-13 Redmyre Rd, Strathfield, NSW 2135t: 02 8065 1544e: [email protected]

CONZEPTa: Suit 101, 506 Miller St, Cammeray NSW2062t: +61 2 9922 5312

ACCESS SOLUTIONSa: PO Box 282, Hamilton NSW 2303m: 0411 824 183

GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A3 © COPYRIGHTFOR DA

PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A

DO NOT SCALE DWGS. USEDIMENSIONS ONLY. REFERANY DISCREPANCIES TOARCHITECT PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.

THESE DRAWINGS ARESUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT.

FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A

UNIT 2H ,9-13 R E D M Y R E R D , STRATHFIELD, N S W 2135

T. +612 8065 1544 | E . office@ ghazia.c o mA C N : 67167131848

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %

920

920 16 x 188 = 3,000

123456789101112131415

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

4445

4647

4849

5051

5253

5455

50,292

50,292

50,292

50,292

34,2

90

34,2

90

10,3

0080

04,

800

7,19

05,

000

5,00

01,

000

200

7,85

016

,340

5,00

05,

100

6.38

6.38

SERVICESROOM

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

BASEMENT 02

920

600 600

920

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M

BASEMENT 02 PLAN 1:200SCALE 1:200


ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

BASEMENT 01

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1201

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



103.50 m2

96.71 m2

16 x 188 = 3,000

123456789101112131415

920

920 16 x 188 = 3,000

123456789101112131415

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23

4 x

180

= 7

20

123

12

x 19

0 =

2,28

0

1234567891011

50,292

50,292

50,292

12,642 32,860 4,790

34,2

90

34,2

90

10,3

0080

04,

800

7,19

05,

000

5,00

01,

000

200

4,00

03,

850

20,8

505,

590

9.38

9.3810.02

10.10

9.38

10.1010.1010.10

171.22 m2

3.89 m2

3.58 m2

BOLLARD

BOLLARDBOLLARD

BOLLARDSHARED

AREA

2524

VOID

BASEMENT 01

HYD

RA

NT

BO

OST

ER

SHAREDAREA

SHAREDAREA

2928

SHAREDAREA

YELLOW BINS TOBE COLLECTEDFORTNIGHTLY

RED BINS TOBE COLLECTED

WEEKLY

2627

3031

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

COMMERCIAL/VISITOR

600 600

920

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M

BASEMENT 01 PLAN 1:200SCALE 1:200


ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

GROUND

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1202

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



55.71 m2

23.70 m2

24.85 m2

16 x 188 = 3,000

123456789101112131415

920

1250

1250

1250

1250

920

920

920

820

920

820

920

920

720

820

720

820

820

720

720

820

820

820

720

720

820

920

720

720

720

4 x

180

= 7

20

123

12

x 19

0 =

2,28

0

1234567891011

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

50,292

12,642 18,650 2,764 16,236

50,292

17,892 2,850 29,550

34,2

90

34,2

90

10,3

0080

04,

800

2,40

04,

790

5,00

05,

000

1,00

020

0

7,85

08,

050

8,29

05,

000

5,10

0

10.3412.29

12.55

12.38

12.3812.38

12.38

10.02

10.10

12.38

10.10

9.38

10.02

10.10

43.05 m221.88 m2

TREE TO BEREMOVED

TREE TO BEREMOVED

LETTERBOX

KITCHEN COMPLIES WITHAS4299 'ADAPTABLE HOUSING'

1.6 SILL HEIGHT 1.6 SILL HEIGHT

SMA

LLWO

OD

AVEN

UE

HU

DSO

N S

TREE

T

HYD

RA

NT

BO

OST

ER

BIN COLLECTION AREA

PLANTERBOX

ADAPTABLE

HYDRULIC PUMP ROOMSPRINKLER ALARM VALVE BIN COLLECTION AREA

BICYCLEPARKING : 18

SPRINKLER PUMP ROOM

SERVICESROOM

1 BEDG03

A: 57.25 m2

2 BEDG05

A: 75.09 m2

2 BEDG01

A: 76.07 m2

COMMERCIALG04

A: 64.81 m2

2 BEDG02

A: 75.98 m2

2 BEDG06

A: 75.09 m2

12.50 % 25.00 % 25.00 % 12.50 %

920

920920

600 600

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M

GROUND LEVEL PLAN 1:200SCALE 1:200


ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 01

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1203

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



10.18 m2

10.40 m2

10.00 m2

10.18 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.71 m2

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

720

820

720

820

820

720

820

720

820

720

820

820

820

720

820

820

720

820

820

920

820

920

720720

820

820

720

720

820

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

3,50

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,50

02,

400

15,9

90

50,292

31,291 2,764 9,236 3,000 4,000

50,292

19,056 2,000 10,237 2,764 16,236

34,2

90

9,00

06,

900

2,40

03,

600

3,89

08,

500

15.88


1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHTGLASS BLOCK





1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

ADAPTABLE

VOID

VOID

1 BED103

A: 57.25 m2

2 BED101

A: 76.07 m2

2 BED105

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED107

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED104

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED102

A: 75.98 m2

2 BED108

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED106

A: 75.09 m2

920

600 600

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M

LEVEL 01 PLAN 1:200SCALE 1:200


ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 02

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1204

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



10.38 m2

10.40 m2

10.00 m2

10.18 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

11.20 m2

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

820

720

820

720

820

720

820

820

820

720

820

820

720

820

820

920

820

920

720720

820

820

720

820

720

720

820

720

820

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

3,50

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,50

02,

400

15,9

90

50,292

43,292 7,000

50,292

50,292

34,2

90

9,00

06,

900

2,40

03,

600

3,89

08,

500

18.88


1.6 SILL HEIGHT






1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

ADAPTABLE

VOID

VOID

1 BED203

A: 57.25 m2

2 BED201

A: 76.07 m2

2 BED205

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED207

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED204

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED202

A: 75.98 m2

2 BED208

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED206

A: 75.09 m2

920

600 600

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M



ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 03

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1205

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



10.00 m2

10.40 m2

10.00 m2

10.18 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.71 m2

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

820

720

820

720

820

720

820

820

820

720

820

820

720

820

820

920

820

920

720720

820

820

720

820

720

720

820

720

820

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

3,50

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,50

02,

400

15,9

90

50,292

43,292 7,000

50,292

50,292

34,2

90

9,00

06,

900

2,40

03,

600

3,89

08,

500

21.88


1.6 SILL HEIGHT






1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

ADAPTABLE

VOID

VOID

1 BED303

A: 57.25 m2

2 BED301

A: 76.07 m2

2 BED305

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED307

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED304

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED302

A: 75.98 m2

2 BED308

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED306

A: 75.09 m2

920

600 600

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M



ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 04

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1206

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



10.00 m2

10.40 m2

10.00 m2

10.18 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

10.00 m2

11.20 m2

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

820

720

820

720

820

720

820

820

820

720

820

820

720

820

820

920

820

920

720720

820

820

720

820

720

720

820

720

820

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

3,50

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,50

02,

400

15,9

90

50,292

43,292 7,000

50,292

50,292

34,2

90

9,00

06,

900

2,40

03,

600

3,89

08,

500

24.88


1.6 SILL HEIGHT 1.6 SILL HEIGHT 1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT

1.6 SILL HEIGHT





1.6 SILL HEIGHT

ADAPTABLE

VOID

VOID

1 BED403

A: 57.25 m2

2 BED401

A: 76.07 m2

2 BED405

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED407

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED404

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED402

A: 75.98 m2

2 BED408

A: 75.09 m2

2 BED406

A: 75.09 m2

920

600 600

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M



ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 05

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1207

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



82.73 m283.09 m2

82.24 m288.79 m2

13.40 m2

0.00 m2

11.00 m2

13.80 m2

10.40 m2

920

920

720

820

720

820

820

820 820

820

920

720

820

820

720

920

820

920

820

920

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

3,50

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,50

02,

400

3,29

03,

400

2,10

03,

400

3,80

0

50,292

31,291 15,000 4,000

50,292

20,292 11,500 3,000 11,500 4,000

34,2

90

9,00

06,

900

2,40

03,

600

3,89

01,

300

3,40

03,

800

27.881.6 SILL HEIGHT


1.6 SILL HEIGHT1.6 SILL HEIGHT1.6 SILL HEIGHT1.6 SILL HEIGHT


ADAPTABLE

2 BED502

A: 80.24 m2

2 BED501

A: 70.68 m2

2 BED504

A: 80.24 m2

2 BED503

A: 75.09 m2

600 600 920

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M



ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

LEVEL 06

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1208

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



13.40 m2

11.00 m2

10.40 m2

13.80 m2

920

720

820

720

820

920

820

820 820

820

920

820

920

820

920 92

0

720

820

820

720

1550

1550

1550

1550

1000

34,2

90

50,292

19,292 2,600 9,400 3,000 9,400 2,600 4,000

50,292

21,892 9,900 3,000 8,900 2,600 4,000

34,2

90

6,59

92,

400

6,90

02,

400

15,9

90

6,60

12,

400

6,90

02,

400

3,60

03,

890

1,81

06,

690

30.881.6 SILL HEIGHT




ADAPTABLE

2 BED601

A: 70.68 m2

2 BED602

A: 80.24 m2

2 BED604

A: 80.24 m2

2 BED603

A: 75.09 m2

600 600 920

16 x 188 = 3,000

1234567

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 150 1 2 5 10M



ARCHITECT:PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

ROOF PLAN

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

AA1207

DRAWING NUMBER

DATZ TZ

15/01/2016

23.1

4









GA

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R D A



FOR

DA

15/0

1/20

16A



33.88

34.68

0 1 2 5 10M

ROOF PLAN 1:200SCALE 1:200



APPENDIX B

Sydney Water Sewer plan (1 Sheets)

AVE

AV

E

ST

HU

DS

ON

SM

ALL

WO

OD

VSE

16

B

15

14

A

B

C

12

13

11

10

9

1

A

B

3

2

8

7

6

C

C

D

5

B

A

4

3

2

1

34 33 32

27

28

29

31 30

212

2

4

6

11

13

8

10

12

14

16

18

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

22

20

24

29

31

33

35

515253

26

28

30

32

13

15

17

1950

18.5

61.8

50.948

.4

21.3

24.0

33.8

37.4

17.3

3.6 5.4

15.2

8.5

25.9

8.810.6

21.3

35.0

1.22.4

38.1

44.1

52.4

21.324.6

21.9

26.2

10.6

23.424.6

30.6

39.041.4

54.556.9

69.42.4

11.213.7

26.2

38.1

49.3

62.463.7

75.2

12.8

22.524.9

34.436.2

14.6

57.654.8

23.425.2

35.337.7 2.1

11.8

13.7

36.2

45.7

1.722

1.921.7

2.58

1

1.89

2.32

1.61

1.89

1.511

1.18

8

17.0

1.307

1.4470.

9

1.432

0.981

1.313

1.21

2.2

1.8

Conc

Enc

ased

150 VC

150 VC

225 VC

150 V

C

150

VC

150 V

C

150 PVC

150

PVC

150 PVC

150

SGW

150

VC

150 V

C

150

VC

150

VC

150 VC

150 VC15

0 VC

150

SGW

150

SGW

150 VC

6.2

5.9

5.9

2.4

100 C

ICL

375

CICL

N0m 5m 10m 15m 20m

Plan 1 of 1Copyright Reserved Sydney Water 2015

Date of Production: 21/01/2015

A4

SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION

DBYD Address: 31 SmallwoodAvenueHomebush NSW2140

DBYD Job No: 8742963

DBYD Sequence No: 43486825No warranty is given that the information shown is complete or accurate.

Scale: 1:1000



APPENDIX C

Borehole Logs (4 Sheets)

water seepage occurring below 1.1m

DCP Practical Refusal at 2.2m, bouncinginferred completely weathered shale bedrock

Han

d A

uger

ML

CH

CH

TOPSOIL/FILL - Clayey Silt, dark brown, soft to firm, low plasticity, with fine tomedium grained sand.

Silty CLAY - orange-brown, firm, medium to high plasticty, with fine to mediumironstone gravel.

stiff.

Silty CLAY - pale grey / orange-brown, very stiff to hard, medium to highplasticty, (completely weathered shale retrieved as silty clay and fragments ofshale).

Practical Hand Auger Refusal at 2.20 mCaused by completely weathered shale bedrock

Moist

Moist

VeryMoist

SlightlyMoist

Wat

er L

evel

draw

n by

: lau

rie.w

hite

@re

umad

.com

.au

Surface: grass

Samples/ Tests

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E B

H L

OG

G15

005

HO

M.G

PJ

GE

E.G

DT

3/1

2/1

5 3

:31:

54 P

M

Observations / Comments

Date Completed:Hand Auger

Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:

Joshua LongLogged By:

Wet

----------

28/01/2015

28/01/2015

Hole Depth:

Dp

Very Moist

Geo Environmental Engineering Date Started:

Dry

Project Name:


----------

SM

Date:

D

2.20 m

Drill Method:

Drilling Company:

Mr Charlie Ayoub

Geotechnical Investigation

Equipment:

Client:

Easting:

Northing:

Sheet:

28/01/2015

BH1

G15005HOM

Manual

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd

Moisture Additional Comments

M

Location / Site:

5/02/2015Date:Stephen McCormackChecked By:

DampSlightly Moist

---------- (approx)

1 of 1

Geo Environmental Engineering

82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol

Material Description

Moi

stur

e

blows/100mm

DCP

5 10 15 20

Fill

Nat

ural

Mat

eria

l Typ

e


bore dry upon completion of drilling

Sol

id F

light

Aug

er -

TC

Bit

ML

GM

CH

CH

TOPSOIL/FILL - Clayey Silt, dark brown, soft, low plasticity, with fine to mediumgrained sand.

FILL - Gravelly Silt, pale brown, soft, low plasticity, with fine to medium gravel.

Silty CLAY - orange-brown, firm to stiff, medium to high plasticty, with fine tomedium ironstone gravel.


SHALE - pale grey, (extremely weathered shale with estimated low strength).

becoming dark grey, extremely to moderately weathered shale, with estimated lowto medium strength.

Hole Terminated at 7.50 mTarget Depth Reached

Moist

Moist

Moist

SlightlyMoist

Wat

er L

evel

draw

n by

: lau

rie.w

hite

@re

umad

.com

.au

Surface: grass

Samples/ Tests

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E B

H L

OG

G15

005

HO

M.G

PJ

GE

E.G

DT

3/1

2/1

5 3

:31:

54 P

M


Date Completed:Solid Flight Auger - TC Bit

Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:


Wet

----------

28/01/2015

28/01/2015

Hole Depth:

Dp

Very Moist

Ground Technologies Date Started:

Dry

Project Name:


----------

SM

Date:

D

7.50 m

Drill Method:

Drilling Company:

Mr Charlie Ayoub


Equipment:

Client:

Easting:

Northing:

Sheet:

28/01/2015

BH2

G15005HOM

4WD Utility Rig

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd


M

Location / Site:


DampSlightly Moist

---------- (approx)

1 of 1


82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol


Moi

stur

e

blows/100mm

DCP

5 10 15 20

Fill

Nat

ural

Bed

rock

Mat

eria

l Typ

e


bore dry upon completion of drilling

Sol

id F

light

Aug

er -

TC

Bit

SP

GM

CH

CH

FILL - Brick Pavement, 40mm.

FILL - Sand, grey-brown, loose, medium grained.

FILL - Gravelly Silt, brown, firm, low plasticity, with fine to medium gravel.

Silty CLAY - orange-brown, stiff, medium to high plasticty, with fine to mediumironstone gravel.


SHALE - pale grey, (extremely weathered shale with estimated low strength).

becoming dark grey, extremely to moderately weathered shale, with estimated lowto medium strength.


Moist

Moist

Moist

SlightlyMoist

Wat

er L

evel

draw

n by

: lau

rie.w

hite

@re

umad

.com

.au

Surface: brick pavement

Samples/ Tests

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E B

H L

OG

G15

005

HO

M.G

PJ

GE

E.G

DT

3/1

2/1

5 3

:31:

55 P

M



Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:


Wet

----------

28/01/2015

28/01/2015

Hole Depth:

Dp

Very Moist


Dry

Project Name:


----------

SM

Date:

D

7.00 m

Drill Method:

Drilling Company:

Mr Charlie Ayoub


Equipment:

Client:

Easting:

Northing:

Sheet:

28/01/2015

BH3

G15005HOM

4WD Utility Rig

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd


M

Location / Site:


DampSlightly Moist

---------- (approx)

1 of 1


82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol


Moi

stur

e

blows/100mm

DCP

5 10 15 20

Fill

Nat

ural

Bed

rock

Mat

eria

l Typ

e

2.8m

6/02

/201

5

bore dry upon completion ofdrilling

Sol

id F

light

Aug

er -

TC

Bit

ML

CH

TOPSOIL/FILL - Clayey Silt, dark brown, soft, low plasticity, with fine to medium grainedsand.

Silty CLAY - orange-brown, firm to stiff, medium to high plasticty, with fine to mediumironstone gravel.

SHALE - pale grey / orange-brown, (extremely weathered shale with estimated very lowstrength).

becoming mid grey, extremely weathered shale with estimated low strength).

becoming dark grey, extremely to moderately weathered shale, with estimated low to mediumstrength.


Moist

Moist

4.30

1.00

2.00

7.30

7.50

Bac

kfill

Ben

toni

teC

oars

e S

and

50m

m Ø

Scr

een

Cav

e-in

Wat

er L

evel

draw

n by

: lau

rie.w

hite

@re

umad

.com

.au

Surface: grass

Dep

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RL

(m)

Gra

phic

Log

GE

E B

H L

OG

G15

005

HO

M.G

PJ

GE

E.G

DT

3/1

2/1

5 3

:31:

56 P

M



Borehole Log Report

Ground Level:


Wet

----------

4/02/2015

4/02/2015

Hole Depth:

Dp

Very Moist


Dry

Project Name:


----------

SM

Date:

D

7.50 m

Drill Method:

Drilling Company:

Mr Charlie Ayoub


Equipment:

Client:

Easting:

Northing:

Sheet:

4/02/2015

BH4

G15005HOM

4WD Utility Rig

Hole ID.

Saturated

Project Number:

MoistVMWSd


M

Location / Site:


DampSlightly Moist

---------- (approx)

1 of 1


82 Bridge Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

T 02 9420 3361

Met

hod

US

CS

Sym

bol


Moi

stur

e

Wel

l Det

ails

Wel

l Con

stru

ctio

n

Fill

Nat

ural

Bed

rock

Mat

eria

l Typ

e

ORGANICS

PushtubeSolid Flight Auger

PWSSFA

Hand AugerHA

WELL GRAPHICS

TOPSOILASPHALT

GE

E L

EG

EN

D *

* 2

9/10

/09

5:0

4:07

PM

ABBREVIATIONSPT

Standing Water

Encountered Water

Hollow Flight Auger

Percussion Window Sampler

WATER LEVELS

FILL

HFA

Gravel Pack

Cuttings

Grout

Screen

Cave-in

Bentonite

CONCRETE

ESTUARINE MUD

Sandy Silty CLAY

Silty Sandy CLAY

Silty Gravelly CLAY

Gravelly Silty CLAY

Sandy Gravelly CLAY

Gravelly Sandy CLAY

Sandy Clayey GRAVEL

Clayey Sandy GRAVEL

Clayey Silty GRAVEL

Sandy Silty GRAVEL

Silty Clayey GRAVEL

Silty Sandy GRAVEL

Sandy Clayey SILT

Clayey Sandy SILT

Sandy Gravelly SILT

Clayey Gravelly SILT

Gravelly Sandy SILT

Gravelly Clayey SILT

Silty Clayey SAND

Clayey Silty SAND

Gravelly Silty SAND

Clayey Gravelly SAND

Silty Gravelly SAND

Gravelly Clayey SAND

CLAY & SAND

CLAY & SILT

CLAY & GRAVEL

SAND & CLAY

SAND & SILT

SAND & GRAVEL

SILT & CLAY

SILT & SAND

SILT & GRAVEL

GRAVEL & SAND

GRAVEL & CLAY

GRAVEL & SILT

Gravelly CLAY

Silty CLAY

Sandy CLAY

CLAY GRAVEL

Clayey GRAVEL

Sandy GRAVEL

Silty GRAVELGravelly SILT

SILT

Clayey SILT

Sandy SILT

Gravelly SAND

Clayey SAND

SAND

Silty SAND

Log Report Legend

MUDSTONE /CLAYSTONE

SHALE /CLAYSTONE

SHALE /SILTSTONE

SHALE /SANDSTONE

CLAYSTONE

PORCELLANITE

SANDSTONE SHALE

GNEISS

GRANITE

MUDSTONE

BASALT

IRONSTONE

Geo Environmental Engineering82 Bridge Street Lane Cove NSW 2066E [email protected]

MATERIAL SYMBOL