geotechnical and salinity investigation report · geotechnical and salinity investigation report...

172 Tallawong Road, Rouse Hill NE149.1-17

0

GEOTECHNICAL AND SALINITY INVESTIGATION REPORT

ADDRESS: 172 Tallawong Road, Rouse Hill

CLIENT: JS Architects Pty Ltd

DATE: 5 June 2017

REPORT NO: NE149.1-17

GEOTESTA PTY LTD | ABN 91851620815 | 44 Mary Parade, Rydalmere NSW 2116

Phone: 1300 852216 | Fax: 03 9562 9098 | email: [email protected]


1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 4

3. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Site Topography ..............................................................................................................5

3.2 Site Geology ....................................................................................................................5

3.3 Soil/Rock Profile ..............................................................................................................6

3.4 Site Classification .............................................................................................................7

3.5 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................7

3.6 Laboratory Testing and Analysis – Geotechnical .............................................................7

3.7 Laboratory Testing and Analysis - Soil Contamination ....................................................7

3.7.1 Salinity Classification ..............................................................................................8

3.7.2 Results – Exposure Classification ............................................................................8

4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................... 10

4.1 Strip/Pad Footing System............................................................................................... 10

4.2 Slab on Ground .............................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Bored Piers or Screw Piles .............................................................................................. 11

4.3.1 Pile Construction Considerations .......................................................................... 12

5. EXCAVATION, RETAINING WALL & LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES .............. 13

5.1 Temporary Cut Batter and Excavation ........................................................................... 13

5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................................................. 13

5.4 Anchored Soldier Pile Retention Systems ....................................................................... 14

5.5 Ground Anchors ............................................................................................................ 15

5.6 Estimated Wall Deflections and Ground Settlements ..................................................... 15

5.7 Drainage of Retention Systems....................................................................................... 16

5.8 Basement Floor Construction ......................................................................................... 16

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 18

Table Index

Table 1: Summary of Sub-surface Materials 6

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Test Results 7

Table 3: Salinity test results 8

Table 4: Exposure classification test results 8

Table 5: Soil Aggresivity Testing Results 9

Table 6: Allowable Bearing Capacities for Pad/Strip Footings 10

Table 7: Geotechnical parameters for Slab on Ground Footings 11

Table 8: Allowable Skin Friction and End Bearing Capacity 12

Table 9: Materials Strength Parameters 14

Figures

Figure 1: Site Plan and Borehole Locations 4

Figure 2: Geology Map of the Site with Package Code 5


2

Appendices Borehole Logs Laboratory Test Results


3

1. INTRODUCTION

Geotesta was engaged by JS Architects Pty Ltd to conduct geotechnical investigation

including soil contamination assessment at 172 Tallawong Road, Rouse Hill NSW. The

proposed residential development includes 115 residential units with double basement

levels.

The field work was carried out on 22 May 2017. This report presents the geotechnical

investigation results including sub-surface soil profile with interpreted geotechnical

properties of the assessed subsurface lithology, laboratory test results (Atterberg

limits), soil classification, recommendations on the design parameters of footing,

geotechnical parameters including allowable bearing capacity, shaft friction, friction

angle, cohesion, and young’s modulus.

The scope of report also included laboratory chemical analysis on collected soil

samples, reporting chemical characteristic of the soil in relation to salinity and

aggresivity and comments on laboratory test results and recommendations. The soil

contamination assessment is to provide information on the soil contamination for the

future construction of residential development. This assessment has been carried out

in general accordance with the following guidelines:

The soil contamination assessment is performed in accordance with AS4482.1 - 2005,

AS4482.2 – 2005;

Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC, 2002), Site Investigations for

Urban Salinity;

Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice March 2003 (Amended January 2004);

Australian Standard (AS) 3600 (2009), Concrete Structures;

The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), amended on 30 April 2013

and

Other relevant NSW guidelines and legislation.

The soil contamination assessment was conducted in general accordance with the

Australian Standards. The salinity assessment was carried out with reference to the

Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) publications.


4

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION

The investigation involved of total eight (8) boreholes to a maximum depth of 4.5m for

the proposed residential development.

A site plan showing the borehole locations are presented on Figure 1. Borehole drilling

was undertaken using a drilling rig PIXY 41T. All boreholes were drilled using solid

flight augering method.

The soil profiles encountered in the Boreholes were logged by a Geotechnical Engineer

from Geotesta in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1726-1993. All field

observations are presented on the borehole logs attached in Appendix A.

Selected representative samples were sent to Geotesta NATA accredited laboratory for

proposed laboratory testing program and some samples to Eurofin MGT Laboratory

for contamination assessment.

Figure 1: Site Plan and Borehole Locations

Denotes borehole locations


5

3. FINDINGS

3.1 Site Topography

The proposed site at 172 Tallawong Road in Rouse Hill is gently sloping from west to

east. The proposed site is covered by grass with medium to tall trees observed on the

perimeter of the site. There is a man-made dam at the eastern corner of the site (Figure

1).

3.2 Site Geology

The geological origin of the soil profile was identified from our visual examination of

the soil samples, geotechnical experience, and reference to geological maps of the area.

The geological map of the area indicates that the site is underlain by Wianamatta

Group (Twi) - Sandstone, siltstone and shale; common bioturbation

Figure 2: Geology Map of the Site with Package Code

Geological Unit: Wianamatta Group (Twi) - Sandstone, siltstone and shale; common bioturbation


6

3.3 Soil/Rock Profile

The encountered soil profiles are presented in the borehole logs in Appendix A and

tabulated in detail in the Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Sub-surface Materials

Borehole

No.

Depth

(m) Soil/Rock Type

Compaction

Level/Consistency

BH 1

0-0.5 Fill Well compacted

0.5-1.0 Silty CLAY Firm

1.0-1.5 Silty CLAY Stiff to very stiff

1.5-2.0 Silty CLAY Hard

2.0-3.0 Silty CLAY with Shale fragments Hard

BH 2


0.3-0.85 Silty CLAY Stiff to very stiff to hard

BH 3


0.3-0.6 Silty CLAY Stiff

0.6-1.35 Silty CLAY Very stiff to hard

BH 4


0.2-2.0 Silty CLAY Firm to stiff

2.0-4.0 Silty CLAY Very stiff


BH 5


0.3-1.7 Silty CLAY Stiff to very stiff

1.7-2.4 Silty CLAY with Shale fragments Hard

BH 6 0-0.80 Silty CLAY Stiff to very stiff


BH 7 0-0.40 Silty CLAY Firm to stiff


BH 8

0-0.40 Silty CLAY Stiff to very stiff


0.8-4.0 Silty CLAY Hard


7

3.4 Site Classification

After considering the area geology, the soil profile encountered in the bores; the site is

classified as CLASS M, with respect to foundation construction (Australian Standard 2870-

2011 Residential Slabs and Footings) except the area around BH1 and BH 4 which have

presence of deep clay and it would be classified as CLASS H1.

It has been estimated that the Characteristic Surface Movement (ys) of the underlying natural

soil material will be in the range of 20mm to 40mm except at BH1 and BH4 where it would be

40mm to 60mm provided the building site is protected from “abnormal moisture conditions”

and is drained as described in AS 2870.

It must be emphasized that the heave mentioned and recommendations referred to in this

report are based solely on the observed soil profile observed at the time of the investigation for

this report, without taking into account any abnormal moisture conditions as defined in

AS2870 – 2011, Clause 1.3.3 that might be created thereafter. With abnormal moisture

conditions, distresses will occur and may result in “non-acceptable probabilities of

serviceability and safety of the building during its design life,” as defined in AS2870-2011,

Clause 1.3.1. If these distresses are not acceptable to the builder, owner or other relevant

parties then further fieldwork and revised footing recommendations must be carried out.

3.5 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes.

3.6 Laboratory Testing and Analysis – Geotechnical

Representative soil samples retrieved from the selected boreholes were sent to

Geotesta NATA accredited laboratory for test their Atterberg limits (Liquid Limits and

Linear Shrinkage ONLY). Laboratory test results are summarised in Table 2:

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Borehole

Nos.

Depth

(m)

Soil type LS

%

BH 1 0.5-0.7 Silty CLAY 15

BH 4 0.3-0.6 Silty CLAY 21

3.7 Laboratory Testing and Analysis - Soil Contamination

Total Four (4) soil samples from eight (8) boreholes were submitted to Eurofin MGT

Laboratory, a NATA accredited laboratory, for chemical testings including Electrical

Conductivity (EC), pH and soluble SO4. The testings were carried out for salinity

classification and to assess exposure classification for the proposed development.


8

Sampling was targeted to achieve a representative coverage of site conditions in line

with assessed sub-surface profiles, proposed development, and the investigation

scope.

Analysis Frequency Analyses

4 Samples Salinity suite including Electrical Conductivity (EC),

pH and soluble SO4

3.7.1 Salinity Classification

Laboratory test results for salinity classification are summarised in Table 3. Laboratory

certificates are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3: Salinity test results

Sample ID EC

(µS/cm)

Multiplication

Factor

ECe

(dS/m) Salinity Classification

BH1/01/0.5 190 7 1.330 Non-saline

BH4/01/0.3-0.5 420 7 2.940 Slightly Saline

BH6/01/0.3-0.5 69 7 0.483 Non-saline

BH7/01/0.3-0.5 19 7 0.133 Non-saline

The majority of results indicate sub-surface materials down to 0.5m bgl are classified

as non-saline. A slightly saline material is encountered in borehole BH4 at 0.3-0.5m

depth at the Dam side.

3.7.2 Results – Exposure Classification

Sulphate and pH test results for exposure classification are summarised in Table 4.

Laboratory test certificates are presented in Appendix B.

Table 4: Exposure classification test results

Sample ID pH Sulphate (SO4)

(mg/kg) Exposure Classification

BH1/01/0.5 5 45 A2

BH4/01/0.3-0.5 5.1 94 A2

BH6/01/0.3-0.5 5.2 42 A2

BH7/01/0.3-0.5 5.2 <10 A2


9

An exposure classification for concrete of A2 should be adopted for preliminary

design of proposed concrete structures.

Table 5: Soil Aggresivity Testing Results

Content Unit BH1/01/0.5 BH4/01/0.3-

0.5

BH6/01/0.3-

0.5

BH7/01/0.3-

0.5

pH pH Unit 5 5.1 5.2 5.2

Sulfate

Content mg/kg 45 94 42 <10

Conductivity (μS/cm) 190 420 69 19

The results indicate variable pH values range from 5 to 5.2, and sulphate from less

than 10 to 94 mg/kg, and conductivity values from 19 to 420 μs/cm for the selected

samples.


10

4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Strip/Pad Footing System

It is recommended that an engineer designed strip/pad footing system for a Class M site be

used on this site except area around BH1 and BH4 where it is recommended Class H1. We

recommend that the designing engineer refer to AS2870-2011 to ensure design compliance to

this document.

The strip footings should be founded in the natural soil layer and penetrate through any fill

material, tree roots and founded at least 100mm into the recommended founding material. As

a guide with information obtained from the bores, the actual founding depth for strip/pad

footings at the test locations should be as follow:

Table 6: Allowable Bearing Capacities for Pad/Strip Footings

Borehole

No.

Founding

Depth

(mm)

Allowable

Bearing Capacity

(kPa)

Founding

Material

Site

Class

BH 1 and BH 4 900 150 Silty Clay H1

BH 2, BH 3 and

BH 5 to BH 8 600 150 Silty Clay M

The founding depth should be as stipulated above or to hard layer, whichever is encountered

first. It should be noted that the soil profile may vary across the site. The foundation depths

quoted in this report are measured from the surface during our testing and may vary

accordingly if any filling or excavation works are carried out. It is recommended that a

geotechnical engineer be engaged during footing excavation stage to confirm the founding

depth and founding material.

4.2 Slab on Ground

It is recommended that an engineer designed slab on ground footing system for a Class M site

be used on this site except area around BH1 and BH4 where it is recommended Class H1. We

recommend that the designing engineer refer to AS2870-2011 to ensure design compliance to

this document.

The edge and load bearing beams for the slab footings should be founded in the natural soil

layer and penetrate through any fill material, tree roots and founded at least 100 mm into the

recommended founding material. As a guide with information obtained from the bores, the

actual founding depth for edge and load bearing beams at the test locations should be as

follow:


11

Table 7: Geotechnical parameters for Slab on Ground Footings

Borehole

No.

Founding

Depth

(mm)

Allowable

Bearing Capacity

(kPa)

Founding

Material

Site

Class

BH 1 500 100 Silty Clay H1

BH 4 400 120 Silty Clay H1

BH 2, BH 3 and

BH 5 to BH 8 400 120 Silty Clay M

It should be noted that the soil profile may vary across the site. The foundation depths quoted

in this report are measured from the surface during our testing and may vary accordingly if

any filling or excavation works are carried out. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer

be engaged during footing excavation stage to confirm the founding depth and founding

material.

Slab panels and internal beams can be founded in the natural soil profile or in compacted

surface filling and/or as required in the design by engineering principles. Compacted filling

used to raise levels beneath panels must be placed and compacted as per specifications for

controlled or rolled fill.

Controlled fill is material that has been placed and compacted in layers by compaction

equipment within a defined moisture range to a defined density requirement. Except as

provided below, controlled fill shall be placed in accordance with AS 3798.

If more than 400mm of CLAY FILL or 800mm of SAND FILL, imported or site derived,

including existing FILL material, is required, then the slab must be designed as a suspended

slab and supported by a grid of beams founded through any fill material in accordance with

the above edge beam recommendations.

4.3 Bored Piers or Screw Piles

Bored piers or Screw piles can be used to support the proposed residential units. The

pier/pile foundation of the proposed structure is assumed to be a high redundancy

system and the intrinsic test factor (фtf) is assumed to be equal to basic geotechnical

strength reduction factor (фgb), in accordance to AS2159-2009. The overall design

average risk rating (ARR) is to be calculated by the designer and the corresponding

geotechnical strength reduction shall be adopted.


12

Table 8: Allowable Skin Friction and End Bearing Capacity

Borehole No. Depth

(m) Soil Type

Allowable Skin

Friction

(kPa)

Allowable End

Bearing Capacity

(kPa)

BH 1 to BH 3 and

BH 6 to BH 8

1.5 Silty CLAY 30 600

2.5/3.0 Silty CLAY 35 750

BH 4 2.0 Silty CLAY 25 450

3.0 Silty CLAY 30 500

BH 5 1.8 Silty CLAY 30 500

2.5/3.0 Silty CLAY 35 600

4.3.1 Pile Construction Considerations

Where necessary and appropriate, at contractor’s discretion, a temporary casing may be used

to prevent the pile excavation from collapsing. The inside of the casing must be clean and free

of any projections (such as weld backing bars) which could be an obstacle to the placing and

positioning of the reinforcement cage for the piles. Temporary casings may be left in place

provided that the minimum socket length is not cased and the minimum cover to

reinforcement is maintained. Where a casing is left in place, gaps between the casing and the

sides of excavations shall be filled with sand, and compact the sand by flooding. In the case of

piles subject to high lateral loads (e.g. abutment piles and anchor pier piles), fill such gaps with

a cementitious grout containing fine aggregates proportioned to produce a pourable liquid

without segregation, with a compressive strength at 28 days not less than 10MPa when

sampled and tested to Test Method RMS T375. Cement used for the grout must conform to

Specification RMS 3211.


13

5. EXCAVATION, RETAINING WALL & LATERAL EARTH

PRESSURES

5.1 Temporary Cut Batter and Excavation

Excavation in the stiff to very stiff silty clay can be undertaken to 1.0m depth without battering

back. While for an excavation deeper than 1.0m, the cut batter should be no steeper than 1H:

1V. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that there is no existing

structure adjacent to the excavation area. Even at the above cut batters it should be noted that

following rainy periods, some degree of fretting and minor slumping could be anticipated.

Soft to Intermediate excavation conditions are anticipated beneath the site at boreholes BH1

and BH4 locations. At boreholes BH2, BH3, BH5, BH6, intermediate to hard excavation

condition is expected below approximately 1.0m depth due to the presence of hard clay with

rock fragments. At boreholes BH7 and BH8, hard excavation condition is expected below

approximately 1.0m depth due to the presence of hard clay with rock fragments/EW-HW rock.

The table below describes the excavation classes as per SANS 1200D.

Excavation Class Description

Soft Excavation in material that can be efficiently removed by a back-acting excavator

of flywheel power approximately 0.10kW per millimetre of tined-bucket width,

without the use of pneumatic tools such as paving breakers

Intermediate Excavation in material that requires a back-acting excavator of flywheel power

exceeding 0.10 kW per millimetre of tined-bucket width or the use of pneumatic

tools before removal by equipment equivalent to that specified for soft excavation.

Hard Hard rock excavation shall be excavation in material (excluding boulder

excavation) that cannot be efficiently removed without blasting or wedging and

splitting.

5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

For minimum wall deflection, and for construction methods where restraint is applied via

struts, bracing or anchors, the temporary or short-term lateral earth pressure distribution

should approximate a trapezoidal distribution, in which a maximum pressure of 10H kPa is

obtained at a depth of 0.25H, and where H is the total depth of the excavation to be retained.

For basement walls, where wall deflections are not critical, the maximum pressure may be

reduced to 6H kPa.

The above parameters assume that the drained situation exists and that any adjacent surcharge

loading be superimposed using an “at rest” earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.57. It is

emphasised that where adjoining footings exist, the “at rest” pressures must be maintained

and the active design condition is not appropriate.


14

The lateral earth pressures can be estimated by adopting the following soil parameters, for

retaining walls where the active earth pressure condition is permitted to be mobilised.

Table 9: Materials Strength Parameters

Borehol

e

No.

Depth

(m) Soil/Rock Type

Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Cohesion

c’

(kPa)

Friction

Angle

(°)

BH 1

0-0.5 Fill 19 - 28

0.5-1.0 Silty CLAY 18 5 25

1.0-1.5 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

1.5-2.0 Silty CLAY 18 10 27

2.0-3.0 Silty CLAY with Shale

fragments 19 12 28

BH 2

0-0.3 Fill 19 - 28

0.3-0.8 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

0.8-0.85 Silty CLAY 18 10 27

BH 3

0-0.3 Fill 19 - 28

0.3-1.2 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

1.2-1.35 Silty CLAY 19 10 28

BH 4

0-0.2 Fill 19 - 28

0.2-2.0 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

2.0-4.0 Silty CLAY 18 7 27

4.0-4.5 Silty CLAY 19 10 28

BH 5

0-0.3 Fill 19 - 28

0.3-1.7 Silty CLAY 18 10 27

1.7-2.4 Silty CLAY with Shale

fragments 19 12 28

BH 6 0-1.2 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

1.2-1.35 Silty CLAY 19 10 28

BH 7 0-0.50 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

0.5-0.6 Silty CLAY 19 10 28

BH 8

0-0.50 Silty CLAY 18 5 27

0.5-0.8 Silty CLAY 18 10 27

0.8-4.0 Silty CLAY 19 10 28

Note: c’=effective cohesion; ’=effective angle of friction

5.4 Anchored Soldier Pile Retention Systems

The use of anchored secant or contiguous piles can be adopted for this site. In considering

such a retention system, the following aspects should be taken into account in the design and

construction of the proposed retaining walls:


15

The anchors should be considered with earth pressure “at rest” condition as the

design criteria.

Additional reinforced Shotcrete layer should be applied to all the exposed faces of the

basement excavation prior to the next level of excavation. Shotcrete should be applied

before the bulk excavation exceeds a depth of approximately 1.0 meters. However,

this may require review once the levels of adjoining footings are known.

Excavation for the basement level should not extend more than 0.5 meters below the

level of the ground anchors if they are used to maintain at rest earth pressures before

the anchors are installed and fully pre-stressed.

5.5 Ground Anchors

Ground anchors used in connection with the temporary support of any retention structures

should extend into stiff to very stiff silty clay, with the design being based on a grout/ground

bond strength of 10kPa (drilled using air flush or auger methods) above the ground water

table.

The free length of ground anchors should be sufficient to ensure that failure cannot occur on a

sliding wedge behind the retention wall structures. As a guide it is therefore recommended

that the free length of the ground anchors should extend at least 1.5m beyond the 45˚ line

extending from the base of the basement excavation.

Generally, ground anchors should be installed at an angle of approximately 15˚ to 20˚ below

the horizontal and where possible the ground anchor bond length should not exceed 12m to

ensure adequate load transfer characteristics.

5.6 Estimated Wall Deflections and Ground Settlements

It is recommended that the proposed ground anchors be given sufficient capacity such that

additional stress can be applied throughout the construction sequence to limit wall deflections,

as required, based on regular monitoring of wall deflections. In addition, the depth to the top

row of anchors should not be greater than 1.5m below the ground surface level.

The maximum wall deflection is estimated to lie in the range between 0.25% and 0.35% of the

excavation depth. Corresponding vertical settlements of between 0.20% and 0.25% of the

excavation depth can be anticipated directly behind the wall, with settlements reducing to

zero at a lateral distance approximately corresponding to the depth of the basement

excavation. When considering the influence of the anticipated settlements on the existing

adjoining structures, the founding depths of the existing footings should be taken into account.

In addition to the inherent deformations which will take place within the proposed basement

excavation, there may be some minor delays between excavation and the establishment of a

suitable anchoring arrangement, during which time additional minor lateral deflection may


16

take place. A full dilapidation survey of any adjoining structures is therefore recommended

prior to the commencement of the basement excavation. This should be followed by regular

survey and monitoring during construction.

5.7 Drainage of Retention Systems

As seepage infiltration from perched water table is quite likely to be present in the zones of

influence during wet season, it is recommended that a suitable drainage system be installed

and maintained behind all retaining wall structures to ensure the dissipation of any

hydrostatic forces which may result from the accumulation of any seepage water behind the

wall structures. Such seepage water flows should readily be able to be intercepted by the

construction of a suitable sub-surface cut-off drain on the high side of the subject site.

If the groundwater is encountered, then the earth retaining wall system should be designed as

either an impermeable tank system with installation of contiguous piles or secant piles and

additional impervious layer to prevent groundwater flow into the basement.

5.8 Basement Floor Construction

Provided that the basement excavation does not intersect the groundwater table and no

hydrostatic pressures will be generated on the underside of the basement floor, the use of a

conventional concrete ground slab should perform satisfactorily in relation to the proposed

utilisation. Such floor slabs should be constructed on stiff to very stiff silty clay subgrade at the

proposed basement level and may be designed using a Modulus of Subgrade reaction of

55kPa/mm. Under-slab drainage should be provided to the basement to prevent hydrostatic

build-up in the event of rising ground water.

Preparation of the basement floor subgrade should consist of stripping to grade and proof

rolling the subgrade, ensuring that any localised soft spots are removed and made good with

clean granular filling compacted to a dry density not less than 98% of the maximum dry

density value determined by the Standard Compaction test in accordance with Australian

Standard AS1289 5.11 – 1993.

A suitable dewatering system (spears or sump pump) may be required to pump groundwater

in the event that the groundwater is encountered above the basement level. Although

groundwater was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation, the presence of

perched groundwater resulted from infiltration of surface run-off should not be dismissed.


17

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Date Version Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed by:

31 May 2017 NE149.1-17 Yogesh Pindoliya

BEng MEng MIEAust

Geotechnical Engineer

Amir Farazmand

BEng MEng MIEAust CPEng

Senior Geotechnical Engineer


18

6. REFERENCES

Australian Standard (1993), Geotechnical Site Investigations (AS1726).

Australian Standard (2009), Piling - Design and Installation (AS2159).

Australian Standard (2002), Earth-retaining Structures (AS4678).

Australian Standard (2004), Bridge Design Part 5: Concrete (AS5100.5).

Pells, P.J.N., Mostyn, G., Walker, B.F. (1998) Design Loadings for Foundations on Shale and

Sandstone in the Sydney Region.

National Environment Protection Council, December 1999. National Environment

Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.

NSW Environment Protection Authority, December 1994. Guidelines for Assessing Service

Station Sites

Australian Standard AS 3600: 2009, Concrete Structures

Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC, 2002) Site investigations for urban

salinity.

CSIRO BTF 18 (2003) Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A homeowner’s

Guide.

Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR, 2002) Salinity

Potential in Western Sydney Map.

Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC, 2003) Western Sydney

Salinity Code of Practice.


19

Information about This Report

The report contains the results of Soil and water quality Assessment conducted for a specific

purpose and client. The results should not be used by other parties, or for other purposes, as

they may contain neither adequate nor appropriate information.

Test Hole Logging

The information on the test hole logs (boreholes, test pits, exposures etc.) is based on a visual

and tactile assessment, except at the discrete locations where test information is available (field

and/or laboratory results). The test hole logs include both factual data and inferred

information.

Groundwater

Unless otherwise indicated, the water levels presented on the test hole logs are the levels of

free water or seepage in the test hole recorded at the given time of measuring. The actual

groundwater level may differ from this recorded level depending on material permeability

(i.e. depending on response time of the measuring instrument). Further, variations of this level

could occur with time due to such effects as seasonal, environmental and tidal fluctuations or

construction activities. Confirmation of groundwater levels, pheratic surfaces or piezometric

pressures can only be made by appropriate instrumentation techniques and monitoring

programmes.

Interpretation of Results

The discussion or recommendations contained within this report normally are based on a site

evaluation from discrete test hole data. Generalised, idealised or inferred subsurface

conditions (including any geotechnical cross-sections) have been assumed or prepared by

interpolation and/or extrapolation of these data. As such these conditions are an interpretation

and must be considered as a guide only.

Change in Conditions

Local variations or anomalies in the generalised ground conditions do occur in the natural

environment, particularly between discrete test hole locations. Additionally, certain design or

construction procedures may have been assumed in assessing the soil-structure interaction

behaviour of the site. Furthermore, conditions may change at the site from those encountered

at the time of the geotechnical investigation through construction activities and constantly

changing natural forces.

Any change in design, in construction methods, or in ground conditions as noted during

construction, from those assumed or reported should be referred to GEOTESTA for

appropriate assessment and comment.

Reproduction of Reports

Where it is desired to reproduce the information contained in our geotechnical report, or other

technical information, for the inclusion in contract documents or engineering specification of

the subject development, such reproductions should include at least all of the relevant test

hole and test data, together with the appropriate standard description sheets and remarks

made in the written report of a factual or descriptive nature. Reports are the subject of

copyright and shall not be reproduced without the permission of Geotesta.


20

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Location of borehole BH1



21




22




23




24

Appendix A

Borehole Logs

Page: 1 of 1

Client: Drilling Co:Project: Driller:Job No: Rig Type:Location: Inclination:Date Drilled: Bearing: Checked by:

consistency: relative density: moisture: Notes:

VS very soft VL very loose D Dry

S soft L loose M Moist No groundwater was encounteredF firm MD medium dense W Wet Disturbed SampleST stiff D dense S SaturatedVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core Standard Penetration Test

soil classification: level risen to B Bulk samplesoil is classified in accordance with AS1726 Supp Su from Pocket Penetrometerunless otherwise noted water inflow Suv Su from Field Vane Shear test

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE No: BH 1

JS Architects Pty Ltd Geotesta Pty Ltd Easting: See attached Plan172 Tallawong Road Ali Northing: See attached PlanNE149-17 PIXY 41T Grid Ref:Rouse Hill Vertical Collar RL:22/05/2017 Vertical Logged by: YP AF/SD

Test Method: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-1993

De

pth

(m)

Dri

llin

g M

etho

d

Gra

phic

Log

Gro

up S

ymb

ol

Moi

stu

re

Co

nsis

ten

cy /

Str

eng

th

DC

Pbl

ows/

100m

m

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FIELD TESTSType, colour, particle size and shape, structure & NOTES

0.00 FILL Silty CLAY, trace of gravel, brick pieces, concrete D-M WC 8 0.00rubbles, grey, brown, dry to moist, well compacted 15

148

0.50 8 0.50CI Silty CLAY, red, pale grey, moist, firm M F 3

323

1.00 3 1.00Grades, trace rock fragments, pale grey, red-brown, ST- 4stiff to very stiff 8Grades trace tree roots 8

91.50 9 1.50

Grades pale grey, red-brown, mottled yellow-brown D-M H 13dry to moist, hard 14

15

2.00 2.00Grades trace of shale fragments (dark grey, brown, red)

2.50 2.50Grades with shale fragments

3.00 3.00END OF BOREHOLE @ 3.0m

3.50 3.50

4.00 4.00

4.504.50

5.00

T intact tube sample

So

lid M

ech

an

ica

l Au

ge

r VST

GEOTESTA PTY LTD

5.00

Page: 1 of 1

Client: Drilling Co: Easting:Project: Mckimmies Road, Mill Park Driller: Northing:Job No: Rig Type: Grid Ref:Location: Inclination: Collar RL:Date tested: Bearing: Logged by: Checked by:

compacted

consistency: relative density: moisture: notes: No groundwater was encounteredVS very soft VL very loose D Dry Disturbed SampleS soft L loose M Moist X denotes effective refusal (>15/50mm) - bounces of DCP hammerF firm MD medium dense W Wet

ST stiff D denseVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core disturbed sample

soil classification: level risen to B bulk samplesoil is classified in accordance with AS1726unless otherwise noted water inflow SPT standard penetration test

JS Architects Pty Ltd Geotesta Pty Ltd See Attached plan

BOREHOLE No: BH 2BOREHOLE LOG

172 Tallawong Road ALI See Attached planNE149-17 PIXY 41TRouse Hill Vertical22/05/2017 Vertical YP AF/SD

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m

)

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Gro

up

Sym

bo

l

Moi

stur

e

Co

nsis

tenc

y /

De

nsity

per

100m

m

De

pth

(m

)


0.00 FILL M

DC

P B

low

s

WC 5 0.00Silty CLAY, trace grass, gravels, grey, moist, well

6

0.25 6 0.25

CI Silty CLAY, red, moist, stiff M ST 4

0.50Grades red-brown, pale grey, dry to moist, very stiff D-M VST 9

6Grades with rock fragments (dark red)

40.50

0.75 8

Sol

id M

echa

nica

l Aug

er

X

0.75

Grades hard H

EW/HW RockEND OF BOREHOLE @ 0.85m - REFUSAL on Possible

1.00 1.00

1.25 1.25

1.50 1.50

1.75 1.75

2.00 2.00

2.25

2.50


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

2.50

2.25

Page: 1 of 1


consistency: relative density: moisture: notes: No groundwater was encounteredVS very soft VL very loose D Dry

S soft L loose M Moist

F firm MD medium dense W WetST stiff D denseVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core disturbed sample


END OF BOREHOLE @ 1.35m - REFUSAL on Possible

compacted

very stiff


NE149-17 PIXY 41T

Co

nsis

tenc

y /

De

nsity

JS Architects Pty Ltd Geotesta Pty Ltd See Attached plan172 Tallawong Road ALI See Attached plan

Rouse Hill Vertical22/05/2017 Vertical YP AF/SD

per

100m

m

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m

)

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Gro

up

Sym

bo

l

Moi

stur

e

De

pth

(m

)


0.00 FILL Silty CLAY, trace grass, gravels, grey, dry, well D

DC

P B

low

s

WC 0.00

ST

0.25 0.25

CI Silty CLAY, red, mottled pale grey, dry to moist, stiff D-M

0.50 0.50

Grades trace roots, red-brown, pale grey, moist, stiff to M ST-

Grades with rock fragments (dark red)

VST0.75 0.75

Grades pale grey, yellow-brown1.00 1.00

H

1.25

Grades hard

1.25Grades dry, very stiff to hard D VST-

1.50EW/HW Rock

1.50

1.75 1.75

2.00 2.00

2.252.25

2.50


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

Sol

id M

echa

nica

l Aug

er

2.50

Page: 1 of 1



VS very soft VL very loose D Dry

S soft L loose M Moist No groundwater was encounteredF firm MD medium dense W Wet Disturbed SampleST stiff D dense S SaturatedVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core Standard Penetration Test


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

CI M

So

lid M

ech

an

ica

l Au

ge

r

Grades red-brown, dark grey, stiff

stiff

Grades pale grey, red-brown, dry to moist, very stiff to D-M

5.00 5.00


END OF BOREHOLE @ 4.5m4.50 4.50

4.00 VST- 4.00hard H

3.50 3.50

3.00 3.00

2.50 2.50

red-brown, dark grey, mottled orange-brown, very

2.00Grades trace of rock fragments (dark grey, brown, red), VST

62.00 6

65

1.50 ST 4 1.506

F 333

1.00Grades, pale grey, red-brown 5

51.00 4

56

0.504

ST 63

0.50 4

WC 4 0.00grey, dry to moist, well compacted 4

0.00 FILL Silty CLAY, trace fine gravel, grass roots, grey to brown- D-M

Silty CLAY, red, pale grey, moist, stiff

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m)


Test Method: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-1993

De

pth

(m)

Dri

llin

g M

etho

d

Gra

phic

Log

Gro

up S

ymb

ol

Moi

stu

re

Co

nsis

ten

cy /

Str

eng

th

DC

Pbl

ows/

100m

m

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Rouse Hill Vertical Collar RL:22/05/2017 Vertical Logged by: YP AF/SD

172 Tallawong Road Ali Northing: See attached PlanNE149-17 PIXY 41T Grid Ref:


JS Architects Pty Ltd Geotesta Pty Ltd Easting: See attached Plan

Page: 1 of 1


consistency: relative density: moisture: notes: No groundwater was encounteredVS very soft VL very loose D Dry EW/HW - Extremely/Highly WeatheredS soft L loose M Moist X denotes effective refusal (>15/30mm) - bounces of DCP hammerF firm MD medium dense W WetST stiff D denseVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core disturbed sample


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

5

7

X

Sol

id M

echa

nica

l Aug

er

END OF BOREHOLE @ 2.4m - REFUSAL on Possible

dry to moist, well compacted

Grades red, grey to pale grey, brown to brown-grey

pale grey, orange-brown, dry, hard

2.50 2.50


EW/HW Rock

2.25 2.25

2.00 2.00

1.751.75 D H 13

6

1.50

7

61.50

ST-VST

Grades pale grey, red, stiff to very stiff

1.251.25 6

6

1.00

Grades with shale fragments (dark red), brown,

6

51.00

0.75

Grades red, pale grey

0.75 5

5

0.50

5

50.50

0.25

CI Silty CLAY, trace rock fragments, red-brown, moist, stiff M ST 6

0.25 9

10

WC 5 0.00

De

pth

(m

)


0.00 FILL Silty CLAY, trace grass, gravels, brown to grey-brown, D-M

DC

P B

low

s

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m

)

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Gro

up

Sym

bo

l

Moi

stur

e

Co

nsis

tenc

y /

De

nsity


per

100m

m

172 Tallawong Road ALI See Attached planNE149-17 PIXY 41T



Page: 1 of 1


consistency: relative density: moisture: notes: No groundwater was encounteredVS very soft VL very loose D Dry

S soft L loose M Moist

F firm MD medium dense W WetST stiff D denseVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core disturbed sample


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

2.50 2.50


2.25 2.25

2.00 2.00

1.751.75

1.50EW/HW Rock

1.50

Grades grey, brown, red, hard HEND OF BOREHOLE @ 1.35m - REFUSAL on Possible

1.25H

1.25 Grades dry, very stiff to hard D VST-

1.001.00

Grades pale grey, red, orange-brown, dry to moist D-M

0.75

Grades trace rock fragments (dark red), very stiff VST

0.75

Grades red-brown, pale grey, stiff to very stiff ST-VST

0.500.50

0.25

Grades red-brown

0.25

ST 0.00

De

pth

(m

)


0.00

Sol

id M

echa

nica

l Aug

er

CI Silty CLAY, trace grass, grey to grey-brown, moist, stiff M

DC

P B

low

s

per

100m

m

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m

)

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Gro

up

Sym

bo

l

Moi

stur

e

Co

nsis

tenc

y /

De

nsity





Page: 1 of 1


consistency: relative density: moisture: notes: No groundwater was encounteredVS very soft VL very loose D Dry Disturbed SampleS soft L loose M Moist X denotes effective refusal (>15/50mm) - bounces of DCP hammerF firm MD medium dense W Wet

ST stiff D denseVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core disturbed sample


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

Sol

id M

echa

nica

l Aug

er

END OF BOREHOLE @ 0.6m - REFUSAL on PossibleD H

2.50 2.50


2.25 2.25

2.00 2.00

1.751.75

1.501.50

1.251.25

1.001.00

0.750.75EW/HW Rock

0.50

Grades brown, red, dry, hard

0.50

moist, stiff to very stiff VST

0.25

Grades trace rock fragments, red-brown, orange-brown, ST-

0.25Grades stiff ST

F 0.00

De

pth

(m

)


0.00 CI Silty CLAY, trace grass, grey to gey-brown, moist, firm M

DC

P B

low

s

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m

)

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Gro

up

Sym

bo

l

Moi

stur

e

Co

nsis

tenc

y /

De

nsity


per

100m

m




Page: 1 of 1



VS very soft VL very loose D Dry X denotes effective refusal (>15/50mm) - bounces of DCP hammerS soft L loose M Moist No groundwater was encounteredF firm MD medium dense W Wet Disturbed SampleST stiff D dense S SaturatedVST very stiff VD very dense water: sampling / testing:H hard water level intact sample from core Standard Penetration Test


GEOTESTA PTY LTD

So

lid M

ech

an

ica

l Au

ge

r

VSTD-M

5.00 5.00


4.504.50

END OF BOREHOLE @ 4.0m4.00 4.00

Grades grey3.50 3.50

Grades with shale frgaments (EW/HW)3.00 3.00

red-brown, pale grey, dry

2.50 2.50Grades trace shale fragments (dark grey, dark red), D

2.00 2.00Grades brown, pale grey, red-brown

1.00

1.50 1.50

Grades hard H X11

Grades, pale grey to gey, red-brown to brown

yellow-brown, dry to moist, very stiff 10

1.00

9

0.50 Grades trace rock fragments, pale grey, brown to 7 0.50

VST 766

0.00 CI Silty CLAY, trace fine gravel, grass roots, grey to brown- D-M

Grades red-brown, moist Mgrey, dry to moist, stiff to very stiff

Wat

er L

eve

ls

De

pth

(m)


ST- 8 0.00

Test Method: AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 & AS 1726-1993

De

pth

(m)

Dri

lling

Met

hod

Gra

phic

Log

Gro

up S

ymb

ol

Moi

stu

re

Co

nsis

ten

cy /

Str

eng

th

DC

Pbl

ows/

100m

m

Sam

plin

g /

Run

s

Rouse Hill Vertical Collar RL:22/05/2017 Vertical Logged by: YP AF/SD

172 Tallawong Road Ali Northing: See attached PlanNE149-17 PIXY 41T Grid Ref:


JS Architects Pty Ltd Geotesta Pty Ltd Easting: See attached Plan


25

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Plasticity Index & Linear Shrinkage Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory

17 Redwood Drive

Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Geotesta Project Contamination Assessment Client JS Architects Pty. Ltd.

L0676-A1 Project No NE149-17 Client ID -

L0676-1 Location 172 Tallawong Road Address 100 Barangaroo Ave

[email protected] Rouse Hill NSW 2155 Sydney , NSW 2000

Results Notes

% History of sample:% Method of preparation:% Linear shrinkage:% Length of mould:

Comments

Test methods: AS 1289, 2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

AS 1289.1.2.1 CL 6.5.3 - Power auger

Silty Clay, mottled orange-brown and grey, moist

Test Report

Sample Description

Laboratory

Report No

Sample ID

Borehole ID

Atterberg Limits

Report issued by:

Date issued: 1/06/2017

Tests (LL PL PI LS) V5

Rene Kurniadi

15

Sampling Method

Liquid limitPlastic limitPlasticity indexLinear shrinkage

-

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing

The results of the tests included in this document are traceable to Australian and national standards.

Oven-driedDry-sievedNo Crack

--

Page 1 of 1

200 mm

GEOTESTA Pty Ltd

Plasticity Index & Linear Shrinkage Rock & Soil Mechanics Laboratory

17 Redwood Drive

Notting Hill , Vic 3168

Geotesta Project Contamination Assessment Client JS Architects Pty. Ltd.

L0676-A2 Project No NE149-17 Client ID -

L0676-2 Location 172 Tallawong Road Address 100 Barangaroo Ave

[email protected] Rouse Hill NSW 2155 Sydney , NSW 2000

Results Notes

% History of sample:% Method of preparation:% Linear shrinkage:% Length of mould:

Comments

Test methods: AS 1289, 2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

AS 1289.1.2.1 CL 6.5.3 - Power auger

Silty Clay, mottled orange-brown and grey, moist

Test Report

Sample Description

Laboratory

Report No

Sample ID

Borehole ID

Atterberg Limits

Report issued by:

Date issued: 1/06/2017

Tests (LL PL PI LS) V5

Rene Kurniadi

21

Sampling Method

Liquid limitPlastic limitPlasticity indexLinear shrinkage

-

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing

The results of the tests included in this document are traceable to Australian and national standards.

Oven-driedDry-sievedNo Crack

--

Page 1 of 1

250 mm

Certificate of Analysis

Geotesta Pty Ltd (NSW)

44 Mary Parade

Rydalmere

NSW 2116

Attention: Yogesh Pindoliya

Report 547276-S

Project name 172 TALLAWONG RD ROUSE HILL

Project ID NE149

Received Date May 23, 2017

Client Sample ID BH1/01/0.5 BH4/01/0.3-0.5 BH6/01/0.3-0.5 BH7/01/0.3-0.5

Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil

Eurofins | mgt Sample No. S17-My22477 S17-My22478 S17-My22479 S17-My22480

Date Sampled May 22, 2017 May 22, 2017 May 22, 2017 May 22, 2017

Test/Reference LOR Unit

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C) 5 uS/cm 190 420 69 19

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract) 0.1 pH Units 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2

Salinity* (1:5 aqueous extract calc. from EC at 25C) 1 mg/kg 590 1300 250 110

Sulphate as SO4 (1:5 aqueous extract) 10 mg/kg 45 94 42 < 10

% Moisture 1 % 16 15 18 17

Date Reported: May 30, 2017

Eurofins | mgt Unit F3, Building F, 16 Mars Road, Lane Cove West, NSW, Australia, 2066

ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 1 of 6

Report Number: 547276-S

NATA AccreditedAccreditation Number 1261Site Number 18217

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – TestingThe results of the tests, calibrations and/ormeasurements included in this document are traceableto Australian/national standards.

Sample HistoryWhere samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction and analysis is reported.A recent review of our LIMS has resulted in the correction or clarification of some method identifications. Due to this, some of the method reference information on reports has changed. However,no substantive change has been made to our laboratory methods, and as such there is no change in the validity of current or previous results (regarding both quality and NATA accreditation).

If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.

Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C) Sydney May 29, 2017 7 Day

- Method: LTM-INO-4030

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract) Sydney May 29, 2017 7 Day

- Method: LTM-GEN-7090 pH in soil by ISE

Salinity* (1:5 aqueous extract calc. from EC at 25C) Sydney May 30, 2017 21 Day

- Method: LTM-INO-4030

Sulphate as SO4 (1:5 aqueous extract) Sydney May 30, 2017 28 Day

- Method: APHA 4500-SO4 Sulfate by FIA

% Moisture Sydney May 23, 2017 14 Day

- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture



ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 2 of 6


.Company Name: Geotesta Pty Ltd (NSW) Order No.: Received: May 23, 2017 11:51 AMAddress: 44 Mary Parade Report #: 547276 Due: May 30, 2017

Rydelmere Phone: 1300852 216 Priority: 5 DayNSW 2116 Fax: Contact Name: Yogesh Pindoliya

Project Name: 172 TALLAWONG RD ROUSE HILLProject ID: NE149

Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Mary Makarios

Sample Detail

pH (1:5 A

queous extract)

Salinity* (1:5 aqueous extract calc. from

EC

at 25C)

Sulphate as S

O4 (1:5 aqueous extract)

Moisture S

et

Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271

Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217 X X X X

Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794

Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217

External Laboratory

No Sample ID Sample Date SamplingTime

Matrix LAB ID

1 BH1/01/0.5 May 22, 2017 Soil S17-My22477 X X X X

2 BH4/01/0.3-0.5 May 22, 2017 Soil S17-My22478 X X X X



Test Counts 4 4 4 4

ABN– 50 005 085 521e.mail : [email protected] : www.eurofins.com.au

MelbourneMelbourneMelbourneMelbourne2-5 Kingston Town CloseOakleigh VIC 3166Phone : +61 3 8564 5000NATA # 1261Site # 1254 & 14271

SydneySydneySydneySydneyUnit F3, Building F16 Mars RoadLane Cove West NSW 2066Phone : +61 2 9900 8400NATA # 1261 Site # 18217

BrisbaneBrisbaneBrisbaneBrisbane1/21 Smallwood PlaceMurarrie QLD 4172Phone : +61 7 3902 4600NATA # 1261 Site # 20794

PerthPerthPerthPerth2/91 Leach HighwayKewdale WA 6105Phone : +61 8 9251 9600NATA # 1261Site # 18217

Date Reported:May 30, 2017


ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 3 of 6


Internal Quality Control Review and Glossary

General

Holding Times

Units

Terms

QC - Acceptance Criteria

QC Data General Comments

1. Laboratory QC results for Method Blanks, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, and Laboratory Control Samples are included in this QC report where applicable. Additional QC data may be available on

request.

2. All soil results are reported on a dry basis, unless otherwise stated.

3. All biota results are reported on a wet weight basis on the edible portion, unless otherwise stated.

4. Actual LORs are matrix dependant. Quoted LORs may be raised where sample extracts are diluted due to interferences.

5. Results are uncorrected for matrix spikes or surrogate recoveries.

6. SVOC analysis on waters are performed on homogenised, unfiltered samples, unless noted otherwise.

7. Samples were analysed on an 'as received' basis.

8. This report replaces any interim results previously issued.

Please refer to 'Sample Preservation and Container Guide' for holding times (QS3001).

For samples received on the last day of holding time, notification of testing requirements should have been received at least 6 hours prior to sample receipt deadlines as stated on the Sample

Receipt Advice.

If the Laboratory did not receive the information in the required timeframe, and regardless of any other integrity issues, suitably qualified results may still be reported.

Holding times apply from the date of sampling, therefore compliance to these may be outside the laboratory's control.

**NOTE: pH duplicates are reported as a range NOT as RPD

mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram mg/L: milligrams per litre

ug/L: micrograms per litre ppm: Parts per million

ppb: Parts per billion %: Percentage

org/100mL: Organisms per 100 millilitres NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units

MPN/100mL: Most Probable Number of organisms per 100 millilitres

Dry Where a moisture has been determined on a solid sample the result is expressed on a dry basis.

LOR Limit of Reporting.

SPIKE Addition of the analyte to the sample and reported as percentage recovery.

RPD Relative Percent Difference between two Duplicate pieces of analysis.

LCS Laboratory Control Sample - reported as percent recovery.

CRM Certified Reference Material - reported as percent recovery.

Method Blank In the case of solid samples these are performed on laboratory certified clean sands.

In the case of water samples these are performed on de-ionised water.

Surr - Surrogate The addition of a like compound to the analyte target and reported as percentage recovery.

Duplicate A second piece of analysis from the same sample and reported in the same units as the result to show comparison.

Batch Duplicate A second piece of analysis from a sample outside of the clients batch of samples but run within the laboratory batch of analysis.

Batch SPIKE Spike recovery reported on a sample from outside of the clients batch of samples but run within the laboratory batch of analysis.

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

APHA American Public Health Association

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

COC Chain of Custody

SRA Sample Receipt Advice

CP Client Parent - QC was performed on samples pertaining to this report

NCP Non-Client Parent - QC performed on samples not pertaining to this report, QC is representative of the sequence or batch that client samples were analysed within.

TEQ Toxic Equivalency Quotient

RPD Duplicates: Global RPD Duplicates Acceptance Criteria is 30% however the following acceptance guidelines are equally applicable:

Results <10 times the LOR : No Limit

Results between 10-20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-50%

Results >20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-30%

Surrogate Recoveries: Recoveries must lie between 50-150%-Phenols & PFASs 20-130%

1. Where a result is reported as a less than (<), higher than the nominated LOR, this is due to either matrix interference, extract dilution required due to interferences or contaminant levels within

the sample, high moisture content or insufficient sample provided.

2. Duplicate data shown within this report that states the word "BATCH" is a Batch Duplicate from outside of your sample batch, but within the laboratory sample batch at a 1:10 ratio. The Parent

and Duplicate data shown is not data from your samples.

3. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting LCS data, Toxaphene & Chlordane are not added to the LCS.

4. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting Spike data, Toxaphene is not added to the Spike.

5. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - where reporting Spike & LCS data, a single spike of commercial Hydrocarbon products in the range of C12-C30 is added and it's Total Recovery is reported

in the C10-C14 cell of the Report.

6. pH and Free Chlorine analysed in the laboratory - Analysis on this test must begin within 30 minutes of sampling.Therefore laboratory analysis is unlikely to be completed within holding time.

Analysis will begin as soon as possible after sample receipt.

7. Recovery Data (Spikes & Surrogates) - where chromatographic interference does not allow the determination of Recovery the term "INT" appears against that analyte.

8. Polychlorinated Biphenyls are spiked only using Aroclor 1260 in Matrix Spikes and LCS.

9. For Matrix Spikes and LCS results a dash " -" in the report means that the specific analyte was not added to the QC sample.

10. Duplicate RPDs are calculated from raw analytical data thus it is possible to have two sets of data.



ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 4 of 6


Quality Control Results

Test Units Result 1 AcceptanceLimits

PassLimits

QualifyingCode

Method Blank

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extract at 25°C) uS/cm < 5 5 Pass

Sulphate as SO4 (1:5 aqueous extract) mg/kg < 10 10 Pass

LCS - % Recovery

Sulphate as SO4 (1:5 aqueous extract) % 103 70-130 Pass

Test Lab Sample ID QASource Units Result 1 Acceptance

LimitsPass

LimitsQualifying

Code

Duplicate

Result 1 Result 2 RPD

Conductivity (1:5 aqueous extractat 25°C) S17-My23188 NCP uS/cm 490 470 4.0 30% Pass

pH (1:5 Aqueous extract) S17-My20087 NCP pH Units 11 11 pass 30% Pass

Salinity* (1:5 aqueous extract calc.from EC at 25C) S17-My22477 CP mg/kg 590 590 <1 30% Pass

Sulphate as SO4 (1:5 aqueousextract) S17-My22477 CP mg/kg 45 45 1.0 30% Pass

% Moisture S17-My14507 NCP % 17 17 4.0 30% Pass



ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 5 of 6


Comments

Sample IntegrityCustody Seals Intact (if used) N/A

Attempt to Chill was evident Yes

Sample correctly preserved Yes

Appropriate sample containers have been used Yes

Sample containers for volatile analysis received with minimal headspace Yes

Samples received within HoldingTime Yes

Some samples have been subcontracted No

Authorised By

Mary Makarios Analytical Services Manager

Ryan Hamilton Senior Analyst-Inorganic (NSW)

Ryan Hamilton Senior Analyst-Metal (NSW)

Glenn Jackson

National Operations Manager

- Indicates Not Requested

* Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service

Measurement uncertainty of test data is available on request or please click here.Eurofins | mgt shall not be liable for loss, cost, damages or expenses incurred by the client, or any other person or company, resulting from the use of any information or interpretation given in this report. In no case shall Eurofins | mgt be liable for consequential damages including, but notlimited to, lost profits, damages for failure to meet deadlines and lost production arising from this report. This document shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to the items tested. Unless indicated otherwise, the tests were performed on the samples as received.



ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 2 9900 8400

Page 6 of 6


http://www.eurofins.com.au/media/311687/reporting-measurement-uncertainty-of-chemical-and-microbiology-test-results.pdf

geotechnical and salinity investigation report · geotechnical and salinity investigation report...

Documents