geotechnical report for 2-6 lacey street & 186-190 …

Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd | ABN 42 605 892 126 PO Box 4069, Carlton NSW 2218

P: 0405 843 933 | E: [email protected]

Geot

echn

ical

Inve

stig

atio

n Re

port

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR

2-6 LACEY STREET & 186-190 PRINCES HIGHWAY, KOGARAH BAY NSW

Prepared for:

TRULAND DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD

Reference: P1551_ 01

9 October 2018

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd has undertaken a Geotechnical Investigation to provide geotechnical advice and recommendations for the proposed development at2-6 Lacey Street & 186-190 Princes Highway, Kogarah Bay NSW (the site).

1.1 Proposed Development Architectural Drawings for the site have been prepared by PBD Architects for Project 1809 dated August 2018. From the drawings provided, Morrow Geotechnics understands that the proposed development involves demolition of existing structures at the site and construction of a seven storey residential structure over a two level basement. Excavation is expected to extend to approximate RL 20 mAHD, i.e. a depth of approximately 7.5 m below existing ground level (mBGL).

1.2 Investigation Intent The purpose of the investigation is to provide geotechnical advice and recommendations specific to the ground conditions observed at site for the proposed development. These recommendations include:

• Foundation advice along with relevant geotechnical design parameters;

• Excavation and shoring advice along with relevant geotechnical design parameters;

• Approaches to minimise the impact of the proposed development through vibration, ground movement or groundwater drawdown;

• Other relevant geotechnical issues which may impact construction; and

• Recommendations for further geotechnical input.

1.3 Published Geological Mapping Information on regional sub-surface conditions, referenced from the Department of Mineral Resources Geological Map Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (DMR 1983), indicates that the site overlies Hawkesbury Sandstone, which typically comprises medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone with very minor siltstone and laminite lenses.

1.4 Published Soil Landscapes The Soil Conservation Service of NSW Sydney 1:100,000 Soil Landscapes Series Sheet 9130 (2nd Edition) indicates that the residual landscape at the site likely comprises the Lucas Heights Landscape. This landscape type typically includes gently undulating crests and ridges on plateau surfaces of the Mittagong formation. Soils are generally moderately deep (0.5-1.5 m), hardsetting yellow podzolic soils and yellow earths. These soils are noted to present stony soil and low available water capacity.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW

2 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Investigation Methods

Fieldwork was undertaken by Morrow Geotechnics on 27 and 28 September 2018. Work carried out as part of this investigation includes:

• Review of publicly available information from previous reports in the project area, published geological and soil mapping and government agency websites;

• Site walkover inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess topographical features, condition of surrounding structures and site conditions;

• Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) services search of proposed borehole locations; • Drilling of four boreholes (BH1 to BH4) drilled by a track mounted drill rig using solid flight augers

equipped with a tungsten-carbide bit (TC bit). Boreholes were extended beyond TC bit refusal by NMLC coring techniques to depths of between 10.24 and 10.5 m below ground level (mBGL). Rock core was boxed and photographed and point load tests were undertaken on selected core sample to assess rock strength. Borehole locations are shown on Figure 1 and borehole logs are presented in Appendix A;

• Groundwater observations within boreholes during drilling.

2.2 Subsurface Conditions The stratigraphy at the site is characterised by residual soil overlying sandstone bedrock. Observations taken during the investigation have been used to produce a stratigraphic model of the site. The observed stratigraphy has been divided into four geotechnical units.

A summary of the subsurface conditions across the site, interpreted from the investigation results, is presented in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions at the test locations are available in the borehole logs presented in Appendix A. The details of the method of soil and rock classification, explanatory notes and abbreviations adopted in the borehole logs are also presented in Appendix A.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INFERRED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Unit Material Approx. Depth Range of Unit 1 mBGL

Comments BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

1 Topsoil / Fill

0.0 to 0.7 0.0 to 0.5 0.0 to 0.2 0.0 to 0.3

Generally fine to coarse grained clayey sand or sand with clay, silt and gravel. Unit 1 fill is inferred to be uncontrolled and poorly compacted.

2 Residual Soil

0.7 to 0.8 0.5 to 2.1 0.2 to 0.9 0.3 to 1.3 Generally fine to coarse grained sand with clay and trace of sandstone gravel.

3 Class IV Sandstone

0.8 to 5.5 2.1 to 7.3 0.9 to 9.45 1.3 to 9.5 Generally fine to coarse grained, distinctly weathered, very low to low strength sandstone.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW

Unit Material Approx. Depth Range of Unit 1 mBGL

Comments BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

4 Class III Sandstone

5.5 to 10.24 7.3 to 10.5 9.45 to 10.27

9.5 to 10.27

Generally fine to coarse grained, distinctly weathered, medium strength sandstone with weathered seams up to 100 mm thick.

Notes: 1 Depths shown are based on material observed within test locations and will vary across the site.

2.3 Groundwater Observations Seepage water inflow was not observed during the drilling of any of the boreholes at site. Minor seepage should be expected from the soil/rock interface and from within open joints in the rock mass during excavation as a response to surface water infiltration.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW

3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Excavation Retention

Temporary batters may be considered for retention during basement excavation only where adequate room for full batter construction is available. Temporary batter slopes of 1V:1H will be possible for all units above the water table provided that surface water is diverted away from the batter faces and batter heights are kept to less than 4m. Where batters extend beyond 4 m height benching may be required and further advice should be sought from a qualified geotechnical engineer. Permanent batters of 2H:1V may be employed for excavation design above the water table. Permanent batters will require surface protection or revegetation to prevent erosion and slaking.

For design of flexible shoring systems a triangular pressure distribution may be employed using the parameters provided in Table 2. For design of rigid anchored or braced walls, a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution should be used with a maximum pressure of 0.65.Ka.γ.H (kPa), where ‘H’ is the effective vertical height of the wall in metres.

Morrow Geotechnics understands that the finite element software package Wallap will be used for design of shoring. Drained cohesion and friction angles for input to Wallap have been provided in Table 2 below. Earth pressure coefficients in Table 2 are provided for design checks only.

TABLE 2 EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS

Material Unit 1 Fill

Unit 2 Residual Soil

Unit 3 Class IV

Sandstone

Unit 4 Class III

Sandstone

Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 16 18 23 24

Saturated Unit Weight (kN/m3) 17.5 19.5 24 24

Eart

h Pr

essu

re

Coef

ficie

nts

At rest, Ko 0.58 0.58 0.43 0.33

Passive, Kp 2.46 2.46 3.69 5.04

Active, Ka 0.41 0.41 0.27 0.20

Drained Cohesion, c’ (kPa) 3 6 40 150 Drained Friction Angle, φ’ (⁰) 25 25 35 42 Elastic Modulus (MPa) 5 10 120 200 Poisson’s Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.20 Wall interface angle reduction (Active) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66

Wall interface angle reduction (Passive) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

1 Unit Weight is based on visual assessment only, order of accuracy is approximately ±10%. 2 Earth pressures are provided on the assumption that the ground behind the retaining wall is flat and drained.

In addition, design of retaining walls should consider the following:

• Appropriate surcharge loading from construction equipment, vehicular traffic and neighbouring structures at finished surface level should be taken into account in the retention design. Surcharge

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW loads on retention structures may be calculated using a rectangular stress block with an earth

pressure coefficient of 0.5 applied to surcharge loads at ground surface level.

• Anchor design should ignore the contribution of any bonded length within a wedge which extends upwards at 45⁰ from the top of Unit 4 material to account for a failure wedge forming behind the shoring system.

• A copy of RMS Technical Direction 2012/001 Excavation Adjacent to RMS Infrastructure is included as Appendix B of this report. The requirements of this technical direction should be adhered to for design, construction and monitoring of the proposed excavation.

3.2 Soil and Rock Excavatability The expected ability of equipment to excavate the soil and rock encountered at the site is summarised in Table 3. This assessment is based on available site investigation data and guidance on the assessment of excavatability of rock by Pettifer and Fookes (1994). The presence of medium to high strength bands in lower strength rock and the discontinuity spacing may influence the excavatability of the rock mass.

TABLE 3 SOIL AND ROCK EXCAVATABILITY

Unit Material Excavatability

1 Fill Easy digging by 20t Excavator

2 Residual Soil Easy digging by 20t Excavator

3 Class IV Sandstone

Hard ripping by 20t Excavator. Some hydraulic hammering will be required in medium strength bands

4 Class III Sandstone

Hydraulic hammering will be required in medium strength sandstone within Unit 4

The excavation methodology may also be affected by the following factors:

• Scale and geometry of the excavation;

• Availability of suitable construction equipment;

• Potential reuse of material on site; and

• Acceptable excavation methods, noise, ground vibration and other environmental criteria.

3.3 Excavation Vibration Considerations As a guide, safe working distances for typical items of vibration intensive plant are listed in Table 4. The safe working distances are quoted for both “cosmetic” damage (refer British Standard BS 7385:1993) and human comfort (refer NSW Environmental Protection Agency Vibration Guideline).The safe working distances should be complied with at all times, unless otherwise mitigated to the satisfaction of the relevant stakeholders.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW TABLE 4 RECOMMENDED SAFE WORKING DISTANCES FOR VIBRATION INTENSIVE PLANT

Plant Item Rating/Description Safe Working Distance

Cosmetic Damage (BS 7385:1993) 1

Human Response (EPA Vibration Guideline)

Vibratory Roller < 50 kN (typically 1-2 tonnes) 5 m 15 m to 20 m

< 100 kN (typically 2-4 tonnes) 6 m 20 m < 200 kN (typically 4-6 tonnes) 12 m 40 m < 300 kN (typically 7-13 tonnes) 15 m 100 m

< 300 kN (typically 13-18 tonnes) 20 m 100 m

< 300 kN (typically >18 tonnes) 25 m 100 m Small Hydraulic Hammer 300 kg – 5 to 12 t excavator 2 m 7 m

Medium Hydraulic Hammer 900 kg – 12 to 18 t excavator 7 m 23 m

Large Hydraulic Hammer 1600 kg – 18 to 34 t excavator 22 m 73 m

Vibratory Pile Driver Sheet Piles 2 m to 20 m 20 m

Pile Boring ≤ 800 mm 2m (nominal) N/A

Jackhammer Hand held 1 m (nominal) Avoid contact with structure

Notes:

1 More stringent conditions may apply to heritage buildings or other sensitive structures.

In relation to human comfort (response), the safe working distances in Table 4 relate to continuous vibration and apply to residential receivers. For most construction activities, vibration emissions are intermittent in nature and for this reason, higher vibration levels, occurring over shorter periods are permitted, as discussed in British Standard BS 6472-1:2008.

The safe working distances provided in Table 4 are given for guidance only. Monitoring of vibration levels may be required to ensure vibrations levels remain below threshold values during the construction period.

3.4 Foundation Design The parameters given in Table 5 may be used for the design of pad footings and bored piles. Morrow Geotechnics recommends that a Preliminary Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (GSRF) of 0.4 is used for the design of piles in accordance with AS 2159:2009 if no allowance is made for pile testing during construction. Should pile testing be nominated, the GSRF may be reviewed and a value of 0.55 to 0.65 may be expected.

Ultimate geotechnical strengths are provided for use in limit state design. Allowable bearing pressures are provide for serviceability checks. These values have been determined to limit settlements to an acceptable level for conventional building structures, typically less than 1% of the minimum footing dimension.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW TABLE 5 PAD FOOTING AND PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS

Material Unit 1 Fill

Unit 2 Residual Soil

Unit 3 Class IV

Sandstone

Unit 4 Class III

Sandstone Allowable Bearing Pressure (kPa)

N/A N/A 2000 3500

Ultimate Vertical End Bearing Pressure (kPa) N/A N/A 6000 10500

Elastic Modulus (MPa) 5 10 120 200

Allowable Shaft Adhesion (kPa)

In Compression 0 20 150 350

In Tension 0 10 75 175

Susceptibility to Liquefaction during an Earthquake Medium Low Low Low

Notes: 1 Side adhesion values given assume there is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material. Design

engineer to check both ‘piston’ pull-out and ‘cone’ pull-out mechanics in accordance with AS4678-2002 Earth Retaining Structures.

2 Susceptibility to liquefaction during an earthquake is based on the following definition: Low - Medium to very dense sands, stiff to hard clays, and rock Medium - Loose to medium dense sands, soft to firm clays, or uncontrolled fill below the water table High - Very loose sands or very soft clays below the water table

To adopt these parameters we have assumed that the bases of all pile excavations are cleaned of loose debris and water and inspected by a suitably qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to pile construction to verify that ground conditions meet design assumptions. Where groundwater ingress is encountered during pile excavation, concrete is to be placed as soon as possible upon completion of pile excavation. Pile excavations should be pumped dry of water prior to pouring concrete, or alternatively a tremmie system could be used.

Selection of footing types and founding depth will need to consider the risk of adverse differential ground movements within the foundation footprint and between high level and deeper footings. Unless an allowance for such movement is included in the design of the proposed development we recommend that all new structures found on natural materials with comparable end bearing capacities and elastic moduli.

3.5 AS1170 Earthquake Site Risk Classification Assessment of the material encountered during the investigation in accordance with the guidelines provided in AS1170.4-2007 indicates an earthquake subsoil class of Class Be – Rock for the site.

3.6 Groundwater Management Groundwater seepage would usually be encountered at the soil/rock interface and in joints and bedding partings within the bedrock. Seepage in sandstone bedrock may be assumed as typically flowing downwards toward local drainage lines or regional water table, along horizontal bedding planes and sub-vertical joints. The rock mass permeability will be governed by the joints, faults and bedding planes.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW Due to the observed relatively intact bedrock with tight defects across the site it is anticipated that the

permeability of the shale will be relatively low and that seepage inflows will be controlled by sump and pump methods.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Further geotechnical inspections should be carried out during construction to confirm the geotechnical and hydrogeological model. These should include:

• All excavated material transported off site should be classified in accordance with NSW EPA 2014 - Waste Classification Guideline Part 1; Classifying Waste.

• A suitably qualified geotechnical engineer is to assess the condition of exposed material at foundation or subgrade level to assess the ability of the prepared surface to act as a foundation or as a subgrade.

• Regular inspections of battered and unsupported excavations, where proposed, to confirm geotechnical conditions and to assess the suitability of design assumptions and to provide further advice with regards to excavation retention/ support and proposed construction methodologies, if required.

5 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS The adopted investigation scope was limited by site access restrictions due to presence of structures at the site at the time of our investigation and by the investigation intent. Further geotechnical inspections should be carried out during construction to confirm both the geotechnical model and the design parameters provided in this report.

Your attention is drawn to the document “Important Information”, which is included in Appendix C of this report. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Morrow Geotechnics, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

P1551_01 9/10/2018

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n –

2-6

Lace

y St

& 1

86-1

90 P

rince

s Hw

y, K

ogar

ah B

ay N

SW

6 REFERENCES AS1726:1993, Geotechnical Site Investigations, Standards Australia.

AS2159:2009, Piling – Design and Installation, Standards Australia.

AS2870:2011, Residential Slabs and Footings, Standards Australia.

AS3798:2007, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments, Standards Australia.

Chapman, G.A. and Murphy, C.L. (1989), Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100000 sheet. Soil Conservation Services of NSW, Sydney.

NSW Department of Finance and Service, Spatial Information Viewer, maps.six.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Department of Mineral Resources (1985) Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9129 (Edition 1). Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources.

Pells (2004) Substance and Mass Properties for the Design of Engineering Structures in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol 39 No 3

7 CLOSURE Please do not hesitate to contact Morrow Geotechnics if you have any questions about the contents of this report. For and on behalf of Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd, James Brooker Alan Morrow Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Project: P1551

Figure:

1Truland Development Pty Ltd

2‐6 Lacey Street & 186‐190 Princes Highway, Kogarah Bay NSWGeotechnical InvestigationBorehole Location PlanPO Box 4069, Carlton NSW 2218

P: 0405 843 933 | E: [email protected] ScaleDate

ApprovedDrawn JB

AM03‐10‐18

NTS

Plan Source: maps.six.nsw.gov.au, September 2018

BH1BH2

BH3

BH4

Appe

ndix

A

BOREHOLE LOGS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Additional Observations

BH1

Contractor:Drill Rig:

Logged:

Project No: P1551 BG DrillingHanjin BD8

JBDate:Sheet 1 of 3 27‐09‐18

Truland DevelopmentResidential DevelopmentProject:

Client:

2‐6 Lacey Street & 186‐190Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW

Drilling

Metho

d

Resis

tance

Water

Sampling

USC

S

1.0

1.5

Depth

Consisten

cy/

Density

Moisture

Stratigraphy

8.0

0.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

CONCRETE, 90mm thickFILL ‐ Clayey SAND, fine to coarse grained, grey‐brown, poorlygraded

SAND, fine to coarse grained, orange, with clay, poorlygraded, (RESIDUAL SOIL)

Start Coring at 2.0 m

SFA

HL

L‐M

GWNE

‐

SC

SP

‐

‐

‐

M

‐

SANDSTONE, medium to coarse grained, yellow / pale orange,distinctly weathered, inferred very low strength

‐ infilled clay seam (Sandy CLAY) from 1.2 to 1.5 m

‐ becoming pale grey / pale yellow from 1.5 m

0

7.34‐7.6, Sm, clay, thk=260mm

5.49‐5.51, Sm, clay, thk=20mm

5.6‐5.65, Sm, clay, thk=50mm

3.82‐3.92, Sm, sandy clay, thk= 100mm

4.71‐4.75, Sm, clay, thk=40mm

H10

30100

30010000.03

103

10.3

0.1

0.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.5

4.0

1.0

1.5

4.66

Stratigraphy

BH1Date:Sheet 2 of 3 27‐09‐18

Defect Description

Defect Spacing

LVLEL M EHVH

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

Weathering

Depth

Contractor:Drill Rig:

Logged:

Project No: P1551 BG DrillingHanjin DB8

JB

Truland Development2‐6 Lacey Street & 186‐190Project:

Client:

Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

Start Coring at 2.0 mCORE LOSS, 2.0 to 3.6 m

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, pale grey / pale orange /red, bedding dipping at 20⁰ at 5‐50 mm spacing

CORE LOSS, 4.3 to 4.66 m

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, pale grey, beddingdipping at 20⁰ at 5‐100 mm spacing

‐ becoming pale grey / pale orange from 5.2 m

‐ becoming dark red from 5.7 m

‐ becoming pale grey from 5.9 m

‐ becoming orange from 7.0 m

‐ becoming pale grey / pale orange from 7.35 m

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, pale grey, bedding at 10⁰ at 5‐100 mm spacing, with trace of carbonaceouslaminations

NMLC

GWNO

30 0 (0)

88

81 (8

3)

100

77 (8

0)

‐

‐

DW

SW

MW

HW

SW

MW

FR

8.0

0

16.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

14.0

13.5

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

9.5

10.5

10.0

9.0

8.5

10 100 10000.3 30.1 1 10 30 300

Depth

Stratigraphy

Defect Spacing Defect Description

Weathering

Project No: P1551 Contractor: BG DrillingClient: Truland Development Drill Rig: Hanjin DB8

BH1Logged: JBSheet 3 of 3 Date: 27‐09‐18

Project: 2‐6 Lacey Street & 186‐190Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW

ELVL L M H VH

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

EH0.03

8.65‐8.67, Sm, clay, thk=20mm8.67‐8.7, J, 45⁰, Pl, Ro, Sn fe8.79‐8.81, Sm, clay, thk=20 mm8.9‐9.05, Sm, clay, thk=150mm

10.03‐10.04, Sm, clay, thk=10mm

SANDSTONE, as above

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, orange, bedding dipping at 10‐20⁰ at 2‐50 mm spacing


‐ becoming orange / pale grey from 9.45 m

End BH1 at 10.24 mReached Target Depth

NMLC

GWNO

77 (8

0)

100

100

100 (99)

FR

MW



BH1Logged: JBDate: 27‐09‐18

Project: Residential Development2‐6 Lacey Street & 186‐190

Stratigraphy

Consistency/

Density

Moisture

Drilling

Metho

d

Resistan

ce

Water

Sampling

USC

S

Project No: P1551 Contractor: BG DrillingClient: Truland Development Drill Rig: Hanjin BD8

BH2Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW Logged: JBSheet 1 of 3 Date: 27‐09‐18

Depth


CONCRETE, 90mm thickFILL ‐ SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, with trace of fine

‐

D

1.0

2.0

M1.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

5.0

‐

4.5

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0


8.0

7.5

HL

‐

SP

‐

‐

GWNE

L‐M

SFA

angular gravel (concrete), poorly graded

SAND, fine to coarse grained, orange, with clay, poorlygraded, (RESIDUAL SOIL)

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, yellow / orange,distinctly weathered, inferred very low strength, with trace ofclay bands


‐ becoming red‐orange from 3.5 m

4.0

0.5

0

NMLC

GWNO

92

92 (9

1)

‐

DW

SW


SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, orange / pale grey,bedding dipping at 10⁰ at 2 to 5 mm spacing

‐ becoming orange / dark orange from 5.65 m

8.0

7.0

7.5

7.67‐7.69, Sm, clay, thk=20mm

6.5

6.0 ‐ becoming pale grey / dark orange from 6.95 m

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

10 100 1000

0.1 1 10 30 300

Depth

Stratigraphy


Weathering




ELVL L M H VH

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

EH0.03 0.3 3

5.61‐5.64, Sm, clay, thk=30mm

0

‐ becoming pale grey / orange from 8.55 m


‐ becoming orange from 9.75 m

End BH2 at 10.5 mEreached Target Depth

NMLC

GWNO

100 (99)

100

DW

SW

MW

16.0

15.0

15.5

14.5

14.0

13.5

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

9.5

8.5

9.0

10 100 1000

0.1 1 10 30 300

Depth

Stratigraphy


Weathering




ELVL L M H VH

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

EH0.03 0.3 3

9.74‐9.75, Sm, clay, thk=10mm

10.2, B, 10⁰, Pl, Sm, Ct clay

SANDSTONE, as above


Stratigraphy

Consistency/

Density

Moisture

Drilling

Metho

d

Resistan

ce

Water

Sampling

USC

S



Depth


TOPSOIL ‐ SAND, fine to coarse grained, dark brown, with traceof silt, poorly graded

M

1.0

2.0

‐1.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0


SFA

LL‐M

GWNE

SP

‐

‐

SAND, fine to coarse grained, orange‐brown, with trace ofclay, trace of fine sub‐rounded gravel (fine to coarse grainedsandstone), poorly graded

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, yellow / orange, distinctlyweathered, inferred very low strength, with trace of claybands

‐ becoming pale yellow / pale grey from 1.5 m

SPT3‐11.0‐1.11 m17 / 110mm

0.5

0

DW

MW

SW

‐

SW


NMLC

GWNO

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, pale orange / pale grey,bedding dipping at 15⁰ at 2 to 20 mm spacing

SANDSTONE, fine to medium grained, pale grey, beddingdipping at 0‐10⁰ at 2 to 25 mm spacing, with trace ofcarbonaceous laminations


‐ band of shale from 5.2 to 5.24 mSANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, pale grey, beddingdipping at 30⁰ at 10 to 50 mm spacing


SANDSTONE, as above

95

83 (9

3)

20

20 (1

6)

74

62 (6

2)

‐

‐


BH3Logged: JBSheet 2 of 3 Date:

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

EH0.03 0.3 3


0.1 1 10 30 300

Depth

Stratigraphy


Weathering

28‐09‐18

ELVL L M H VH10 100 1000

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.0

2.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

5.75‐5.76, EWSm, clayey sand, thk=5mm5.78‐5.81, EWSm, clayey sand, thk=30mm

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

5.86‐5.88, EWSm, clayey sand, thk=20mm

4.17‐4.19, Sm, clay, thk=20mm

4.43‐4.5, Sm, sandy clay, thk=70mm

7.31‐7.36, J, 60⁰, Pl, Ro, Cn7.4‐7.45, J, 60⁰, Pl, Ro, Cn

0


NMLC

GWNO

‐ becoming pale grey / orange from 9.75 m

74

62 (6

2)

100

90 (9

1)

SW

MW


BH3Logged: JBSheet 3 of 3 Date:

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

EH0.03 0.3 3


0.1 1 10 30 300

Depth

Stratigraphy


Weathering

28‐09‐18

ELVL L M H VH10 100 1000

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.5

10.0

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.5

15.0

16.0

8.37‐8.38, Sm, clay, thk=10mm8.43‐8.46, EWSm, sand, thk=20mm8.56‐8.6, EWSm, clayey sand, thk=40mm8.58‐8.67, J, 60⁰, Pl, Ro, Ct sandy clay

9.05‐9.1, Sm, clay, thk=50mm

9.35‐9.41, Sm, clay, thk=60mm9.42‐9.46, Sm, clay, thk=40mm

SANDSTONE, as above


Stratigraphy

Consistency/

Density

Moisture

Drilling

Metho

d

Resistan

ce

Water

Sampling

USC

S



Depth

FILL ‐ Sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse sub‐angular to sub‐rounded (concrete, aggregate), fine to coarse grained

0.5

of fine sub‐rounded gravel (fine to coarse grained

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

5.0

‐

4.5

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

SAND, fine to coarse grained, orange, with trace of clay, trace

TOPSOIL ‐ SAND, fine to coarse grained, dark brown, withtrace of silt, poorly graded

sandstone), poorly graded, (RESIDUAL SOIL)

SANDSTONE, fine to coarse grained, yellow, distinctlyweathered, inferred very low strength, trace of clay bands


‐ becoming orange‐brown from 4.5 m


DCP (blows per 100 mm)

5 10 15 20

SFA

LL‐M

GWNE

GP

SP

‐

D

M

‐

‐

MD

D

VD

sand, poorly graded

0




NMLC

GWNO

94

94 (9

2)

‐

MW

SW

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

Weathering

0.03 0.3 3


0.1 1 10 30 300

EL VL L M H VHEH

Depth

Stratigraphy


10 100 1000

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SANDSTONE, fine to medium grained, pale grey / orange,bedding dipping at 30⁰ at 2 to 50 mm spacing


2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0 6.94‐7, EWSm, clayey sand, thk=60mm

7.5

8.0 ‐ becoming orange from 7.98 m

0




SANDSTONE, fine to medium grained, pale grey / orange,

NMLC

GWNO

53

53 (3

9)

100

100 (100

)

MW

‐

MW

SANDSTONE, as above

9.5

10.0

Drilling

Metho

d

Water

TCR

RQD (SCR

) Rock Strength

Weathering

0.03 0.3 3


0.1 1 10 30 300

EL VL L M H VHEH

Depth

Stratigraphy


10 100 1000

8.5

8.67‐8.73, Sm, clay, thk=60mm

9.08.8, B, 15⁰, Pl, Sm, Ct claybedding dipping at 30⁰ at 2 to 25 mm spacing

10.5


11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX Project No. P1551

Client: Truland Development Date: 28-Sep-18

Project: Geotechnical Investigation Tested by: JB

Location: 2-6 Lacey St & 186-190 Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW Data checked:

Test Machine: GSA Test Locality: Core Size: 52 mm

Bore/TP Depth Rock Type Test W D Load Point Load

(m) Type (mm) (mm) kN Strength Index(P) Is(50) (MPa)

BH1 4.83 F A 52.0 49.0 0.09 1 0.03 ELBH1 5.74 F D 52.0 49.0 3.05 2 1.26 HBH1 5.74 F A 52.0 49.0 4.32 1 1.41 HBH1 6.35 F D 52.0 48.0 1.46 2 0.62 MBH1 6.35 F A 52.0 49.0 2.31 1 0.76 MBH1 7.24 F D 52.0 48.0 0.88 2 0.37 MBH1 7.24 F A 52.0 50.0 1.66 1 0.53 MBH1 8.24 F D 52.0 47.0 0.22 2 0.10 VLBH1 8.24 F A 52.0 47.0 0.40 1 0.14 LBH1 9.24 F D 52.0 49.0 1.04 2 0.43 MBH1 9.24 F A 52.0 48.0 1.61 1 0.53 MBH1 10.18 F D 52.0 48.0 1.50 2 0.64 MBH1 10.18 F A 52.0 49.0 1.84 1 0.60 M

52.0BH2 5.43 F D 52.0 49.0 0.01 2 0.00 ELBH2 5.43 F A 52.0 53.0 0.31 1 0.10 VLBH2 6.32 F D 52.0 47.0 0.21 2 0.09 VLBH2 6.32 F A 52.0 45.0 0.43 1 0.15 LBH2 7.32 F D 52.0 47.0 0.87 2 0.38 MBH2 7.32 F A 52.0 50.0 1.32 4 0.42BH2 8.32 F D 52.0 49.0 6.27 2 2.59 HBH2 8.32 F A 52.0 46.0 9.09 1 3.12 VHBH2 9.29 F D 52.0 48.0 0.84 2 0.36 MBH2 9.29 F A 52.0 49.0 1.47 1 0.48 MBH2 10.26 F D 52.0 48.0 1.72 2 0.73 MBH2 10.26 F A 52.0 45.0 2.09 1 0.73 M

52.0BH3 4.83 F D 52.0 46.0 0.10 2 0.05 VLBH3 4.83 F A 52.0 44.0 0.12 1 0.04 VLBH3 5.57 F D 52.0 47.0 0.09 2 0.04 VLBH3 5.57 F A 52.0 50.0 0.19 1 0.06 VLBH3 6.41 F D 52.0 48.0 1.04 2 0.44 MBH3 6.41 F A 52.0 47.0 1.15 1 0.39 M

TEST TYPE : MOISTURE CONDITION :Field (F), Saturated (S), Dry (D)

FAILURE TYPE :

2. Fracture along bedding.

4. Chip or partial fracture.

NOTES For specimens tested parallel to plane of weakness De2 = D2

For specimens tested perpendicular to plane of weakness De2 = 4WD/

Moisture Condition

Failure Type Strength Classification

3. Fracture influenced by pre-existing joint plane (J), microfracture (M), vein (V), chemical alteration (C).

1. Fracture through fabric of specimen oblique to bedding, not influenced by weak planes.

JB

DD

W

W/D > 0.5

W

D/W = 0.3 - 1.0

D

W

D/W = 0.3 - 1.0

AXIAL (A) IRREGULAR LUMP (I)DIAMETRAL (D)

P1551 Kogarah Bay PLT-1.xls

POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX Project No. P1551

Client: Truland Development Date: 28-Sep-18

Project: Geotechnical Investigation Tested by: JB

Location: 2-6 Lacey St & 186-190 Princes Hwy, Kogarah Bay NSW Data checked:

Test Machine: GSA Test Locality: Core Size: 52 mm

Bore/TP Depth Rock Type Test W D Load Point Load

(m) Type (mm) (mm) kN Strength Index(P) Is(50) (MPa)

BH3 7.08 F D 52.0 49.0 0.28 2 0.12 LBH3 7.08 F A 52.0 44.0 0.36 1 0.13 LBH3 8.05 F A 52.0 55.0 0.53 1 0.16 LBH3 8.91 F D 52.0 49.0 0.40 2 0.17 LBH3 8.91 F A 52.0 50.0 0.68 1 0.22 LBH3 9.84 F D 52.0 48.0 1.04 2 0.44 MBH3 9.84 F A 52.0 48.0 1.20 1 0.40 MBH3 10.22 F D 52.0 49.0 1.09 2 0.45 MBH3 10.22 F A 52.0 47.0 1.55 4 0.52

BH4 5.50 F A 52.0 48.0 0.10 1 0.03 VLBH4 5.94 F D 52.0 47.0 0.12 2 0.05 VLBH4 5.94 F A 52.0 58.0 0.34 1 0.10 VLBH4 6.81 F D 52.0 47.0 0.14 2 0.06 VLBH4 6.81 F A 52.0 42.0 0.57 1 0.21 LBH4 7.72 F D 52.0 49.0 0.40 2 0.17 LBH4 7.72 F A 52.0 44.0 0.43 1 0.15 LBH4 8.05 F D 52.0 46.0 0.38 2 0.17 LBH4 8.05 F A 52.0 49.0 0.92 4 0.30BH4 9.20 F D 52.0 47.0 0.27 2 0.12 LBH4 9.20 F A 52.0 46.0 0.21 1 0.07 VLBH4 10.11 F D 52.0 48.0 0.78 2 0.33 MBH4 10.11 F A 52.0 47.0 1.28 1 0.43 M

TEST TYPE : MOISTURE CONDITION :Field (F), Saturated (S), Dry (D)

FAILURE TYPE :

2. Fracture along bedding.

4. Chip or partial fracture.

NOTES For specimens tested parallel to plane of weakness De2 = D2

For specimens tested perpendicular to plane of weakness De2 = 4WD/

Moisture Condition

Failure Type Strength Classification

3. Fracture influenced by pre-existing joint plane (J), microfracture (M), vein (V), chemical alteration (C).

1. Fracture through fabric of specimen oblique to bedding, not influenced by weak planes.

JB

DD

W

W/D > 0.5

W

D/W = 0.3 - 1.0

D

W

D/W = 0.3 - 1.0

AXIAL (A) IRREGULAR LUMP (I)DIAMETRAL (D)

P1551 Kogarah Bay PLT-2.xls

Soil

and

Rock

Log

ging

Exp

lana

tory

Not

es

GENERAL

Information obtained from site investigations is recorded on log sheets. The “Cored Drill Hole Log” presents data from an operation where a core barrel has been used to recover material - commonly rock. The “Non-Core Drill Hole - Geological Log” presents data from an operation where coring has not been used and information is based on a combination of regular sampling and insitu testing. The material penetrated in non-core drilling is commonly soil but may include rock. The “Excavation - Geological Log” presents data and drawings from exposures of soil and rock resulting from excavation of pits, trenches, etc.

The heading of the log sheets contains information on Project Identification, Hole or Pit Identification, Location and Elevation. The main section of the logs contains information on methods and conditions, material substance description and structure presented as a series of columns in relation to depth below the ground surface which is plotted on the left side of the log sheet. The common depth scale is 8m per drill log sheet and about 3-5m for excavation logs sheets.

As far as is practicable the data contained on the log sheets is factual. Some interpretation is inevitable in the identification of material boundaries in areas of partial sampling, the location of areas of core loss, description and classification of material, estimation of strength and identification of drilling induced fractures. Material description and classifications are based on SAA Site Investigation Code AS 1726 - 1993 with some modifications as defined below.

These notes contain an explanation of the terms and abbreviations commonly used on the log sheets.

DRILLING

Drilling & Casing

ADV Auger Drilling with V-Bit ADT Auger Drilling with TC Bit WB Wash-bore drilling RR Rock Roller NMLC NMLC core barrel NQ NQ core barrel HMLC HMLC core barrel HQ HQ core barrel

Drilling Fluid/Water

The drilling fluid used is identified and loss of return to the surface estimated as a percentage.

Drilling Penetration/Drill Depth

Core lifts are identified by a line and depth with core loss per run as a percentage. Ease of penetration in non-core drilling is abbreviated as follows:

VE Very Easy E Easy M Medium H High VH Very High

Groundwater Levels

Date of measurement is shown.

Standing water level measured in completed borehole

Level taken during or immediately after drilling

D Disturbed B Bulk U Undisturbed SPT Standard Penetration Test N Result of SPT (sample taken) PBT Plate Bearing Test PZ Piezometer Installation HP Hand Penetrometer Test

EXCAVATION LOGS

Explanatory notes are provided at the bottom of drill log sheets. Information about the origin, geology and pedology may be entered in the “Structure and other Observations” column. The depth of the base of excavation (for the logged section) at the appropriate depth in the “Material Description” column. Refusal of excavation plant is noted should it occur. A sketch of the exposure may be added.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SOIL

Classification Symbol - In accordance with the Unified Classification System (AS 1726-1993, Appendix A, Table A1)

Material Description - In accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.3

Moisture Condition

D Dry, looks and feels dry M Moist, No free water on remoulding W Wet, free water on remoulding

Consistency - In accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.5

VS Very Soft < 12.5 kPa S Soft 12.5 – 25 kPa F Firm 25 – 50 kPa St Stiff 50 – 100 kPa VSt Very Stiff 100 – 200 kPa H Hard > 200 kPa

Strength figures quoted are the approximate range of undrained shear strength for each class.

Density Index. (%) is estimated or is based on SPT results.

VL Very Loose < 15 % L Loose 15 – 35 % MD Medium Dense 35 – 65 % D Dense 65 – 85 % VD Very Dense > 85 %

Soil

and

Rock

Log

ging

Exp

lana

tory

Not

es

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -ROCK

Material Description

Identification of rock type, composition and texture based on visual features in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A3.1-A3.3 and Tables A6a, A6b and A7.

Core Loss

Is shown at the bottom of the run unless otherwise indicated.

Bedding

Thinly Laminated < 6 mm Laminated 6 - 20 Very Thinly Bedded 20 - 60 Thinly Bedded 60 - 200 Medium Bedded 200 – 600 Thickly Bedded 600 – 2000 Very Thickly Bedded > 2000

Weathering - No distinction is made between weathering and alteration. Weathering classification assists in identification but does not imply engineering properties.

Fresh (F) Rock substance unaffected by weathering Slightly Weathered (SW)

Rock substance partly stained or discoloured. Colour and texture of fresh rock recognisable.

Moderately Weathered (MW)

Staining or discolouration extends throughout rock substance. Fresh rock colour not recognisable.

Highly Weathered (HW)

Stained or discoloured throughout. Signs of chemical or physical alteration. Rock texture retained.

Extremely Weathered (EW)

Rock texture evident but material has soil properties and can be remoulded.

Strength - The following terms are used to described rock strength:

Rock Strength Class

Abbreviation Point Load Strength Index, Is(50) (MPa)

Extremely Low EL < 0.03 Very Low VL 0.03 to 0.1 Low L 0.1 to 0.3 Medium M 0.3 to 1 High H 1 to 3 Very High VH 3 to 10 Extremely High EH ≥ 10

Strengths are estimated and where possible supported by Point Load Index Testing of representative samples. Test results are plotted on the graphical estimated strength by using:

° Diametral Point Load Test

Axial Point Load Test

Where the estimated strength log covers more than one range it indicates the rock strength varies between the limits shown.

MATERIALS STRUCTURE/FRACTURES

ROCK

Natural Fracture Spacing - A plot of average fracture spacing excluding defects known or suspected to be due to drilling, core boxing or testing. Closed or cemented joints, drilling breaks and handling breaks are not included in the Natural Fracture Spacing.

Visual Log - A diagrammatic plot of defects showing type, spacing and orientation in relation to core axis.

Defects Defects open in-situ or clay sealed Defects closed in-situ Breaks through rock substance

Additional Data - Description of individual defects by type, orientation, in-filling, shape and roughness in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A Table A10, notes and Figure A2.

Orientation - angle relative to the plane normal to the core axis.

Type BP JT SM FZ SZ VN FL CL DL HB DB

Bedding Parting Joint Seam Fracture Zone Shear Zone Vein Foliation Cleavage Drill Lift Handling Break Drilling Break

Infilling CN X Clay KT CA Fe Qz MS MU

Clean Carbonaceous Clay Chlorite Calcite Iron Oxide Quartz Secondary Mineral Unidentified Mineral

Shape PR CU UN ST IR DIS

Planar Curved Undulose Stepped Irregular Discontinuous

Rougness POL SL S RF VR

Polished Slickensided Smooth Rough Very Rough

SOIL

Structures - Fissuring and other defects are described in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.6, using the terminology for rock defects.

Origin - Where practicable an assessment is provided of the probable origin of the soil, eg fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, residual soil.

A ppen

dix B

RMS TECHNICAL DIRECTION GTD 2012/001

GTD 2012/001 27 APRIL 2012

Technical Direction Geotechnology

Excavation adjacent to RMS infrastructure

Background Background The number and size of ground excavations in close proximity to Roads and Maritime Services (hereafter referred to as “RMS”) infrastructure have increased steadily in recent years. It is imperative that the design and construction of the supporting structures to these excavations are adequate to provide security to the road infrastructure and its operations.

The number and size of ground excavations in close proximity to Roads and Maritime Services (hereafter referred to as “RMS”) infrastructure have increased steadily in recent years. It is imperative that the design and construction of the supporting structures to these excavations are adequate to provide security to the road infrastructure and its operations.

Purpose Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a technical direction for all proposed excavations by private and commercial developments with their influence zones, and/or any temporary structures extending onto the road reserve and RMS easements. It sets out the requirements for RMS concurrence upon referral of a Development Application involving excavation adjacent to classified roads affecting the road infrastructure.

The purpose of this document is to provide a technical direction for all proposed excavations by private and commercial developments with their influence zones, and/or any temporary structures extending onto the road reserve and RMS easements. It sets out the requirements for RMS concurrence upon referral of a Development Application involving excavation adjacent to classified roads affecting the road infrastructure.

This technical direction is an integral policy document for the management of excavation related geotechnical risks within the Work Authorised Development (WAD) Approval framework. This technical direction is an integral policy document for the management of excavation related geotechnical risks within the Work Authorised Development (WAD) Approval framework.

The document lists the contents of submission required for RMS review and it also details technical requirements for the design and construction of retaining walls for these excavations. The document lists the contents of submission required for RMS review and it also details technical requirements for the design and construction of retaining walls for these excavations.

Scope Scope This document applies to retaining structures ( typically embedded cantilever and propped/anchored retaining structures ) constructed to support the sides of excavations which are within close proximity to the roadway. It also outlines the requirements for installing ground anchors and instrumentation as part of these excavations. Proponents must contact the RMS Project Manager for areas that are not covered by this Technical Direction.

This document applies to retaining structures ( typically embedded cantilever and propped/anchored retaining structures ) constructed to support the sides of excavations which are within close proximity to the roadway. It also outlines the requirements for installing ground anchors and instrumentation as part of these excavations. Proponents must contact the RMS Project Manager for areas that are not covered by this Technical Direction.

It should be noted that the RMS review relates to the impact on its road assets and does not relieve the wall designers and property developers of their obligations with respect to any other statutory requirements as part of the development.

It should be noted that the RMS review relates to the impact on its road assets and does not relieve the wall designers and property developers of their obligations with respect to any other statutory requirements as part of the development.

For: Engineers, Works Supervisors, Surveillance Officers and Councils

Enquiries: Supervising Geotechnical Engineer (Standards) Phone: 8837-0248

Amendment / Addition to: Ref File: GEO 4364 xxxxxxxx




Referral from Consent Authority Where the consent authority refers a development application to RMS for comment and an excavation is proposed as described above then the consent authority is to be advised that the developer needs to comply with this Technical Direction.

Submission to RMS The following documents are to be submitted for RMS concurrence at least six weeks prior to commencement of construction:

Dilapidation Survey: RMS may require a dilapidation survey for sensitive assets where there is a potential risk of damage caused by the proposed development. The dilapidation survey must cover RMS assets within the influence zone of the excavation. Where applicable these may include the road pavement, associated subsurface drainage structures, bridges, traffic signal structures and other road assets.

Design documentation: The design documentation must be presented in a format that is readily understood by engineers. The structural engineering report must detail an accurate geometry of the retention scheme, load and design assumptions, load cases, structural section properties / material parameters including analysis output (such as moment and shear envelopes and deflections). Cross sections at critical sections of the proposed excavation showing the geotechnical model used for design must be clearly indicated. The geotechnical report on which the design is based must be provided with the design documentation. The design report must include both temporary and permanent structures where applicable.

Drawings: The Drawings must show the layout of the proposed structure(s) relative to RMS assets including but not limited to roads, tunnels, bridges, embankments, walls, noise walls and traffic signals. Longitudinal and cross sections showing the proposed structures and RMS assets must be drawn at critical locations. The construction sequence must be shown on the Drawings.

Specifications : Copies of the specifications are to be included where necessary to interpret the design and Drawings.

Instrumentation and Monitoring:

The instrumentation layout proposed for the monitoring of movement as a result of the excavation must be included in the Drawings together with the frequency of monitoring, trigger levels and action to be taken when trigger levels are exceeded.

Construction Following RMS concurrence, construction is to be carried out in accordance with the Drawings, and specifications accepted by the RMS. Any modifications to the design, following acceptance, must be referred to RMS for concurrence.

Work-As-Executed (WAE) Drawings: Upon completion of construction the WAE Drawings of the retaining structures supporting the RMS infrastructure, including stabilisation measures in the case of excavation in rock must be submitted to RMS for record purposes.




Technical Requirements

Design Standards

Retaining structures must be designed in accordance with the relevant RMS documents and the current edition of the following Standards as appropriate, unless otherwise specified in this document. Where conflicting information occurs, the RMS document is to take precedence.

AS 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations

AS 1170 Structural design actions – General principles

AS 5100 Bridge design – Scope and general principles

AS 3600 Concrete structures

AS 2159 Piling – Design and installation

The design of the proposed structures must be in accordance with AS 5100 unless otherwise specified in this document. The design life of permanent retaining wall structures is 100 years and the design of these walls and associated elements is to be include both short term and long term effects. In particular, the unplanned excavation as detailed in Section 13.3.1 of AS 5100.3 for stability design must be considered.

Geotechnical Investigations

As a minimum, geotechnical investigations are to be undertaken in accordance with AS 1726 to develop surface/subsurface geological models and groundwater conditions and to determine the properties of the soil and rock units. The geotechnical field investigations and laboratory testing must be comprehensively carried out to determine the site conditions and geotechnical material parameters for the detailed design and construction of the retaining structure. These investigations must be carried out to a minimum of 3 metres below the final excavation level. Investigation by test pits is generally not considered acceptable. Non core and rock core drilling using triple tube sampling is the preferred technique. Where proposed excavations are predominantly in rock, the geotechnical investigations must define adverse defect mechanisms (joints, fault zones, volcanic intrusions, weak zones etc) which may have an adverse impact on the development and adjacent RMS Infrastructure. Where excavations are in excess of 10 metres depth in rock, an assessment of the rock stress state and its effects on the excavation is required.

Utilities

The nature of any utilities located within the zone affected by the proposed excavation must be established. The effect of the excavation on these utilities must be analysed and reported. The requirements of utility owners and the sensitivity of these utilities to ground movements must be taken into account in the design and construction.

Where the utility owner requirements are not established, the design must consider either the effect of ruptured utilities or the underpinning of such utilities.




Types of Acceptable Ground Support

Whilst most types of ground support structures can be considered, the following types are not generally considered acceptable as permanent retention structures:

x Use of steel sheet pile walls below the groundwater table.

x Wall toes founded above the final excavation levels on unsupported rock ledges with rock quality inferior to Class III sandstone ( Pells Classification System) or where the rock has adverse defects.

Design Loads and Combinations

Design loads and load combinations must be in accordance with AS 5100, but with a minimum uniformly distributed live traffic load (UDL) of 20 kPa for the serviceability limit state. This minimum UDL must be applied on the road which represents the most adverse loading condition for the retaining structure. The Accompanying Lane Factors given in AS 5100 may be applied to the UDL for multiple lanes.

The design must take into account construction loads, loads from neighbouring structures and other surcharge loads as required by the relevant design standards. A minimum UDL of 10 kPa must be applied for the serviceability limit state for loads other than traffic loads.

Particular loads or load cases may need to be considered for design of the retaining structures impacting on RMS infrastructure, and the developer must inform themselves of any special requirements before commencing design.

Groundwater Levels

Design groundwater levels must take into account both short term, long term and accidental groundwater levels in the vicinity of the retaining structure. Possible damming effects leading to elevated water pressures should be considered.

Where drainage measures are proposed to relieve water pressures behind the structure these must be readily accessible for inspection and maintenance. This requirement may apply either during the construction phase or the in-service phase of the structure.

Design groundwater levels and drainage details must be shown on the Drawings.

Ground Anchors

Where proposed ground anchors are located in whole or in part within the road reserve and RMS easements, the following requirements applies :

x Only temporary ground anchors will be permitted;

x Ground anchors are to be designed and tested in accordance with AS 5100;




x Temporary ground anchors must have a minimum design life of 2 years. Where ground anchors are required for more than 18 months they must be designed as permanent anchors;

x No anchor forming part of the works must be stressed to greater than 75% of the tendon UTS under either working load or test load;

x No part of any ground anchor must be less than 2 metres below the surface within the State road reserve and RMS easement.

x Once the anchors are no longer required to carry load, all structural connection between the anchors and the proposed development must be removed.

‘Nails and Bolts’ used as structural support elements are treated the same as ground anchors.

Ground Deformation and Wall Deflection

The prediction of vertical and horizontal deflections of the proposed retaining structure for each stage of construction and in the long term must be provided in the design documentation. These deflections must be presented in graphical form at critical sections for the full height of the retaining structure.

Retaining wall structural deflections must not result in any damage to RMS assets. Ground deformation estimates must consider the full zone of influence of the proposed excavation and include the following:

x Demolition of existing retaining or support structures.

x Construction of the retention elements.

x Excavation and deflection of the retention elements.

x Groundwater drawdown.

x Consolidation of soils.

x Other site specific work or processes affecting ground deformation

Permissible deflections will be determined by RMS on a case by case basis, taking into account the sensitivity of RMS assets to movements, the proximity of the structure to such assets and the ground movements that will occur within RMS property or the road reserve. However, total serviceability deflection of the wall in any one direction acceptable for non-sensitive RMS assets is to be limited to 0.5% of the excavated height or 30 mm, whichever is the lesser. Generally, the permissible movements on infrastructure assets should be clarified with RMS prior to the design.

Instrumentation and Monitoring

RMS requires geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring where infrastructure assets may be affected by the proposed excavation. These include bridge structures, associated foundations, existing wall structures etc adjacent to the proposed excavation. Instrumentation and monitoring may be required for the following retaining wall types:

x Cantilever retaining walls with a retained height exceeding 3 metres

x Propped or anchored walls with a retained height exceeding 6 metres




Where required, instrumentation will generally include a minimum of two inclinometers installed to at least 3 metres below the toe level of the walls. Where the groundwater level is above the final excavation level a number of piezometers must also be installed. Other monitoring systems such as a Total Station Survey system ( using remote data capture or other technology ) may also be required depending on the nature of the development and RMS assets affected by the development.

Where monitoring is required, it is to be carried out at the following stages:

x Before commencement of construction of retaining structures where appropriate to determine baseline readings. Two independent sets of measurements must be taken confirming measurement consistency.

x After construction of the retaining structures, but before commencement of excavation.

x After excavation to the first row of supports or anchors, but prior to installation of these supports or anchors.

x After excavation to any subsequent rows of supports or anchors, but prior to installation of these supports or anchors.

x After excavation to the base of the excavation.

x After de-stressing and removal of any row of supports or anchors.

x One month after completion of the permanent retaining structure or after three consecutive measurements not less than a week apart showing no further movements, whichever is the later.

Instrumentation and monitoring must be carried out by a competent person experienced in the equipment used. The results of each monitoring stage must be reported to the design engineer. Before work proceeds to the next stage the design engineer must verify that based on the monitoring results and the inspections carried out the structure is performing in accordance with the design intent and that where trigger levels have been exceeded, action has been taken in accordance with the monitoring plan. Verification by the design engineer must constitute a ‘Hold Point’ for each stage of construction.

RMS must be informed immediately when the trigger levels are exceeded.

The monitoring detailed above does not override any monitoring scheduled by the design engineer or required for any other reason. However, the monitoring detailed above may be included in monitoring programs prescribed by others provided all the requirements described in this document are incorporated into the monitoring program or plan.

Thresholds

It is recommended that the following trigger threshold criteria be adopted and shown on the Drawings:

� Alert: If lateral displacements are less than 80% of agreed value, excavation could be continued.

� Action: If lateral displacements are greater than 80% but less than 100% of the agreed value, RMS should be notified and the monitoring data be reviewed. The frequency of monitoring should be increased.




� Alarm: If lateral displacements are greater than the agreed value, the RMS Project Manager must be advised immediately in which case the excavation works is to be terminated. A comprehensive Risk Management / Contingency Action Plan is to be implemented with measures taken to safeguard the road infrastructure.

Hold Points

Construction must be carried out in accordance with the Council approved plans and work method statements agreed by the RMS. Construction must not proceed to the next stage until preceding ‘Hold Points’ have been released.

Completion of the each stage of construction listed below constitutes a ‘Hold Point’. At each ‘Hold Point’, certification must be provided by a Chartered Professional Engineer that the conditions listed after each stage of construction below have been met before releasing each ‘Hold Point’.

1. After construction of the retaining structures, but before commencement of excavation:

a. Certify that the structures have been constructed in accordance with the approved Drawings.

2. After excavation to and installation of the first row of supports or anchors:

a. Certify that the geotechnical conditions are in accordance with those described in the geotechnical report. If not, specify actions required and confirm that these actions have been carried out.

b. Certify that the anchors/supports have been constructed in accordance with the approved Drawings.

c. Certify that the anchors have been tested and passed in accordance with RMS requirements.

3. After excavation to and installation of any subsequent rows of supports or anchors:

a. Certify that the geotechnical conditions are in accordance with those described in the geotechnical report. If not, specify actions required and confirm that these actions have been carried out.

b. Certify that the anchors/supports have been constructed in accordance with the approved Drawings.

c. Certify that the anchors have been tested and passed in accordance with RMS requirements.

4. After excavation to and construction of the base of the excavation:

a. Certify that the geotechnical conditions are in accordance with those described in the geotechnical report. If not, specify actions required and confirm that these actions have been carried out;

b. Certify that the excavation base conditions have been constructed in accordance with the approved Drawings;

5. After de-stressing and removal of any row of supports or anchors:

a. Certify that all temporary anchors have been de-stressed, removed or disconnected from the permanent retaining structure.




Access to Site

Access to the site by RMS Engineers must be allowed for the purpose of reviewing compliance to the requirements of this document and the Work Authorised Development documents agreed with RMS.

A ppen

dix C

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Impo

rtant

Info

rmat

ion This Document has been provided by Morrow Geotechnics Pty Ltd subject to the following limitations:

This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Morrow Geotechnics’ proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.

The scope and the period of Morrow Geotechnics’ Services are as described in Morrow Geotechnics’ proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Morrow Geotechnics did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. The scope of services may have been limited by such factors as time, budget, site access or other site conditions. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Morrow Geotechnics in regards to it. Any advice given within this document is limited to geotechnical considerations only. Other constraints particular to the project, including but not limited to architectural, environment, heritage and planning matters may apply and should be assessed independently of this advice.

Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Morrow Geotechnics was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. No geotechnical investigation can provide a full understanding of all possible subsurface details and anomalies at a site.

In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Morrow Geotechnics’ opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Morrow Geotechnics to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.

Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Morrow Geotechnics for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

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 the report that Morrow Geotechnics be notified of any variations and be provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this report.

This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Morrow Geotechnics accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document.

geotechnical report for 2-6 lacey street & 186-190 …

Documents