GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE …...clayey soils with trace to some gravel. Locally, it also contains construction debris such as asphalt, concrete, Locally, it also contains

geotechnics construction materials testing

90 scarsdale road telephone: (905) 474-5265

toronto, ontario fax: (416) 444-3179

M3B 2R7 e-mail: [email protected]

Report Ref. No. 17-069

April 2019

Prepared For:

10046043 Canada Inc.

898 Parkland Avenue

Mississauga, ON

L5H 3H1

Prepared By:

Alston Associates

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

Distribution:

Digital Copy - 10046043 Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE

STABILITY ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

1950 AND 1952 FAIRPORT ROAD

PICKERING, ONTARIO

alston associates Reference 17-069

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd. April 2019

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

1950 AND 1952 FAIRPORT ROAD, PICKERING, ONTARIO

10046043 CANADA INC.

i

CONTENTS

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

2 FIELDWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 1

3 LABORATORY TESTS ............................................................................................................................ 2

4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 2

4.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Topsoil ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.3 Fill Material ............................................................................................................................................. 3

4.4 Peat ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.5 Native Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 4

4.5.1 Silt ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4.5.2 Fine Sand .................................................................................................................................. 4

4.5.3 Silty Clay .................................................................................................................................... 5

4.5.4 Sandy Silty Clay (Till) ................................................................................................................. 5

4.6 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 5

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 7

5.1 Excavation.............................................................................................................................................. 7

5.2 Groundwater Control ............................................................................................................................ 8

5.3 Reuse of On-site Excavated Soil as a Compacted Backfill .............................................................. 8

5.4 Engineered Fill ........................................................................................................................................ 9

5.5 Service Trenches .................................................................................................................................. 10

5.6 Foundation Design ............................................................................................................................... 11

5.7 Basement Floors ................................................................................................................................... 12

5.8 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................ 13

5.9 Earthquake Design Parameters ......................................................................................................... 14

5.10 Lateral Earth Pressure .......................................................................................................................... 14

5.11 Chemical Characterization of Subsurface Soil................................................................................. 16

6 STABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CREEK BANK ........................................................................................ 16

6.1 Stable Slope Allowance ...................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 Toe Erosion Allowance ........................................................................................................................ 18

6.3 Erosion Access Allowance ................................................................................................................. 18

6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 18

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .................................................................................................................. 19






ii

APPENDICES .

APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

APPENDIX B FIGURE 1 - BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2 – DEPTH OF FILL

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

TEST PIT LOG SHEETS

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E TYPICAL PERIMETER AND UNDERFLOOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM

APPENDIX F CERTIFICATE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX G SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS






1

1 INTRODUCTION

Alston Associates (AA) has been retained by 10046043 Canada Inc. to carry out a geotechnical investigation

and slope stability assessment for a proposed residential development located at 1950 and 1952 Fairport

Road in Pickering, Ontario (the Site). Authorization to proceed with this study was given by Mr. Yecheng Li of

10046043 Canada Inc.

We understand that it is proposed to redevelop the Site with a low-rise residential subdivision consisting of 30

single family homes with basement construction serviced with a new municipal road and underground water,

sanitary, and storm services.

A grading plan was not available at the time of the investigation, and accordingly the recommendations

provided in this report are considered to be preliminary in nature, subject for review and revision upon

completion of proposed grading plans.

The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, to

determine the engineering properties of the various soil deposits underlying the site, and to provide

preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations pertaining to the proposed development.

This report presents the results of the investigation performed in accordance with the general terms of

reference outlined above and is intended for the guidance of the client and the design architects or

engineers only. It is assumed that the design will be in accordance with the applicable building codes and

standards.

2 FIELDWORK

The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out from June 26 to 28, 2017. It consisted of eleven (11)

boreholes, advanced by a drilling contractor commissioned by AA. The locations of the boreholes were

chosen by AA to provide general coverage of the site for the proposed development, and are shown on the

Borehole Location Plan enclosed in Appendix B. The fieldwork was carried out in conjunction with the Phase

II Environmental Assessment and Hydrogeological study undertaken by Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

(Terrapex).

The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 4.3 to 8.2 m below ground surface (mbgs). Seven (7)

of the boreholes (Boreholes MW1, MW4A, MW4B, MW6, MW8A, MW8B, and MW9) were instrumented with

monitoring wells, to determine the long-term groundwater table at the site and permit sampling of the

groundwater for chemical analyses and hydrogeological assessment to be undertaken by Terrapex.

The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were established by J.D. Barnes Limited; shown on

their Topographic Survey Plan dated August 11, 2017.

Standard penetration tests were carried out in the course of advancing the boreholes to take representative

soil samples and to measure penetration index values (N-values) to characterize the condition of the various

soil materials. The number of blows of the striking hammer required to drive the split spoon sampler to 300 mm






2

depth was recorded and these are presented on the logs as penetration index values. Results of SPT are

shown on the borehole log sheets in Appendix C of this report.

Groundwater level observations were made in the boreholes upon completion of each of their

advancement, and subsequently in the monitoring wells on July 7, 12, and 17, 2017. The results of the

groundwater measurements are discussed in Section 4.6 of this report.

Test Pits were excavated on December 7, 2017 and March 28, 2018 to delineate the lateral and vertical extent

of fill identified at the borehole locations as well as obtain additional samples for the Phase II Environmental

Assessment. The locations of the Test Pits are shown on Figure 2, attached in Appendix B.

The fieldwork for this project was carried out under the supervision of an experienced geotechnical

technician from this office who laid out the positions of the boreholes in the field; arranged locates of buried

services; effected the drilling, sampling and in situ testing; observed groundwater conditions; and prepared

field borehole log and test pit log sheets.

3 LABORATORY TESTS

The soil samples recovered from the split spoon sampler were properly sealed, labelled, and brought to our

laboratory. They were visually classified and water content tests were conducted on all soil samples retained

from Boreholes MW1, BH2, BH5, and MW9. The results of the classification, water contents, and Standard

Penetration Tests are presented on the borehole log sheets attached in Appendix C of this report.

Grain-size analyses were carried out on four (4) native soil samples. The results of these tests are presented as

Figures D-1 through D-4 in Appendix D.

In addition, two (2) soil samples were submitted to an analytical laboratory for chemical analyses for pH and

soluble sulphate. The results of these tests are enclosed in Appendix F; discussed in Section 5.11 of this report.

4 SI TE AND SUBSURFACE CONDIT IONS

Full details of the subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site are given on the borehole Log sheets

attached in Appendix C of this report.

The following paragraphs present a description of the site and a commentary on the engineering properties

of the various soil materials contacted in the boreholes.

It should be noted that the boundaries of soil types indicated on the borehole logs are inferred from non-

continuous soil sampling and observations made during drilling. These boundaries are intended to reflect

transition zones for the purpose of geotechnical design, and therefore, should not be construed as exact

planes of geological change.






3

4 .1 Site Descript ion

The site consists of the properties with the municipal addresses 1950 and 1952 Fairport Road, and the rear

portions of the properties 1954 and 1966 Fairport Road, in Pickering, Ontario. It is bounded by residential

properties on all sides. It has an irregular shape; approximately 150 m wide and 100 to 200 m long.

The site is developed with two residential houses located at the southeast and northwest corners. The

remaining area of the site is vacant and covered with vegetation and some trees. The Dunbarton Creek runs

in a north-south direction along the western limit of the site.

The majority of the ground surface topography of the site is slightly undulating. The ground surface elevations

established at the borehole locations range from 104.7 to 107.4 m.

4 .2 Topsoi l

Topsoil is present in Borehole BH5 and several of the Test Pits. The thickness of the topsoil ranged from 50 mm

to 400 mm.

It should be noted that thicker topsoil than found in the borehole and test pits may be present in other places.

4 .3 Fi l l Material

Fill material is present in all the boreholes at the ground surface and below the surficial topsoil and in all test

pits excavated at the site. The fill consists of variable sandy silt, silty sand, silty clay, sandy silty clay, and sandy

clayey soils with trace to some gravel. Locally, it also contains construction debris such as asphalt, concrete,

roofing material, saw dust, rebar and welded wire mesh, wood, topsoil pockets, and other organic material.

The fill layer across the tableland extends from 0.4 to 2.2 mbgs. A greater fill thickness is present in the vicinity

of Dunbarton Creek at Boreholes BH2, MW6, MW8A, and BH10, and in majority of the test pits ranging from

2.5 to 4.0 mbgs. Large tree trunks were encountered in several of the test pits. Due to influx of groundwater

in Test Pits 212 and 213, the thickness of the fill could not be determined as the walls of the test pits caved in

with the incoming water and the test pits could not be extended deeper.

The fill is brown, dark brown, dark grey, and black in color and damp to moist in appearance.

SPT carried out in the fill material measured N-values ranging from 3 to 29; indicating a very loose or soft to

firm consistency/compact compactness condition.

The thickness of the fill measured at the borehole and test pit locations is shown on Figure 2.

4 .4 Peat

A layer of peat is present in Borehole BH10 and Test Pit 209, underlying the fill. It has a thickness of

approximately 300 mm. It is black in colour and wet in appearance.






4

4 .5 Native Soi ls

The soil stratum below the fill material is the native soil consisting of silt, fine sand, silty clay, and sandy silty clay

(till) soils.

4 .5 .1 Sil t

A deposit of silt with some fine sand and trace clay is present below the fill material in Boreholes MW1, BH3,

MW4A, MW4B, BH5, BH7, MW8A, and MW9 and below the fine sand layer in Borehole BH10. It extends to an

approximate depth of 6.8 mbgs at Borehole MW8A and to the explored depths of the remaining boreholes.

The silt unit changes from brown to grey in color at depths ranging from 0.9 to 3.7 mbgs and has a damp to

wet appearance. The water content of the silt in Boreholes MW1, BH5, and MW9 ranges from 11 to 21% by

weight.

SPT carried out in the silt unit has N-values ranging from 4 to 96, indicating a loose to very dense compactness

condition; loose to compact in Borehole BH7, dense to very dense in the remaining boreholes.

Sieve and hydrometer grain size analysis was carried out on two representative samples obtained from

Borehole BH5 at 2.3 mbgs (Sample 4) and BH5 at 4.7 mbgs (Sample 7). The test results are enclosed in

Appendix D as Figures D-1 and D-2, and summarized below.

Borehole

Number

Sample Depth

(mbgs) and No.

Sample

Description

Gravel

%

Sand

%

Silt

%

Clay

%

BH5 2.3 (Sample 4) Grey silt, some sand, trace clay 0 15 77 8

BH5 4.7 (Sample 7) Grey silt, some sand, trace clay 0 11 80 9

Based on the grain size analysis results, the Coefficient of Permeability (k) of the silt soil is estimated to be 1x10-

5 to 7x10-6 cm/sec; low relative permeability.

4 .5 .2 Fine Sand

A deposit of fine sand with some silt to silty and trace clay is present below the fill in Boreholes BH2 and MW6,

below the silt in Borehole MW9, and below the peat in Borehole BH10. It extends to an approximate depth

of 5.7 mbgs in Borehole BH2, 6.4 mbgs in Borehole MW6, 4.6 mbgs in Borehole BH10, and to the explored depth

of Borehole MW9.

The fine sand is brown or grey in colour. The water content of the fine sand in Boreholes BH2 and MW9 ranges

from 15 to 25% by weight; moist to wet appearance.

SPT carried out in the fine sand unit has N-values ranging from 8 to 50 blows for 150 mm of penetration,

indicating a loose to very dense compactness condition.

Sieve and hydrometer grain size analysis was carried out on two representative samples obtained from

Borehole BH2 at 4.0 mbgs (Sample 6) and BH9 at 3.0 mbgs (Sample 5). The test results are enclosed in

Appendix D as Figures D-3 and D-4, and summarized below.






5

Borehole

Number

Sample Depth

(mbgs) and No.

Sample

Description

Gravel

%

Sand

%

Silt

%

Clay

%

BH2 4.0 (Sample 6) Grey silty fine sand, trace clay 0 68 27 5

BH9 3.0 (Sample 5) Brown fine sand, some sand, trace clay 0 83 12 5

Based on the grain size analysis results, the Coefficient of Permeability (k) of the fine sand soil is estimated to

be 2x10-4 to 3x10-3 cm/sec; medium relative permeability.

4 .5 .3 Sil ty Clay

A deposit of silty clay is present in Boreholes BH2, MW6, and MW8A; positioned below the fine sand in Boreholes

BH2 and MW6, and below the silt in Borehole MW8A. It extends to an approximate depth of 7.3 mbgs in

Borehole BH2, and to the explored depths of the remaining boreholes.

SPT carried out in the silty clay unit has N-values ranging from 2 to 3, indicating a very soft to soft consistency.

The silty clay unit is grey in colour and has a moist to wet appearance. This soil is expected to have a very

low relative permeability coefficient.

4 .5 .4 Sandy S il ty Clay (T i l l )

A deposit of sandy silty clay (till) is present in Borehole BH2; positioned below the silty clay. It extends to the

explored depths of the borehole; up to 8.1 mbgs.

SPT carried out in the sandy silty clay (till) unit has an N-value of 24, indicating a very stiff consistency.

The sandy silty clay (till) unit is grey in colour and has a moist. This soil is expected to have a very low relative

permeability coefficient.

4 .6 Groundwater

Groundwater level and cave-in of the unlined side walls of the boreholes were measured during the course

of the borehole drilling and upon completion of the boreholes. The groundwater measurements are shown

on the individual borehole logs and summarized in the following table.

Borehole No. Groundwater Depth (mbgs) Cave-in Level (mbgs)

MW1 5.9 Open

BH2 2.9 6.1

BH3 6.0 Open

MW4A 3.0 Open

MW4B 0.6 Open






6

Borehole No. Groundwater Depth (mbgs) Cave-in Level (mbgs)

BH5 0.9 0.9

MW6 2.6 5.2

BH7 3.7 Open

MW8A 4.9 Open

MW8B Dry Open

MW9 4.1 4.9

BH10 3.3 Open

Groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were measured on July 7, 12, 17, and 31, 2017. The groundwater

measurement results are shown in the following table.

Borehole No. Ground Elevation (m) Date Groundwater Depth (mbgs) Groundwater Elevation (m)

MW1 107.40

July 7 1.13 106.27

July 12 0.70 106.70

July 17 0.53 106.87

July 31 0.94 106.46

MW4A 105.35

July 7 0.71 104.64

July 12 0.63 104.72

July 17 0.51 104.84

July 31 0.83 104.52

MW4B 104.96

July 7 0.47 104.49

July 12 0.58 104.38

July 17 0.40 104.56

July 31 0.77 104.19

MW6 104.79

July 7 2.68 102.11

July 12 2.75 102.04

July 17 2.70 102.09

July 31 2.85 101.94

MW8A 104.99

July 7 3.16 101.83

July 12 3.20 101.79

July 17 3.17 101.82

July 31 3.30 101.69

MW8B 104.92

July 7 3.00 101.92

July 12 3.14 101.78

July 17 3.15 101.77

July 31 3.29 101.63

MW9 107.10

July 7 1.31 105.79

July 12 2.09 105.01

July 17 2.19 104.91

July 31 2.65 104.45






7

Groundwater seepage was noted in Test Pits TP204, TP205, TP206, TP212 and TP213.

It should be noted that groundwater levels are subject to seasonal fluctuations. A higher groundwater level

condition will likely develop in the spring and following significant rainfall events.

Based on these groundwater measurements, the groundwater flow direction is from northeast to southwest.

5 DISCUSS ION AND RECOMMEND ATIONS

The following discussions and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from the boreholes

advanced at the site by AA and are intended for use by the client and design architects and engineers only.

We understand that the proposed development will include the construction of a residential development

consisting of 30 homes with single level basements and municipal services.

A grading plan was not available at the time of the investigation, and accordingly the recommendations

provided in this report are considered to be preliminary in nature, subject for review and revision upon

completion of proposed grading plans.

Contractors bidding on this project or conducting work associated with this project should make their own

interpretation of the factual data and/or carry out their own investigations.

5 .1 Excavation

Based on the borehole findings, excavations for foundations, basements, sewer trenches and utilities are not

expected to pose any difficulty. Excavation of the soils at this site can be carried out with hydraulic

excavators.

All excavation work must be carried out in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

With respect to OHSA, the near surface fill soil, the soft silty clay, and loose to compact fine sand situated

above the water table are expected to conform to Type 3 soils. The very stiff sandy silty clay (till) and dense

to very dense silt and fine sand soils are classified as Type 2 soils. Fill, sand, and silt soils situated below the

water table are classified as Type 4 soils.

For excavations through multiple soil types, the side slope geometry is governed by the soil with the highest

number designation. Excavation side-slopes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.

Excavation slopes consisting of sandy soils will be prone to gullying in periods of wet weather, unless the slopes

are properly sheeted with tarpaulins.

Temporary excavations for slopes in Type 3 soil should not exceed 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. In the event

very loose and/or soft soils are encountered at shallow depths or within zones of persistent seepage, it will be

necessary to flatten the side slopes as necessary to achieve stable conditions. Excavations in Type 2 soil may

be cut with vertical side-walls within the lower 1.2 m height of excavation and 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical

above this height. Slopes of sidewalls of excavations in Type 4 soil should not exceed 3.0 horizontal to 1.0

vertical.






8

Where workers must enter excavations extending deeper than 1.2 m below grade, the excavation side-walls

must be suitably sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and

Regulations for Construction Projects.

It should be noted that the sandy silty clay (till) is a glacial deposit; a non-sorted sediment and therefore may

contain boulders. Provisions must be made in the excavation and foundation installation contracts for the

removal of possible boulders.

5 .2 Groundwater Control

Based on observations made during the drilling of the boreholes and close examination of the soil samples

extracted from the boreholes, significant groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered within the

presumed excavation depths throughout the majority of the Site, with the exception of the areas of the site

along the creek to the west and along the south section of the Site in the areas of Boreholes BH2, MW6, BH7,

MW8, and BH10, and Test Pits TP204, TP205, TP206, TP212 and TP213.

The silt, silty clay, and sandy silty clay till soils possess low permeability coefficients; the groundwater yield from

these soil is expected to be small. It is anticipated that adequate control of the groundwater can be

achieved with a series of filtered sump pumps in the base of the excavation.

The fine sandy soils encountered in Boreholes BH2, MW6, BH7, MW8, and BH10, and Test Pits TP204, TP205,

TP206, TP212 and TP213 possess a medium to high permeability coefficient. Positive dewatering will be require

for excavations extending into the sandy soils.

Surface water should be directed away from open excavations.

5 .3 Reuse of On-si te Excavated Soi l as a Compacted Backfi l l

The fill soils present at the site contain variable proportions of construction debris and/or organic material. It

should be assumed that majority of the fill will not be suitable for use as engineered fill.

On-site excavated inorganic native soils are considered suitable for reuse as backfill material within the

roadway, pipeline trench excavations, or as engineered fill provided their water content is within 2% of

their optimum water contents (OWC) as determined by Standard Proctor test, and the materials are

effectively compacted with a sheepsfoot compactor for cohesive soils or a smooth drum compactor for non-

cohesive soils.

While the quality of the native soils is considered suitable for backfilling; the moisture content of the soils

and the lift thickness for compaction must be properly controlled during the backfilling.

Measured water content within the native silt soil ranges from approximately 12 to 21%. These water contents

are on the wet side of the material’s OWC. The water content of the native fine sand soils ranges from

approximately 15 to 16%. These water contents are also on the wet side of the material’s OWC.






9

5 .4 Engineered Fi l l

In situ fill materials extend to depths ranging from 0.4 to 5.0 mbgs. Due to the presence of organic material

and construction debris, and the poor condition of the fill material, foundations of the proposed buildings

must not be founded on the existing fill soil. In the event that the foundation of the houses will be placed at

shallow depths within the depth of the in situ fill, it will be necessary to remove and replace the existing fill with

engineered fill.

The following recommendations regarding construction of engineered fill should be adhered to during

construction:

• All fill, topsoil, organic materials, and disturbed and weathered soils must be removed, and the

exposed subgrade soils proof-rolled in conjunction with an inspection by the Geotechnical Engineer

prior to any fill placement.

• Engineered fill operations should be monitored and compaction tests should be performed on a full-

time basis by a qualified engineering technician supervised by the project engineer.

• The boundaries of the engineered fill must be clearly and accurately laid out in the field by qualified

surveyors prior to the commencement of engineered fill construction. The top of the engineered fill

should extend a minimum of 2.5 m beyond the building envelope. Where the depth of engineered

fill exceeds 1.5 m, this horizontal distance of 2.5 m beyond the perimeter of the building should be

increased by at least 1.0 m for each 1.0 m depth of fill. The edges of the engineered fill should be

sloped at a maximum of 3H:1V in order to avoid weakening of the engineered fill edges due to slope

movement.

• Due to the potential detrimental effects of differential settlement between the engineered fill and the

native soils, any lots where footings are to be placed partly on engineered fill and partly on native

soils should include reinforcing steel bars placed within the top of the foundation walls. The

foundation walls of house foundations supported entirely on engineered fill should also be reinforced

to bridge localized soft spots and zones of non-uniform compaction, and to minimize structural distress

due to differential settlement of the engineered fill. All tie reinforcing steel bars should have at least

600 mm of overlap. At window locations, two 10 M bars should be placed in the foundation wall as

close to the sill as possible (allowing for a minimum 50 mm of concrete cover). The bars should extend

laterally at least 600 mm beyond the edge of the window opening. The actual steel reinforcement

design should be confirmed / designed by the project structural engineer.

• Soils used as engineered fill should be free of organic and/or other unsuitable material. The

engineered fill must be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness and compacted to 98%

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

• Imported fill must not be used unless documentation is produced verifying that the material is suitable

for residential / parkland usage (per Ontario MOECC document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment

Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Act” dated April 15, 2011).

• If fill is required adjacent to sloped banks (> 3:1, horizontal to vertical), it is imperative that the fill is






10

placed in stepped planes in order to avoid a plane weakness.

• The engineered fill should be placed at least 0.6 m above the elevation of the proposed underside

of footing.

• The engineered fill operation should take place in favorable climatic conditions. If the work is carried

out in months where freezing temperatures may occur, all frost affected material must be removed

prior to the placement of frost-free fill.

• When engineered fill is left over the winter, a minimum of 1.2 m of earth cover must be provided as

frost protection.

• If unusual soil conditions become apparent during construction, due to subsurface groundwater

influences, our office should be contacted in order to assess the conditions and recommend

appropriate remedial measures.

The footing and underground services subgrade must be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer that

supervised the engineered fill construction. This is to ensure that the foundations are placed within the

engineered fill envelope, and the integrity of the fill has not been compromised by interim construction,

environmental degradation and/or disturbance by the footing excavation. Extended footings and/or steel

reinforcement may be required based on the footing inspection.

5 .5 Service Trenches

Based on the assumed site grades, sewer pipes and water mains will be supported on undisturbed native silt

or fine sand, or engineered fill, which are considered suitable for supporting water mains, sewer pipes,

manholes, catch basins and other related structures.

The type of bedding depends mainly on the strength of the subgrade immediately below the invert levels.

Normal Class ‘B’ bedding is recommended for underground utilities. Granular ‘A’ or 19 mm crusher-run

limestone can be used as bedding material; all granular materials should meet OPS 1010 specifications.

The bedding material should be compacted to a minimum of 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

Bedding details should follow the applicable governing design detail (i.e. City of Pickering, OPSD). Trenches

dug for these purposes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.

Pipe bedding and backfill for flexible pipes should be undertaken in accordance with OPSD 802.010. Pipe

embedment and cover for rigid pipes should be undertaken in accordance with OPSD 802.030.

If unsuitable bedding conditions occur, careful preparation and strengthening of the trench bases prior to

sewer installation will be required. The subgrade may be strengthened by placing a thick mat consisting of

50 mm crusher-run limestone. Field conditions will determine the depth of stone required. Geotextiles and/or

geogrids may be helpful and these options should be reviewed by AA on a case by case basis.

Sand cover material should be placed as backfill to at least 300 mm above the top of pipes. Placement of

additional granular material (thickness dictated by the type of compaction equipment) as required or use of






11

smaller compaction equipment for the first few lifts of native material above the pipe will probably be

necessary to prevent damage to the pipe during the trench backfill compaction.

It is recommended that service trenches be backfilled with on-site native and / or imported engineered fill

materials such that at least 95% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) is obtained in the lower

zone of the trench and 98% of SPMDD for the upper 600 mm.

In areas of narrow trenches or confined spaces such as around manholes, catch basins, etc., the use of

aggregate fill such as Granular ‘B’ Type I (OPSS 1010) is required if there is to be post-construction grade

integrity.

5 .6 Foundation Design

We understand that the proposed development will consist of residential houses with basements. It is

anticipated that there will be some minor modifications to site grading, but this has not been established at

the time of reporting.

Assuming that the foundations for a single level basement will be installed approximately 2 to 2.5 m below

ground surface, the indications are that the footings will be founded on undisturbed native silt or fine sand,

or engineered fill. Conventional spread and wall footings may be used to support the proposed buildings.

The proposed foundations may be designed based on bearing resistance of 150 KPa at Serviceability Limit

States (SLS), and factored geotechnical bearing resistances at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 225 kPa.

The geotechnical bearing resistances recommended above are for vertical loads (no inclination) and no

eccentricity. The total and differential settlements of spread footing foundations designed in accordance

with the recommendations provided in this report should not exceed the conventional limits of 25 mm and

19 mm respectively. Typical footing dimensions for these applications include a minimum strip footing width

of 500 mm and an isolated column footing dimension of not less than 900 mm.

Due to variations in the consistency of the founding soils and/or loosening caused by to excavating

disturbance and/or seasonal frost effects, all footing subgrade must be evaluated by the Geotechnical

Engineer prior to placing formwork and foundation concrete to ensure that the soil exposed at the excavation

base is consistent with the design geotechnical bearing resistance.

In the event necessary, the stepping of the footings at different elevations should be carried out at an angle

no steeper than 2 horizontal (clear horizontal distance between footings) to 1 vertical (difference in elevation)

and no individual footing step should be greater than 0.6 m.

Rainwater or groundwater seepage entering the foundation excavations must be pumped away (not

allowed to pond). The foundation subgrade soils should be protected from freezing, inundation, and

equipment traffic at all times. If unstable subgrade conditions develop, AA should be contacted in order to

assess the conditions and make appropriate recommendations.

If construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the

footing bases and concrete must be provided. All exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be






12

provided by at least 1.2 m of soil cover or equivalent artificial thermal insulation for frost protection purposes.

5 .7 Basement Floors

Excavations for basements are expected to extend to an approximate depth of 2 m below the existing

ground surface. It is expected that the subgrade below the basement floors will consist of undisturbed native

silt or fine sand, or engineered fill; suitable for slab-on-grade construction.

Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any wet, soft/loose and disturbed soils. After removal

of all unsuitable materials, the subgrade should be inspected and adjudged as satisfactory before preparing

the granular base course. Any soft or unsuitable subgrade areas should be sub-excavated and replaced

with suitable approved compacted backfill; placed in maximum lifts of 200 mm thickness and compacted

to at least 98% of SPMDD.

It is recommended that a combined moisture barrier and a levelling course, having a minimum thickness of

150 mm and comprised of free draining material such as 19 mm clear stone (OPSS 1004) compacted by

vibration to a dense state be placed under the floor slab.

The basements of the proposed buildings must be provided with perimeter drainage. The perimeter drainage

system should consist of weeping pipes 100 mm in diameter placed adjacent to the exterior wall footing. The

weeping tiles must be wrapped with filter fabric and covered with a minimum of 150 mm of clear stone.

The basement wall backfill for a minimum lateral distance of 0.6 m out from the wall should consist of free-

draining material such as OPSS Granular ‘B’ Type I. The native soil may be used to backfill excavations along

foundation walls provided that a suitable alternative drainage cellular media is placed on the wall. Damp

proofing must be applied to the exterior basement walls.

The perimeter foundation drains must be connected to a positive frost-free outlet from which the water can

be removed, or connected to a sump located in the basement. The water from the sump must be pumped

out to a suitable discharge point.

The installation of the perimeter drains as well as the outlet must conform to the applicable plumbing code

requirements.

Sub-floor drains may also be required below the basement of the houses for this development. It is

recommended that a decision in this regard be made once final grade and basement floor elevations have

been established.

The soils at this site are susceptible to frost effects which would have the potential to deform hard landscaping

adjacent to the buildings. At locations where buildings are expected to have flush entrances, care must be

taken in detailing the exterior slabs / sidewalks, providing insulation / drainage / non-frost susceptible backfill

to maintain the flush threshold during freezing weather conditions.

Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code, “Housing and Small Buildings” should be referred to for standard

practices.






13

5 .8 Pavement Design

Based on the existing topography of the site and the presumption that there will be minor re-grading, it is

anticipated that the sub-grade material for the pavement will generally comprise of native soil or engineered

fill.

Given the frost susceptibility and drainage characteristics of the subgrade soils, and the City of Pickering

requirements, the pavement design presented below is recommended.

Recommended Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure Design

(Minimum Component Thicknesses)

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements House Driveways Residential Roads

Surface Course

Asphaltic Concrete 97% Marshall Density 35 mm Hot-Laid HL3 35 mm Hot-Laid HL3

Binder Course

Asphaltic Concrete 97% Marshall Density 40 mm Hot-Laid HL8 50 mm Hot-Laid HL8

Granular Base 100% SPMDD* 200 mm compacted depth

Granular A

150 mm compacted depth

Pit-run Granular A

Granular Sub-Base 100% SPMMD* - 300 mm compacted depth

Pit-run Granular B Type I

* Standard Proctor maximum Dry Density (ASTM-D698)

The subgrade must be compacted to at least 98% of SPMDD for at least the upper 600 mm and 95% below

this level. The granular base and sub-base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 100% SPMDD.

The long-term performance of the proposed pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade

support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform

subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible when fill is placed

and that the subgrade is not disturbed and weakened after it is exposed.

Control of surface water is a significant factor in achieving good pavement life. Grading adjacent to the

pavement areas must be designed so that water is not allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of

the pavement or curb. In addition, the need for adequate drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The

subgrade must be free of depressions and sloped (preferably at a minimum gradient of three percent) to

provide effective drainage toward subgrade drains. Sub-drains are recommended to intercept excess

subsurface moisture at the curb lines and catch basins. The invert of sub-drains should be maintained at least

0.3 m below subgrade level.

Additional comments on the construction of pavement areas are as follows:

• As part of the subgrade preparation, the proposed pavement areas should be stripped of vegetation,

topsoil, unsuitable earth fill and other obvious objectionable material. The subgrade should be

properly shaped and sloped as required, and then proof-rolled. Loose/soft or spongy subgrade areas






14

should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable approved material compacted to at least 98%

of SPMDD.

• Where new fill is needed to raise the grade or replace disturbed portions of the subgrade, excavated

inorganic soils or similar clean imported fill materials may be used, provided their moisture content is

maintained within 2 % of the soil’s optimum moisture content. All fill must be placed and compacted

to not less than 98% of SPMDD.

• The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during

construction during wet and un-drained conditions. Consequently, special provisions such as

restricted lanes, half-loads during paving etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried

out during unfavourable weather.

• For fine-grained soils, as encountered at the site, the degree of compaction specification alone

cannot ensure distress free subgrade. Proof-rolling must be carried out and witnessed by AA

personnel for final recommendations of sub-base thicknesses.

• In the event that pavement construction takes place in the spring thaw, the late fall, or following

periods of significant rainfall, it should be anticipated that an increase in thickness of the granular sub-

base layer will be required to compensate for reduced subgrade strength.

5 .9 Earthquake Design Parameters

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) stipulates the methodology for earthquake design analysis, as set out

in Subsection 4.1.8.7. The determination of the type of analysis is predicated on the importance of the

structure, the spectral response acceleration and the site classification.

The parameters for determination of the Site Classification for Seismic Site Response are set out in Table

4.1.8.4.A of the 2012 OBC. The classification is based on the determination of the average shear wave

velocity in the top 30 metres of the site stratigraphy, where shear wave velocity (vs) measurements have been

taken. In the absence of such measurements, the classification is estimated on the basis of empirical analysis

of undrained shear strength or penetration resistance. The applicable penetration resistance is that which

has been corrected to a rod energy efficiency of 60% of the theoretical maximum or the (N60) value.

Based on the borehole information, the subsurface stratigraphy generally comprises surficial topsoil underlain

by a layer of fill, followed by native loose to very dense silt and fine sand. Based on the above, the site

designation for seismic analysis is Class D (“Stiff soil”) according to Table 4.1.8.4.A from the quoted code.

The site specific 5% damped spectral acceleration coefficients, and the peak ground acceleration factors

are provided in the 2012 Ontario Building Code - Supplementary Standards SB-1 (September 14, 2012), Table

1.2, location Pickering, Ontario.

5 .10 Lateral Earth Pressure

Parameters used in the determination of earth pressure acting on temporary shoring walls are defined below.






15

Soil Parameters

Parameter Definition Units

Φ’ angle of internal friction degrees

γ bulk unit weight of soil kN/m3

Ka active earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

Ko at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

Kp passive earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

The appropriate un-factored values for use in the design of structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures

at this site are tabulated as follows:

Soil Parameter Values

Soil Parameter

Φ’ γ Ka Kp K0

Fill Material 28° 20 0.36 2.77 0.56

Silt / Fine Sand 32° 19 0.31 3.25 0.47

Silty Clay 30° 20 0.33 3.0 0.5

Notes:

1. Compacted to a minimum of 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

2. Passive and sliding resistance within the zone subject to frost action (i.e. within 1.2 m below finished grade) should be

disregarded in the lateral resistance computations.

3. In the case of a structure below the groundwater table, the use of submerged soil weight should be considered along with the

appropriate hydrostatic pressures.

4. Temporary and/or permanent surcharges at the ground surface should be considered in accordance with the applicable soil

mechanics methods.

The design earth pressures in compacted backfill should be augmented with the dynamic effects of the

compaction efforts, which typically are taken as a uniform 12 kPa pressure over the entire depth below grade

where the calculated earth pressure based on the above earth pressure factors is less than 12 kPa. However,

this dynamic effect should be ignored when calculating the passive resistance for thrust blocks, or other

instances where the general stability of the structure relies on the passive resistance.

Walls or bracings subject to unbalanced earth pressures must be designed to resist a pressure that can be

calculated based on the following formula:

P = K ( h + q)

Where P = lateral pressure in kPa acting at a depth h (m) below ground surface

K = applicable lateral earth pressure coefficient

= bulk unit weight of backfill (kN/m3)

q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)






16

This equation assumes that free-draining backfill and positive drainage is provided to ensure that there is no

hydrostatic pressure acting in conjunction with the earth pressure.

The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko) should be used in the calculation of the earth pressure on the

basement walls.

Resistance to sliding of earth retaining structures is developed by friction between the base of the footing

and the soil. This friction (R) depends on the normal load on the soil contact (N) and the frictional resistance

of the soil (tan Φ’) expressed as: R = N tan Φ’. This is an ultimate resistance value and does not contain a

factor of safety.

5 .11 Chemical Characterizat ion of Subsurface Soi l

Two (2) native soil samples obtained from Boreholes BH5 (Sample 3; 1.5 mbgs and Sample 5; 3.0 mbgs) were

submitted to AGAT Laboratories for pH index test and water-soluble sulphate content to determine the

potential of attacking the subsurface concrete.

The test results revealed that the pH index of the soil samples are 7.87 and 8.04; indicating a slight alkalinity.

The water-soluble sulphate content of the soil samples are 0.0013% and 0.0062%. The concentration of water-

soluble sulphate content of the tested samples is below the CSA Standard of 0.1% water-soluble sulphate

(Table 12 of CSA A23.1, Requirements for Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack). Special concrete mixes

against sulphate attack is therefore not required for the sub-surface concrete of the proposed buildings.

The Certificate of Analysis provided by the analytical chemical testing laboratory is contained in Appendix F

of this report.

6 STABIL I TY ASSESSMENT OF CREEK BANK

The east bank of Dunbarton Creek abuts the west boundary of the site. It approximates 170 m in length; the

full length of the properties. It is aligned with dense vegetation and trees throughout.

The survey drawing prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited reveals that the Top of Bank has elevations ranging from

approximately 105.5 m at the north property boundary to 104.5 m at the south property boundary. Using the

contour elevations as shown on the survey drawing, the bottom of the creek elevation ranges from

approximately 101.2 to 102.4. m. The creek bank ranges in height from approximately 3 to 4 m. The bankfull

width of the creek is approximately 3 m.

The north portion of the creek bank has an overall gradient of 36º (to horizontal), the center portion is 20º,

and the southern portion is 34º.

The conditions of the creek bank within the property were inspected on June 27, 2017 following the technical

guidelines for Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes as stipulated by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

(MNR).






17

The Erosion Hazard Limit is defined by the following three (3) components:

• Stable slope allowance

• Toe erosion allowance

• Erosion access allowance

6 .1 Stable Slope Al lowance

Soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses were based on the results of the in situ Standard

Penetration Test, together with an assessment on the soil type using the results of the grain size analyses and

Atterberg Limits tests.

Boreholes BH2, MW6, and MW8A were put down near the crest of the creek bank to generate soil profiles at

three sections for the analysis. The borehole findings revealed that fill material comprises the majority of the

slope. The ground water level was determined using the monitoring wells installed in the boreholes and the

water level in the creek.

Based on the field tests and laboratory test results, the following soil properties were utilized in the slope

stability analyses:

Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m³) Cohesion (kPa) Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)

Fill Material 19 0 28

Loose Silt 19 0 28

Compact Sand 32 0 19

Sandy Silt (till) 20 0 26

A Slope Stability Analysis was carried out on three (3) cross sections using the GEO5 Slope Stability (Version 18)

software package. The program calculates the minimum factor of safety for moment equilibrium assuming

circular failure surfaces. The Bishop method employing effective stress was used to calculate the minimum

factor of safety against circular failure.

The findings of the stability analyses are summarized in the table below.

Cross Section Location along Creek Bank Factor of Safety

Stable Slope Setback from

Crest

(m)

1 North 0.95 6.0

2 Center 1.50 -

3 South 1.00 4.5






18

The locations of the cross sections are presented on the Borehole Location Plan in Appendix B; the analysis

results in Appendix G.

TRCA stipulates that the minimum factor of safety required against sliding to consider a slope stable is 1.50. A

setback from the crest where the factor of safety exceeds 1.50 is required for slopes which do not satisfy the

criterion.

In this regard, it will be necessary to establish the stable slope inclination. Accordingly, a slope line of 1V:2.65H

(20.7˚ angle to the horizontal) will provide a safety factor of 1.5 against sliding failure at all 3 Slope Sections.

6 .2 Toe Erosion Al lowance

The slope inspection undertaken by AA revealed that a shallow watercourse, approximately 100 to 300 mm

in depth, flows along the creek in a north to south direction. Evidence of active erosion of the toe of the bank

were observed. The soil exposed at the toe of the creek bank is fine sand.

The toe erosion allowance for a sand material with active erosion is 8 to 15 m. Given that the bankfull width

of the creek is approximately 3 m and the water flow velocity in the creek very slow, the minimum 8 m erosion

allowance should suffice.

6 .3 Erosion Access Al lowance

An Erosion Access Allowance of either 6 or 10 m is required by TRCA.

6 .4 Conclusion

A Stable Slope Allowance ranging from 0 to 6 m measured from the crest of the slope is required for the

subject creek bank. The Toe Erosion Allowance requires a setback distance of 8 m.

The Long Term Stable Top of Slope Line (LTSTSL) which includes the Stable Slope Allowance and Toe Erosion

Allowance has been presented on the Borehole Location Plan in Appendix B.

The Erosion Access Allowance of 6 to 10 m as stipulated by TRCA will be required in addition to the LTSTSL.






19

7 L IMITATIONS OF REPO RT

The Limitations of Report, as quoted in Appendix ‘A’, are an integral part of this report.

Yours respectfully

alston associates

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

Kellen Campbell, C.Tech Vic Nersesian, P. Eng.

Project Manager Vice President, Geotechnical Services






APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT






l imi tat ions of report

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on information determined at the inspection

locations. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those

encountered at the test hole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction which

could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the soil investigation.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text, and

then only if constructed substantially in accordance with details of alignment and elevations stated in the

report. Since all details of the design may not be known to us, in our analysis certain assumptions had to be

made as set out in this report. The actual conditions may, however, vary from those assumed, in which case

changes and modifications may be required to our recommendations.

This report was prepared for 10046043 Canada Inc. by Alston Associates. The material in it reflects Alston

Associates judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a

Third Party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions which the Third Party may make based on it, are

the sole responsibility of such Third Parties.

We recommend, therefore, that we be retained during the final design stage to review the design drawings

and to verify that they are consistent with our recommendations or the assumptions made in our analysis. We

recommend also that we be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions

throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered in the test holes. In cases where these

recommendations are not followed, the company’s responsibility is limited to accurately interpreting the

conditions encountered at the test holes, only.

The comments given in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are intended for

the guidance of the design engineer, only. The number of inspection locations may not be sufficient to

determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. The contractors bidding on this

project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual

information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their

work.






APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

MONITORING WELL SF

APRIL 2019

17-069

AS SHOWN

FIGURE 1DRAWING #

DRAWN

DATE

PROJECT #

CLIENT

LEGEND

SCALE

CHECKED

0 25m 50m

(APPROXIMATE)

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

SOURCE: ILLUSTRATING LOT 14 AND PART OF LOTS 22 TO 29 REGISTAR'S COMPILED PLAN 818 CITY OF PICKERING BY J.D. BARNES LIMITED, 2017.

VUMAP, FIRST BASE SOLUTIONS, 2016 IMAGERY AND TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN BOREHOLE

1950 AND 1952 FAIRPORT ROAD PICKERING, ONTARIO


VN

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

FA

IRP

OR

T R

OA

DFA

IRP

OR

T R

OA

DMW1MW1

MW4AMW4A

MW9MW9

MW8AMW8A

MW4BMW4B

MW8BMW8B

MW6MW6

BH7BH7

BH5BH5

BH3BH3BH2BH2

BH10BH10

CROSS SECTION 3CROSS SECTION 3



STABLE TOP OF SLOPE LINESTABLE TOP OF SLOPE LINE

STABLE TOP OF SLOPE LINESTABLE TOP OF SLOPE LINE

MONITORING WELL SF

APRIL 2019

17-069

AS SHOWN

FIGURE 2DRAWING #

DRAWN

DATE

PROJECT #

CLIENT

LEGEND

SCALE

CHECKED0 25m 50m

(APPROXIMATE)

DEPTH OF FILL

SOURCE: VUMAP, FIRST BASE SOLUTIONS, 2017 IMAGERY AND TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN ILLUSTRATING LOT 14 AND PART OF LOTS 22 TO 29 REGISTAR'S COMPILED PLAN 818 CITY OF PICKERING BY J.D. BARNES LIMITED, 2017.

BOREHOLE

1950 AND 1952 FAIRPORT ROAD PICKERING, ONTARIO


TEST PIT

DEPTH OF FILL3.0m

VN

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

FA

IRP

OR

T R

OA

DFA

IRP

OR

T R

OA

D

BH7BH7

BH5BH5

BH3BH3

BH2BH2

BH10BH10

MW1MW1

MW4AMW4A

MW9MW9

MW8AMW8A

MW4BMW4B

MW8BMW8B

MW6MW6

MW201MW201

TP205TP205

TP204TP204TP203TP203

TP206TP206 TP202TP202

TP207TP207

TP201TP201

TP208TP208

TP209TP209

TP210TP210

TP211TP211

TP212TP212

TP213TP213

TP214TP214

TP215TP215

TP216TP216 TP217TP217

TP218TP218

2.7m2.7m

0.6m0.6m

0.8m0.8m

3.8m3.8m

3.3m3.3m

0.6m0.6m

1.4m1.4m

1.1m1.1m

4.9m4.9m

2.2m2.2m

3.4m3.4m

3.0+m3.0+m

>3.1m>3.1m3.2m3.2m

3.5m3.5m 5.0m5.0m

3.5m3.5m

3.7m3.7m

>3.5m>3.5m

3.8m3.8m

3.0m3.0m

3.0m3.0m

>3.0m>3.0m

>3.0m>3.0m

0.6m0.6m

2.0m2.0m

0.5m0.5m 0.6m0.6m

0.4m0.4m






APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

107

106.5

106

105.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

FILLdamp, loose, dark brown

sandy silttrace organic inclusions

brown

-----

grey

damp to moistSILT

some fine sandtrace clay

very dense

-----

compact

END OF BOREHOLE

29

79

90

88

73

96

63

29

14

15

11

11

12

12

12

16

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

29

79

90

88

73

96

63

29

Borehole open andgroundwater at 5.9 mbelow ground surface oncompletion.

Water measured on July7, 2017 at 1.13 mbgs.


Water measured on July17, 2017 at 0.53 mbgs


CLIENT: 10046043 Canada Inc. METHOD: Augering and Split Spoon Sampling

BH No.: MW1PROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 107.40

LOCATION: 1950/1952 Fairport Road, Pickering, NORTHING: EASTING: PROJECT NO.: 17-069

SAMPLE TYPE AUGER DRIVEN CORING DYNAMIC CONE SHELBY SPLIT SPOON

LOGGED BY: SA DRILLING DATE: June 27, 2017

REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)

N-Value(Blows/300mm)

20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

105.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

98.5

98

FILLmoist to wet, very loose to loose, dark brown

silty sandsome gravel

trace clayinclusions of asphalt,

concrete, rotten wood, organics,and construction debris

wet, compact, greyfine SANDsome silttrace clay

moist, soft, greySILTY CLAY

moist, very stiff, greySANDY SILTY CLAY

(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE

3

6

9

3

3

15

11

3

24

26

15

7

20

92

25

19

26

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3

6

9

3

3

15

11

3

24

Borehole cave-in at 6.1m and groundwater at2.9 m below groundsurface on completion.


BH No.: BH2PROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 105.66




REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

105.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

FILLmoist, loose, dark brown

sandy silttrace gravel

organic inclusions

brown

-----

grey

dense to very denseSILT


damp

-----

wet

END OF BOREHOLE

3

69

53

56

57

78

46

40

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3

69

53

56

57

78

46

40







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

FILLmoist, loose, brown

silty clay

FILLwet, compact, grey

silt, some gravel

dense organic staining

----- -----

very dense

brown

-----

grey

moist to wetSILT


END OF BOREHOLE

6

11

36

90

80/275

87

90

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6

11

36

90

80/275

87

90

90







BH No.: MW4APROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 105.35




REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

FILLdamp to moist, soft to firm, brown

silty claysome gravel

inclusions of wood and organics

brown

-----

greymoist to wet, compactSILT


END OF BOREHOLE

4

7

11

17

28

1

2

3

4

5

4

7

11

17

28







BH No.: MW4BPROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 104.96




REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

50 mm TOPSOILmoist, loose, brown

sandy siltinclusions of wood and organics

brown

-----

grey

dense damp to moistSILT


-----

compact

-----

dense

END OF BOREHOLE

7

32

40

37

50

28

36

62

3921

21

14

14

16

15

15

16

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

32

40

37

50

28

36

62

Borehole cave-in andgroundwater at 0.9 mbelow ground surface oncompletion.






REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

98.5

FILLmoist, soft to firm,

brown, dark brown, dark grey, and blacksilty clay

with traces of sand and gravelinclusions of wood, topsoil pockets, and

organics

loose

-----

compact wet, greyfine SANDsome silttrace clay

moist, soft, greySILTY CLAY

END OF BOREHOLE

4

3

7

3

6

8

12

3

1

2

3

4A

4B

5

6

7

8

4

3

7

3

6

8

12

3











REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

98.5

98

97.5

97

FILLmoist, soft, dark brown and black

sandy silty clayinclusions of wood and organics

brown

-----

grey

moist

-----

wet

loose to compactSILT


END OF BOREHOLE

5

3

3

4

7

16

7

5

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

5

3

3

4

7

16

7

5

4







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

99

98.5

98

97.5

97

FILLmoist, soft, brown

silty claywith traces of sand and gravel

FILLwet, loose, dark brown and black

siltsome fine sand

trace clayinclusions of wood and organics

wet, loose, greySILT


wet, soft, greySILTY CLAY

END OF BOREHOLE

4

3

5

4

4

3

12

10

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7A

7B

8

9

10

4

3

5

4

4

3

12

10

2

3







BH No.: MW8APROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 104.99




REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

STRAIGHT AUGEREDTO 4.27 m TO INSTALL

MONITORING WELL

END OF BOREHOLE






BH No.: MW8BPROJECT: Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 104.92




REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

107

106.5

106

105.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

FILLdamp, firm, dark brown

sandy clayey silt(topsoil)

moist, dense, brownSILT


moist

-----

wet

dense to very dense, brownfine SAND

some silt trace clay

END OF BOREHOLE

7

5

37

80

67

30

40

50/150

19

24

19

16

15

20

17

16

18

1

2A

2B

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

5

37

80

67

30

40

50/150











REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

105.5

105

104.5

104

103.5

103

102.5

102

101.5

101

100.5

100

99.5

FILLdamp, firm, brown, dark brown, and grey

silty clayinclusions of wood and organics

FILLmoist, compact, grey

siltsome fine sand, trace clay

wet, blackPEAT

wet, loose, brownfine SANDsome silttrace clay

damp, dense to very dense, greySILT


END OF BOREHOLE

8

16

6

10

11

8

33

59

1

2

3

4

5A

5B

6

7

8

8

16

6

10

11

8

33

59


Split spoon wet onretrieval of Sample 5.






REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m) Shear Strength

(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) Well

Constr

uct

ion

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

TERRAPEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. 10046043 Canada Inc. CT2543.01 Page 1 of 5

TP201

Stratigraphy

Depth (m) Soil Description

0.0 – 0.4 TOPSOIL,

0.4 – 2.6 FILL, MIXTURE OF SAND, SILT, CLAY GRAVEL, WOOD PIECES, ORGANICS, VERY WET

2.6 – 3.7 SANDY SILT, VERY LOOSE AND SATURATED

3.7 + SANDY SILT, GREY-BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE

TP202

Stratigraphy


0.0 – 0.3 TOPSOIL,

0.3 – 2.6 FILL, MIXTURE OF SAND, SILT, CLAY GRAVEL, WOOD PIECES, ORGANICS, STEEL, DARK GREY, VERY WET

2.6 – 2.7 WOOD BOARDS, POSSIBLE WOOD DECK

2.7 – 4.0 TREE TRUNKS, WOOD PIECES

4.0 – 5.0 SANDY AND SILT WITH PEAT, GREY VERY WET

4.0 – 5.0 SANDY SILT, GREY-BROWN, MOIST, DENSE

TP203

Stratigraphy


0.0 – 0.2 TOPSOIL,

0.2 - 4 – 2.0 FILL, MIXTURE OF SAND, SILT, CLAY GRAVEL, BRICKS, ORGANICS, MOIST

2.0 – 3.2 SILT AND SAND, WITH PEAT AND TREE TRUNKS, WET

3.7 + SANDY SILT, GREY-BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE

TP204 Date: December 7, 2017

Stratigraphy Sample Data

Depth (m) Soil Description Odours SV I.D. Depth (m) Lab Analysis/ Comments

0.0-0.61 TOPSOIL, SILT, CLAY, SAND

AND GRAVEL (MIXED FILL),

BROWN, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP204-1 0.61

0.61-1.22 SAA, METAL REBAR, LARGE

BOULDERS

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP204-2 1.22

1.22-1.83 SAA, WOOD PIECES,

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP204-3 1.83

1.83-2.44 SANDY SILT, WOOD PIECES,

SOME GRAVEL (POSSIBLY

NATIVE), GREY, WET

ORGANIC HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP204-4 2.44 PHCs/PAH/M&I

2.44-3.05 SANDY SILT, SOME WOOD

PIECES, SOFT (NATIVE), GREY,

WET

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP204-5 3.05





0.0-0.61 TOPSOIL, SILT, CLAY, SAND

AND GRAVEL (MIXED FILL),

BROWN, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP205-1 0.61

0.61-1.22 SILT, CLAY, TREE BRANCHES,

METAL BARS, BRICK PIECES

(FILL), BROWN, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP205-2 1.22

1.22-1.83 SAA NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP205-3 1.83


IBL 0 ppm


2.44-3.05 SANDY SILT, SOME PEAT

(NATIVE), GREY, WET

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP205-5 3.05

3.05-3.66 SAA




0.0-0.61 TOPSOIL, CILT, CLAY, GRAVEL

(MIXED FILL), BROWN, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP206-1 0.61

0.61-1.22 SAA WITH OXIDATION NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP206-2 1.22

1.22-1.83 SAA, SOME WOOD PIECES NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP206-3 1.83

1.83-2.44 SAA, BOARD PIECES, LARGE

BOULDERS, WOOD PIECES,

BROWN WET

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm


2.44-3.05 SANDY SILT, SOME PEAT

(NATIVE), WET, GREY

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP206-5 3.05 PHCs DUPLICATE

3.05-3.44 SAA





0.0-0.61 TOPSOIL, SILT, CLAY, GRAVEL

(MIXED FILL), BROWN, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP207-1 0.61


IBL 0 ppm

TP207-2 1.22

1.22-1.83 SAA. WOOD PIECES, ROOFING

MATERIAL, ASPHALT, METAL

PIECES

TAR HEX 5 ppm

IBL 0 ppm


1.83-3.05 SAA, WITH SAWDUST NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP207-4 3.05

3.05-3.44 SANDY SILT (NATIVE), GREY,

MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP207-5 3.44

3.44-4.27 SAA




0.0-0.61 TOPSOIL, SILT, CLAY, SOME

GRAVEL (MIXED FILL), BROWN,

MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP208-1 0.61


IBL 0 ppm

TP208-2 1.22

1.22-1.83 MIXED FILL TO SANDY SILT

(POSSIBLY NATIVE), GREY

MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP208-3 1.83

1.83-3.05 SILT, CLAY, GRAVEL,

SAWDUST, WOOD PIECES

(MIXED FILL)

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm


3.05-3.66 SANDY SILT, WOOD PIECES,

ROOTS (NATIVE) GREY, MOIST

NONE HEX <10 ppm

IBL 0 ppm

TP208-5 3.66

TP209 Date: March 28, 2018



0.0-0.20 TOPSOIL,

0.20-2.00 MIXED FILL, BROWN AND GREY

WITH SOME ORGANICS, MOIST

2.00-3.50 MIXED FILL, GREY

WITH SOME ORGANICS, MOIST

3.50 – 3.80 PEAT, BLACK, WET

3.80-4.00 SANDY SILT (NATIVE), GREY,

MOIST





0.0-0.15 TOPSOIL,

0.15-2.00 MIXED FILL, BROWN AND GREY

WITH SOME ORGANICS, MOIST,

2.00-3.00 MIXED FILL, GREY, WITH SOME

ORGANICS, MOIST,

3.00 + SANDY SILT (NATIVE), GREY,

MOIST




0.0-0.15 TOPSOIL,

0.15-3.00 MIXED FILL, BROWN WITH SOME

ORGANICS, WITH INCLUSIONS

OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE,

WELDED WIRE MESH, PLASTIC

PIPE, ETC., MOIST,

3.00 + SANDY SILT (NATIVE), GREY,

MOIST




0.0-0.20 TOPSOIL,

0.20-3.00 MIXED FILL, WITH TREE

BRANCHES AND ROOTS,

SATURATED. WATER DRAINING

INTO TEST PIT FROM

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PIT.

WATER LEVEL AT ABOUT 2 M

BELOW GRADE.

3.00 + POSSIBLE NATIVE SOIL, COULD

NOT BE CONFIRMED DUE TO

INFLUX OF WATER AND

SLOUGHING OF THE WALLS OF

THE TEST PIT.

TP213

Date:

March 28, 2018



0.0-0.20 TOPSOIL,

0.20-3.00 MIXED FILL, WITH TREE

BRANCHES AND ROOTS,


TP213

Date:

March 28, 2018



SATURATED, WATER LEVEL AT

ABOUT 2 M BELOW GRADE.

3.00 + COULD NOT BE DETERMINED

DUE TO INFLUX OF WATER AND

SLOUGHING OF THE WALLS OF

THE TEST PIT.






APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Tested By: VP Checked By: JB

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Sample Number: Borehole 5, Sample 4

Figure

0.0744 0.0502 0.0427 0.0253 0.0086 0.0038 3.39 13.39

SILT, some sand, trace clay

17-069 10046043 Canada Inc.

D-1

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 0 0 0 15 77 8

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75

Grain Size Distribution Report

Geotehnical Investigation/Slope Stability, 1950/1952 Fairport Road





Project:


Figure

0.0682 0.0444 0.0371 0.0198 0.0063 0.0027 3.27 16.43

SILT, some sand, trace clay

17-069 10046043 Canada Inc.

D-2

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 0 0 0 11 80 9

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75







Project:


Figure

0.1465 0.1085 0.0965 0.0725 0.0453 0.0163 2.97 6.67

SILTY SAND, trace clay

17-069 10046043 Canada Inc.

D-3

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 0 0 0 68 27 5

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75







Project:


Figure

0.1634 0.1225 0.1107 0.0896 0.0713 0.0559 1.17 2.19

SAND, some silt, trace clay

17-069 10046043 Canada Inc.

D-4

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 0 0 0 83 12 5

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75








APPENDIX E TYPICAL PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

20 mm Clear Stone (2)

Moisture Barrier (6)

Notes

4. Impermeable backfill seal (min. 600 mm) - relatively impervious compacted silty clay, clayey silt, or

equivalent. If on-site native backfill is impermeable, seal may be omitted.

1. Perimeter and underfloor drains (if required) shall consist of 100 mm diameter weeping tile with fabric sock

or equivalent perforated pipe leading to a positive sump or outlet. Invert to be a minimum of 300 mm

below underside of basement floor slab. Perimeter drain is required for sections of basement wall installed

below exterior grade.

3. Free draining backfill - OPSS Granular B or equivalent compacted to the specified density. Do not use

heavy compaction equipment within 450 mm of the wall. Use hand controlled light compaction equipment

within 1.8 m of the wall. Free draining backfill is not required if a prefabricated vertical drainage system

(such as Miradrain 6000) is installed on the exterior of the basement wall.

2. 20 mm Clear Stone - 150 mm top and side of drain, surrounded by approved filter fabric (Terrafix 270R or

equivalent).

Exterior Footing

5. Do not backfill until wall is supported by basement floor slab and ground floor framing, or adequate bracing

is provided.

Basement Floor Slab (9)

Free Draining Backfill (3)

Prefabricated Vertical Drainage System (3)

8. Exterior grade to slope away from building at minimum gradient of 2%.

7. Basement wall to be damp-proofed.

Basement Wall (7)

Ground Floor (5)

Exterior Grade (8)

Impermeable Seal (4)

Native Material

Perimeter Drain (1)

Approved On Site

6. Moisture barrier to be at least 200 mm of compacted 20 mm clear stone of equivalent free draining material.

DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS

(Not to Scale)

Wrapped in

Approved Filter Fabric

Drainage and Backfill Details






APPENDIX F CERTIFICATE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES

CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES90 SCARSDALE RDTORONTO, ON M3B2R7 (905) 474-5265

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5

Jul 11, 2017

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

17T234868AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIAN

PROJECT: 17-069

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

B5-S5B5-S3SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2017-06-272017-06-27DATE SAMPLED:

8539119 8539120G / S RDLUnitParameter

7.87 8.04pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

13 62Sulphate (2:1) 2µg/g

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard

8539119-8539120 pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract obtained from 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts extraction fluid:1 part wet soil). Sulphate was determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil).

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: 2017-06-30

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIANCLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

AGAT WORK ORDER: 17T234868

DATE REPORTED: 2017-07-11

PROJECT: 17-069

Inorganic Chemistry (Soil)

SAMPLED BY:SAMPLING SITE:




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 5

Inorganic Chemistry (Soil)

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction 8531288 10.0 9.92 0.8% NA 100% 90% 110% NA NA

Sulphate (2:1) 8539618 99 95 4.1% < 2 96% 70% 130% 105% 70% 130% 105% 70% 130%

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 17-069

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Jul 11, 2017 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank




QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Soil Analysis

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction INOR-93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B pH METER

Sulphate (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Method Summary


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 17-069

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5






APPENDIX G SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS

KCCross Section 1

1[GEO5 - Slope Stability | version 5.2016.56.0 | hardware key 8221 / 1 | Alston Associates Inc | Copyright © 2017 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu]

Slope stability analysisInput dataProjectTask :Customer :Author :Date :Project ID :Project number :

Cross Section 110046043 Canada Inc.KC2017-09-121950 and 1952 Fairport Road, Pickering17-069

Name : Project Stage : 1

SettingsStandard - safety factorsStability analysisEarthquake analysis :Verification methodology :

StandardSafety factors (ASD)

Safety factorsPermanent design situation

Safety factor : SFs = 1.50 [–]

Interface

No. Interface locationCoordinates of interface points [m]

x z x z x z1 0.00

15.4619.9721.97

106.10105.50104.00102.50

11.7817.2421.2022.43

106.00105.25103.00102.20

13.6618.6521.5131.58

105.75105.00102.75102.20

KCCross Section 1



x z x z x z2

3

0.00

0.00

102.20

100.00

22.43

31.58

102.20

100.00

Soil parameters - effective stress state

No. Name Patternjef[°]

cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2

3

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay

28.00

32.00

26.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00

20.00

Soil parameters - uplift

No. Name Patterngsat

[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2

3

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay

19.00

20.00

20.00

Soil parametersFillUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :

geffectivejefcefgsat

=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

KCCross Section 1


Compact sandUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :


=

===

19.00

32.000.00

20.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

Soft silty clayUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :


=

===

20.00

26.000.00

20.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

Assigning and surfaces

No. Surface positionCoordinates of surface points [m]x z x z

Assignedsoil

1

2

3

22.4321.5119.9717.2413.660.00

31.5822.430.00

0.0031.58

102.20102.75104.00105.25105.75106.10

100.00102.20100.00

100.0095.00

21.9721.2018.6515.4611.780.00

31.580.00

0.0031.58

102.50103.00105.00105.50106.00102.20

102.20102.20

95.00100.00

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay

WaterWater type : GWT

No. GWT locationCoordinates of GWT points [m]

x z x z x z

1

0.00 101.90 22.43 102.16 31.58 102.16

Tensile crackTensile crack not input.

KCCross Section 1


EarthquakeEarthquake not included.Settings of the stage of constructionDesign situation : permanent

Results (Stage of construction 1)Analysis 1Circular slip surface

Slip surface parameters

Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

22.59107.21

5.10

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-65.8910.78

[°][°]

Analysis of the slip surface without optimization.Slope stability verification (Bishop)Sum of active forces :Sum of passive forces :

Sliding moment :Resisting moment :

Fa =Fp =

Ma =Mp =

35.5533.83

181.29172.53

kN/mkN/m

kNm/mkNm/m

Factor of safety = 0.95 < 1.50Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE

KCCross Section 1


Name : Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 10.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

28.00

30.00

31.58

95.0

0

96.0

0

98.0

0

100.

00

102.

00

104.

00

106.

10

KCCross Section 1


Analysis 2Circular slip surface


Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

24.82122.9620.93

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-35.287.31

[°][°]



Fa =Fp =

Ma =Mp =

72.71113.04

1521.762365.92

kN/mkN/m

kNm/mkNm/m

Factor of safety = 1.55 > 1.50Slope stability ACCEPTABLE

KCCross Section 1



2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

28.00

30.00

31.58

95.0

0

96.0

0

98.0

0

100.

00

102.

00

104.

00

106.

10

KCCross Section 2









Interface


x z x z x z1 0.00

12.1818.4026.61

104.80104.30102.00101.60

1.7913.3119.07

104.75104.00101.75

10.2115.6219.46

104.50103.00101.60

KCCross Section 3









Interface


x z x z x z1 0.00

13.1616.8217.91

104.96104.50102.00101.25

11.9513.8917.1927.04

104.75104.00101.75101.25

12.9415.3617.65

104.55103.00101.50

KCCross Section 3



x z x z x z2

3

0.00

0.00

101.25

98.20

17.91

27.04

101.25

98.20



cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2

3

Fill

Loose silt

Soft silty clay

28.00

28.00

26.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00

20.00



[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2

3

Fill

Loose silt

Soft silty clay

19.00

19.00

20.00



=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

KCCross Section 3


Loose siltUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :


=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



=

===

20.00

26.000.00

20.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



Assignedsoil

1

2

3

17.9117.1915.3613.1611.950.00

27.0417.910.00

0.0027.04

101.25101.75103.00104.50104.75101.25

98.20101.2598.20

98.2093.20

17.6516.8213.8912.940.00

27.040.00

0.0027.04

101.50102.00104.00104.55104.96

101.25101.25

93.2098.20

Fill

Loose silt

Soft silty clay


KCCross Section 3



x z x z x z

1

0.00 101.70 17.93 101.21 27.04 101.21

Tensile crackTensile crack not input.EarthquakeEarthquake not included.Settings of the stage of constructionDesign situation : permanent



Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

18.76108.79

7.69

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-57.7711.34

[°][°]



Fa =Fp =

Ma =Mp =

45.1545.00

347.22346.01

kN/mkN/m

kNm/mkNm/m

Factor of safety = 1.00 < 1.50Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE

KCCross Section 3



2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

27.04

93.2

0

94.0

0

96.0

0

98.0

0

100.

00

102.

00

104.

00

104.

96

KCCross Section 3


Analysis 2Circular slip surface


Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

17.07112.8211.74

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-46.989.76

[°][°]



Fa =Fp =

Ma =Mp =

100.05151.74

1174.601781.43

kN/mkN/m

kNm/mkNm/m


KCCross Section 3



2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

27.04

93.2

0

94.0

0

96.0

0

98.0

0

100.

00

102.

00

104.

00

104.

96

KCCross Section 2



x z x z x z2

3

0.00

0.00

101.60

98.40

19.46

26.61

101.60

98.40



cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2

3

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay

28.00

32.00

26.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00

20.00



[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2

3

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay

19.00

19.00

20.00



=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

KCCross Section 2


Compact sandUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :


=

===

19.00

32.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



=

===

20.00

26.000.00

20.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



Assignedsoil

1

2

3

19.4618.4013.3110.210.00

26.6119.460.00

0.0026.61

101.60102.00104.00104.50104.80

98.40101.6098.40

98.4093.40

19.0715.6212.181.790.00

26.610.00

0.0026.61

101.75103.00104.30104.75101.60

101.60101.60

93.4098.40

Fill

Compact sand

Soft silty clay


KCCross Section 2



x z x z x z

1

0.00 101.90 19.48 101.57 26.61 101.57

Tensile crackTensile crack not input.EarthquakeEarthquake not included.Settings of the stage of constructionDesign situation : permanent



Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

20.28115.8914.33

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-36.284.28

[°][°]



Fa =Fp =

Ma =Mp =

24.6537.02

353.19530.56

kN/mkN/m

kNm/mkNm/m


KCCross Section 2



2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.0026.61

93.4

094

.00

96.0

0

98.0

0

100.

00

102.

00

104.

00

104.

80

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE …...clayey soils with trace to some gravel. Locally, it also contains construction debris such as asphalt, concrete, Locally, it also contains