GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED …

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. 14-122 October 27, 2014

Prepared For: 103 Dundas Corporation 2184 Providence Road

Oakville, Ontario L6H 6Z2

Prepared By: Alston Associates Inc.

Toronto

Distribution: Digital Copy - 103 Dundas Corporation

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

103 DUNDAS STREET WEST OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

alston associates inc. Reference 14-122

October 27, 2014

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 103 DUNDAS STREET WEST, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO 103 DUNDAS CORPORATION

i

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

4.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Topsoil ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 4.3 Silty Clay (Till) ......................................................................................................................................... 3 4.4 Bedrock .................................................................................................................................................. 4 4.5 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 4

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

5.1 Excavation, Backfill and Groundwater Control .................................................................................. 5 5.2 Foundation Design ................................................................................................................................. 7 5.3 Concrete Slab-on-Grade ..................................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Engineered Fill ........................................................................................................................................ 8 5.5 Earthquake Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 9 5.6 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................................. 9 5.7 Chemical Characterization of Subsurface Soils ............................................................................... 10 5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure .......................................................................................................................... 10

6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .................................................................................................................. 11

APPENDICES .

APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E CERTIFICATE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX F DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS


October 27, 2014


1

1 INTRODUCTION

On behalf of 103 Dundas Corporation, Mr. Zaki Wahbeh authorized Alston Associates Inc. (AAI) to carry out a geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential re-development located at 103 Dundas Street West in the Town of Oakville, Ontario.

We understand that it is proposed to re-develop the property with an eight (8) storey apartment building constructed over a single level parking garage which would extend close to the property limits. We also understand that parking garage roof slab will be used for car parking.

The location of the proposed building is shown on a site plan prepared by ATA Architects Inc. (ATA). Based on the information provided on this drawing, the indications are that the ground floor of the building will be situated approximately 2.5 m above existing grade along Dundas Street, and the basement/parking garage floor slab will be situated close to existing site grades. The development scheme is such that there will be no significant subsurface excavation for the construction of the parking garage.

It is anticipated that there will be some modifications in site grading along the north section of the proposed garage wall; to match with the grades of a local road currently under construction.

A topographic survey drawing of the property, titled “Part of Survey and Topography of Part of Lot 16 Concession 1, North of Dundas Street, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton” prepared by J. H. Gelbloom Surveying Limited (JHGSL) dated July 23, 2014, was provided for our use in preparing this report.

The number of boreholes to be drilled at the site was determined by AAI to provide general site coverage.

The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to determine the relevant engineering properties of encountered soils, and based on those data, to provide recommendations on the geotechnical aspects for the design of foundations and the implementation of the project as outlined above.

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 F IELDWORK

The fieldwork for this study was carried out on October 15, 2014. It consisted of five (5) boreholes designated as BH1 through BH5, advanced by a drilling contractor commissioned by AAI. The locations of the boreholes are shown on the Borehole Location Plan enclosed in Appendix B.

The ground surface elevations at the locations of the boreholes were extrapolated from the topographic survey drawing prepared by JHGSL.

Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out in the course of advancing the sampled boreholes to take representative soil samples and to measure penetration index N-values to characterize the condition of the


October 27, 2014


2

various soil materials. The number of blows of the striking hammer required to drive the split spoon sampler to 300 mm depth was recorded and these are presented on the logs as penetration index values.

Groundwater level observations were made in all boreholes during and upon completion of drilling operations. Monitoring wells were installed in Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH4 for monitoring of the groundwater level. The wells were monitored several hours after their installations and on October 20, 2014.

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 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 BH1, BH3 and BH5. The results of the classification, water contents, and Standard Penetration Tests are presented on the borehole logs attached in the Appendix C of this report.

Sieve and hydrometer grain-size analyses were carried out on two (2) soil samples; Atterberg Limits test on one (1) soil sample. The results of these tests are presented in the Appendix D as Figures D-1 through D-3.

In addition, two (2) native soil samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories for chemical analysis for pH and soluble sulphate. The results of these tests are enclosed in Appendix E; discussed in Section 5.7 of this report.

4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDIT IONS

Full details of the subsurface conditions at the site are given on the enclosed Log sheets for the sampled Boreholes BH1through BH5.

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.

4.1 Site Descript ion

The site for the proposed development is located on the north side Dundas Street West, approximately 410 m west of Sixth Line in the Town of Oakville. It has a municipal address 103 Dundas Street West. For the purpose of this report, Dundas Street West is considered to be oriented in an east-west direction.

The site is approximately rectangular in shape and measures about 100 m by 60 m. It is bounded by open land to the east and by a commercial development to the west. A local road is situated to the north side of the property; currently under construction. The road is approximately 2.5 to 3 m above the site grade within the north property boundary.


October 27, 2014


3

A single storey house is located in the southwest part of the property; a barn in the northwest part. The property in general is covered by dense vegetation with some trees aligned along the east and west boundaries of the site as well as scattered across the property.

The ground surface topography of the site is not level. It is slightly higher on the north and west and grades down to the south and east.

4.2 Topsoi l

Topsoil was encountered in all boreholes. The thickness of the topsoil at the boreholes varies between approximately 50 and 450 mm.

It should be noted that the topsoil thickness will vary between boreholes. Thicker topsoil than that found in the boreholes may also be present in places within the site. This renders it difficult to estimate the quantity of topsoil to be stripped. In order to prevent over-stripping, diligent control of the stripping will be required.

4.3 Si l ty Clay (T i l l )

Below the topsoil layer, each of the boreholes encountered native deposits of silty clay with some sand and trace gravel.

The silty clay is a glacial deposit; consisting of a random mixture of soil particles ranging from clay to gravel, with silt and clay generally being the predominant fractions. The soil is brown to reddish brown in colour, occasionally spotted reddish brown, and moist in appearance.

Standard penetration resistance in the silty clay till provided N-values ranging from of 4 to 80/250 mm penetration, indicating a firm to hard consistency. The upper section of the till soil in general is weaker in strength; extending to about 0.8 m depth below ground surface. The lower section of the till soil has occasional inclusions of shale fragments.

The water content of the samples of the silty clay ranged from approximately 10 to 21% by weight.

Sieve and hydrometer grain size analyses were carried out on two (2) representative silty clay samples, and Atterberg Limits test on one (1) sample. The laboratory test results are enclosed in Appendix D as Figures D-1 to D-3, and summarized in the table below.

Borehole Location

Sample Depth and

Number

Sample Description

Gravel %

Sand %

Silt %

Clay %

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Soil Classification

BH1 0.8 m Sample 2

Brown silty clay, some sand, trace gravel 1 18 50 31 31.4 14.3

Inorganic clays of medium plasticity

BH3 1.5 m Sample 3

Brown silty clay, some gravel, some sand 1 25 50 24 - - -

The soil classification was based on the plasticity diagram as shown on Figure 3.1 of the Canadian


October 27, 2014


4

Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition.

Based on the grain size distribution test results, the Coefficient of Permeability (k) of the silty clay is estimated to be less than 1 x 10-8 cm/sec.

4.4 Bedrock

Bedrock of Queenston Formation consisting of shale was contacted below the silty clay till; at a depth of about 1.4 m in Borehole BH2, 2.1 m in BH3 and BH5, 2.5 m in BH1 and 3.4 m in BH4.

The shale bedrock at the site is typically red-brown in color, fine grained and thinly bedded. Based on the SPT results, the shale is anticipated to be highly to moderately weathered. The degree of weathering however cannot be clearly determined with the sampling method used in this investigation.

In Borehole BH1, grey color bedrock material was contacted at a depth of about 6 m below ground surface; possible limestone interbeds.

4.5 Groundwater

During the course of the borehole advancement, groundwater was observed in the open boreholes.

Groundwater measurements were subsequently made in the monitoring wells installed in Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH4. The wells were monitored several hours later after their installations as well as on October 20, 2014.

The groundwater measurements made in the open boreholes as well as in the monitoring wells are shown on the individual borehole logs, and summarized in the table below.

Borehole Location

Ground Surface Elevation (m)

Groundwater Level (measured below ground surface)

Upon Completion of Drilling Several Hours Thereafter October 20, 2014 Monitoring

Depth (m) Elevation (m) Depth (m) Elevation (m) Depth (m) Elevation (m)

BH1 169.42 4.9 164.52 3.3 (4.5 hours later) 166.12 3.46 165.96

BH2 168.45 2.3 166.15 2.9 (3 hours later) 165.55 2.07 166.38

BH3 168.03 4.9 163.13 - - - -

BH4 169.01 4.9 164.11 3.8 (6.5 hours later) 165.21 3.98 165.03

BH5 167.67 4.6 163.07 - - - -

Using the groundwater level monitoring results, the indications are that the groundwater flow at the site is in an approximately northeast-to-southwest direction.


October 27, 2014


5

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following discussions and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from the boreholes advanced at the site by AAI and are intended for use by the client’s architects and design engineers only.

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.

The investigation has revealed that below the surficial topsoil layer, the subsurface soil consists of native silty clay (till), followed by shale bedrock. On the basis of our fieldwork, laboratory tests and other pertinent information supplied by the client, the following comments and recommendations are made.

5.1 Excavation, Backfi l l and Groundwater Control

Based on the field results, temporary excavations for foundations, sewer trenches, and utilities are not expected to pose any difficulty. Excavation of the soils at this site can be carried out with heavy hydraulic excavators.

In the event excavation is required in the bedrock (for example, deep sewers), the shale can be excavated with conventional hydraulic backhoes equipped with ripping teeth. Excavations through bedrock of medium strong and strong in strength may require the use of a hydraulic hammer. Provisions should be made in the excavation contract to include the use of such equipment for excavation in bedrock.

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). With respect to OHSA, the firm silty clay is expected to conform to Type 3 soil classification. The very stiff silty clay can be classified as Type 2 soil. The hard silty clay and shale bedrock can be classified as Type 1 soil. For excavations through multiple soil types, the side slope geometry is governed by the soil type with the highest number designation. Excavation side-slopes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.

Temporary excavation for slopes in Type 3 soil should not exceed 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. Locally, where very loose or soft soil is encountered at shallow depths, it may 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.

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 Regulation for Construction Projects.

It should be noted that the clay till soil is non-sorted sediments and therefore may contain boulders. Provisions must be made in the excavation contract for the removal of possible boulders.

Based on observations made during drilling of the boreholes and close examination of the soil samples extracted from the boreholes, groundwater is not anticipated within the presumed excavation depths.

All the voids that are created from removal of the existing foundations must be suitably backfilled; with either engineered fill or unshrinkable fill having a minimum compressive strength of 1 MPa. Recommendations for


October 27, 2014


6

engineered fill construction are given in Section 5.4 of this report.

On-site excavated sand soils may be reused as backfill material or engineered fill, provided their water content is within 2% of their optimum moisture contents as determined by Standard Proctor test, and the materials are effectively compacted with heavy smooth drum vibratory rollers.

Measured water contents within the native silty clay soils ranged from approximately 10 to 21%, which are generally close to and locally on the wet side of the material’s optimum moisture content. Spreading the material in a wide area and air drying may be required to achieve the specified compaction of the material. However, thorough vertical mixing of the excavated soils will be required to provide a material that can be adequately compacted throughout. During warm weather, drying of the native soils may become acute; therefore, the lift thickness for compaction and the water content of the soils must be properly controlled during the backfilling.

It is recommended that service trenches be backfilled with on-site native 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 1000 mm. Lift thicknesses should not exceed 200 mm in a loose state and the excavated site material should be compacted using heavy, vibratory pad-type rollers. As an alternative, if suitable on-site native material is not available, the upper part of the subgrade could be improved by placing imported granular material.

In areas of narrow trenches or confined spaces such as around manholes, catch basins, etc., imported sand or OPSS Granular ‘B’ should be used and compacted to the specified SPMDD.

Exterior perimeter drainage system must be installed along the exterior walls where the garage floor slab is situated below exterior grade. The perimeter drains must be properly filtered to prevent an in-wash of soil fines. The garage wall backfill for a minimum lateral distance of 0.6 m out from the wall should consist of free-draining granular material such as OPSS Granular “B” Type I, or provided with a suitable alternative drainage cellular media. Damp-proofing must be applied to the exterior garage walls.

It is assumed that the proposed garage will be unheated. In order to minimize possible frost heave during winter season, it is imperative that any groundwater accumulated in the granular base under the garage floor as well as in the subgrade soils be collected and discharged. In this regard, it is recommended to install an underfloor drainage system under the garage slab. Weeping pipes of 100 mm in diameter should be placed under the garage slab at a maximum spacing of 10 m. The weeping pipes must be wrapped with filter fabric and covered with a minimum of 150 mm of clear stone. They should be placed a minimum of 0.6 m below the garage floor slab, and above the founding level of the footings.

The perimeter and underfloor 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 lowest level of the garage. The water from the sump must be pumped out to a suitable discharge point.

The installation of the perimeter and underfloor drains as well as the outlet must conform to the applicable plumbing code requirements. A typical detail of perimeter and underfloor drainage system is included in Appendix F of this report.


October 27, 2014


7

5.2 Foundation Design

It is understood that the parking garage floor slab will be constructed close to existing site grades. The finished ground floor elevation of the building was not determined at the time of reporting.

Based on the borehole findings, the proposed building may be supported on conventional shallow strip and spread footings. The undisturbed silty clay till at the site is considered suitable for the support of building foundations.

The upper section of the native silty clay in general possesses firm to stiff consistency; the penetration resistance N-values ranges from 4 to 10. In this regard, it is not recommended to install the footings in the surface layer of the native soil. It is recommended to extend the foundations to depths ranging from 1 to 1.5 m into the native clay soil. Between these depths, the footings may be designed for bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 400 kPa, and a factored geotechnical bearing resistances at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 600 kPa, for vertical and centric loads.

The recommended minimum founding depths (below existing ground surface) and founding elevations for bearing resistance values at SLS of 400 kPa are tabulated below.

Borehole Location Ground Surface Elevation Minimum Founding Depth / Elevation for Bearing Resistance of 400 kPa at SLS and 600 kPa at ULS

BH1 169.42 m 1.5 m / 167.9 m

BH2 168.45 m 1 m / 167.4 m

BH3 168.03 m 1.5 m / 166.5 m

BH4 169.01 m 1 m / 168.0 m

BH5 167.67 m 1.5 m / 166.2 m

The total and differential settlements of foundations designed in accordance with the bearing resistance values recommended above should not exceed the conventional limits of 25 mm and 19 mm, respectively.

Due to variations in the consistency of the founding soils and/or loosening caused by excavating disturbance and/or seasonal frost effects, all footing subgrade must be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing 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.

The native soils are susceptible to disturbance when wet, so construction scheduling should consider the amount of excavation left exposed to the elements, during foundation preparation.

AAI recommends that footings placed on the exposed native soil should be poured on the same day as they are excavated, after removal of all unsuitable founding materials and approval of the bearing surface. Alternatively, a concrete mud slab should be used to protect the bearing surface where footing construction


October 27, 2014


8

is to be delayed.

Exterior footings should be positioned at a minimum depth of 1.2 m below the exterior grade in the Oakville area in order to provide protection to the foundation soil from freezing temperatures.

If construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the footing bases and concrete must be provided.

Exposed soil foundation subgrades should be protected against freezing and surface water should be kept away from the foundation subgrade areas to prevent softening. If unstable subgrade conditions develop, AAI should be contacted in order to assess the conditions and make appropriate recommendations.

5.3 Concrete Slab-on-Grade

The subgrade at the floor slab of the proposed parking garage should consist of engineered fill or undisturbed native soil which is adequate to support a slab-on-grade construction.

Subgrade preparation should include complete removal of the topsoil layer, unsuitable loose and soft soil, organic soils and any weak/wet soils. After removal of all unsuitable materials, the subgrade should be proof-rolled with heavy rubber tired equipment and adjudged as satisfactory before preparing the granular base course. The proof-rolling operation should be witnessed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any soft or unsuitable subgrade areas which deflect significantly should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable engineered fill material compacted to at least 98% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

It is recommended that a drainage layer having a minimum thickness of 200 mm and comprised of free draining 19 mm clear crushed limestone be provided as a base for the slab-on-grade. The clear stone should be compacted to a dense state.

Provided the subgrade, under-floor fill and granular base are prepared in accordance with the above recommendations, the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (ks) for floor slab design will be 30,000 kN/m³.

The soils at this site may be susceptible to frost effects which would have the potential to deform hard landscaping adjacent to the building. At locations where the proposed building is 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.

5.4 Engineered Fi l l

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

Topsoil, organic materials and disturbed soils must be removed, and the exposed subgrade soils proof-rolled 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.

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


October 27, 2014


9

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

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.

5.5 Earthquake Design Parameters

The Ontario Building Code (2012) stipulates the methodology for earthquake design analysis, as set out in Subsection 4.18.7. 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 Ontario Building Code (2012). 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 as revealed in the boreholes generally comprises surficial topsoil underlain by native soil consisting of firm to hard silty clay till, followed by shale bedrock. Based on the above, the site designation for seismic analysis is Class C 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 Standard SB-1 (September 14, 2012), Table 1.2, location Oakville, Ontario.

5.6 Pavement Design

The pavement above parking garage roof slabs may be comprised of a minimum of 75 mm thick layer of granular ‘A’ topped with asphaltic concrete having a minimum thickness of 80 mm (40 mm HL8 and 40 mm HL3). The asphaltic concrete materials should be rolled and compacted in accordance with OPSS 310 requirements.

The gradation and physical properties of HL-3 and HL-8 asphaltic concrete, and Granular ‘A’ shall conform to the OPSS standards.

The critical section of pavement will be at the transition between the pavement on grade and the pavement above the garage roof slab. In order to alleviate the detrimental effects of dynamic loading / settlement / pavement depression in the backfill to the rigid garage roof structure, it is recommended that an approach type slab be constructed at the entrance/exit points, by extending the granular sub-base to greater depths along the exterior garage wall.


October 27, 2014


10

The granular courses of the pavement should be placed in lifts not exceeding 150 mm thick and be compacted to a minimum of 100% SPMDD.

5.7 Chemical Characterizat ion of Subsurface Soi ls

Two (2) native soil samples, obtained at a depth of 0.8 m (Sample 2) from Boreholes BH2 and BH3, were submitted to AGAT Laboratories for pH index test, and determination of water-soluble sulphate content and its potential of attacking the subsurface concrete.

The test results revealed that the pH index of the soil sample in BH2 is 7.69, and in BH3 is 7.77. The water-soluble sulphate content of the soil sample in BH2 is 0.0065% and in BH3 is 0.073%.

The pH content of the two tested samples has a weak alkalinity. The concentration of water-soluble sulphate content of the tested soil samples are 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 building.

The Certificate of Chemical Analysis provided by the analytical chemical testing laboratory is contained in Appendix E of this report.

5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure

Parameters used in the determination of earth pressure acting on retaining walls, sub-surface walls or bracings are defined below.

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 Ko

Compacted clayey fill 30° 21 0.33 3.0 0.5

Compact Granular Fill (1) - Granular ‘A’ (OPSS 1010) 35° 22 0.27 3.70 0.43


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT


October 27, 2014


Limitat 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 103 Dundas Corporation by Alston Associates Inc. The material in it reflects Alston Associates Inc. 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.


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

SF

OCTOBER 2014

14-122

AS SHOWN

DRAWING 1DRAWING #

DRAWN

DATE

PROJECT #

SCALE

CHECKED

0 10m 20m

(APPROXIMATE)

103 DUNDAS CORPORATION

CLIENT

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN103 DUNDAS STREET WEST

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

LEGEND

BOREHOLESOURCE: PLAN OF SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHY OF PART OF LOT 16 CONCESSION I, NORTH OF DUNDAS STREET, TOWN OF OAKVILLE BY J. H. GELBLOOM SURVEYING LIMITED, 2014.

BH5BH5

BH4BH4

BH3BH3

BH2BH2BH1BH1

APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

169

168.5

168

167.5

167

166.5

166

165.5

165

164.5

164

163.5

Bentonite,19 mmdiameterstandpipe

Sand

sand andScreen

Borehole open andgroundwater level at 4.9m below ground surfaceon completion.

Groundwater level at 3.3m below ground surface4.5 hours aftercompletion .Groundwater level at3.46 m below groundsurface on October 20,2014.

5

27

51

50/125

50/50

50/50

50/50

50/25

4621

14

12

1010

350 mm TOPSOIL

firm(trace

organics)------

verystiff

moist, brownspotted reddish brown

SILTY CLAYtrace sand

trace to some gravel(TILL)

------

hard

(shalepieces)

reddishbrown

weatheredSHALE

BEDROCK

------

grey

END OF BOREHOLE

1A

1B

2

3

4A4B

5

6

7

8

5

27

51

50/125

50/50

50/50

50/50

50/25

CLIENT: 103 Dundas Corporation METHOD: Augering and Split Spoon Sampling

BH No.: 1PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 169.42

LOCATION: 103 Dundas Street West, Oakville, ON NORTHING: EASTING: PROJECT NO.: 14-122

SAMPLE TYPE AUGER DRIVEN CORING DYNAMIC CONE SHELBY SPLIT SPOON

LOGGED BY: KC DRILLING DATE: 15 October 2014

REVIEWED BY: VN

DE

PT

H (

m)

INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

REMARKS

Shear Strength(kPa)

N-Value(Blows/300mm)

20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T(N

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

168

167.5

167

166.5

166

165.5

165

164.5

164

163.5

163

162.5


Sand

sand andScreen


Groundwater level at 2.9m below ground surface3.0 hours aftercompletion.Groundwater level at2.07 m below groundsurface on October 20,2014.

Water strike at 5.5 mdepth.

10

48

50/75

50/100

50/50

50/50

50/25

300 mm TOPSOIL

stiff------ moist, brown

spotted reddish brownSILTY CLAYtrace sand


hard(shale

pieces)

reddish brownweathered

SHALEBEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

48

50/75

50/100

50/50

50/50

50/25






REVIEWED BY: VN

DE

PT

H (

m)

INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

REMARKS

Shear Strength(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T(N

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

168

167.5

167

166.5

166

165.5

165

164.5

164

163.5

163

162.5

162



4

21

63

50/125

50/50

50/50

50/50

5221

13

11

6

350 mm TOPSOIL

firm

------

verystiff




------

hard


SHALEBEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

4

21

63

50/125

50/50

50/50

50/50






REVIEWED BY: VN

DE

PT

H (

m)

INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

REMARKS

Shear Strength(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T(N

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

169

168.5

168

167.5

167

166.5

166

165.5

165

164.5

164

163.5

163


Sand

sand andScreen


Groundwater level at 3.8m below ground surface6.5 hours aftercompletionGroundwater level at3.98 m below groundsurface on October 20,2014.


15

39

38

59

80/250

50/50

50/50

50/25

50 mm TOPSOIL

verystiff

------




hard(reddish

brown)

(shalepieces)


SHALEBEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE

1A

1B

2

3

4

5A

5B

6

7

8

15

39

38

59

80/250

50/50

50/50

50/25






REVIEWED BY: VN

DE

PT

H (

m)

INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

REMARKS

Shear Strength(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T(N

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

167.5

167

166.5

166

165.5

165

164.5

164

163.5

163

162.5

162



5

21

43

50/100

50/50

50/50

50/50

25

14

11

5

450 mm TOPSOIL

firm------

verystiff




------

hard


SHALEBEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

21

43

50/100

50/50

50/50

50/50






REVIEWED BY: VN

DE

PT

H (

m)

INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

REMARKS

Shear Strength(kPa)


20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T(N

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Page 1 of 1


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Tested By: YM Checked By: JB

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Sample Number: BH 1, Sample 2

Figure

0.1230 0.0124 0.0077 0.0017

SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace gravel

14-122 103 Dundas Corporation

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 1 2 5 11 50 31

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

Proposed Residential Development, 103 Dundas Street West, Oakville, ON

Tested By: YM Checked By: JB

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Sample Number: BH 3, Sample 3

Figure

0.2311 0.0237 0.0111 0.0038

SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace gravel

14-122 103 Dundas Corporation

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 1 2 7 16 50 24

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

Proposed Residential Development, 103 Dundas Street West, Oakville, ON

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70P

last

icity

Ind

ex

PLASTICITY CHART

Remarks:

Figure No. D-3alston associates inc.

Client: 103 Dundas CorporationProject: Proposed Residential Development, 103 Dundas Street East, Oakville, OntarioRef. No.: 14-122Sample SymbolBorehole 1, Sample 2

A-LineCH

CL

CL-MLMI or OI

MH or OH

ML ML

CI

7

4


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX E 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

Sofka Pehlyova, Senior AnalystSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5

Oct 22, 2014

VERSION*: 1

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

14T904394AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIAN

PROJECT: 14-122

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, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)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 tested

BH3/S2BH2/S2SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

10/15/201410/15/2014DATE SAMPLED:

5963294 5963299G / S RDLUnitParameter

7.69 7.77pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction pH Units

65 73Sulphate (2:1) 2µg/g

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to T1(All)Comments:


DATE RECEIVED: 2014-10-20

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIANCLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T904394

DATE REPORTED: 2014-10-22

PROJECT: 14-122

pH, Sulphate (Soil)

SAMPLED BY:Michael LamSAMPLING SITE:




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 5

pH, Sulphate (Soil)

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction 5957531 7.99 8.05 0.7% NA 100% 80% 120% NA NA

Sulphate (2:1) 5957531 5 5 0.0% < 2 103% 70% 130% 96% 70% 130% 101% 70% 130%

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Michael Lam


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 14-122

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: 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.

BH2/S2 15-OCT-2014 20-OCT-2014Soil5963294

pH, Sulphate (Soil)pH, Sulphate (Soil)

Date AnalyzedParameter InitialsDate Prepared

21-OCT-2014 KCpH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction 21-OCT-2014

22-OCT-2014 WZSulphate (2:1) 22-OCT-2014

BH3/S2 15-OCT-2014 20-OCT-2014Soil5963299

pH, Sulphate (Soil)pH, Sulphate (Soil)

Date AnalyzedParameter InitialsDate Prepared

21-OCT-2014 KCpH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction 21-OCT-2014

22-OCT-2014 WZSulphate (2:1) 22-OCT-2014


Time Markers

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIANCLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES


PROJECT: 14-122

Sample ID Sample Description Sample Type Date Sampled Date Received




TIME MARKERS (V1) Page 4 of 5

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:Michael Lam


Method Summary


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 14-122

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 5 of 5


October 27, 2014


APPENDIX F DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS

Notes 1. Perimeter and underfloor drains 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 garage floor slab. Perimeter drain is required for sections of garage wall installed below exterior grade.

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

equivalent). 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 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.

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. 5. Do not backfill until wall is supported by garage and floor slabs or adequate bracing.

6. Moisture barrier to be at least 200 mm of compacted 20 mm clear stone or equivalent free draining material. 7. Basement wall to be damp-proofed.

9. Exterior grade to slope away from building at minimum gradient of 2%. 10. Garage floor slab should not be structurally connected to the wall or footing. 11. Underfloor drain invert to be at least 300 mm below underside of floor slab. Drainage tile placed in parallel

rows at 10 m centre to centre. Place drain on 100 mm of 20 mm clear stone with 150 mm of clear stone on top and sides. Do not connect the underfloor drains to perimeter drains.

DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS (Not to Scale)

Impermeable Seal (4)

Floor Slab (5)

Basement Wall (7)

Free Draining Backfill (3)

Basement Floor Slab (10) Moisture Barrier (6)

20 mm Clear Stone (2)

Exterior Grade (9)

Perimeter Drain (1)


Approved On Site Native Material

Underfloor Drain (1, 11) Exterior Footing

Prefabricated Vertical Drainage System (3)

Drainage and Backfill Details

Impermeable Seal (4)

Floor Slab (5)

Basement Wall (7)

Free Draining Backfill (3)

Basement Floor Slab (10) Moisture Barrier (6)


Exterior Grade (9)

Perimeter Drain (1)

20 mm Clear Stone

Approved On Site Native Material

Underfloor Drain (1, 11) Exterior Footing

Prefabricated Vertical Drainage System (3)

Wrapped in Approved Filter fabric

Garage Floor slab (10)

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED …