Preliminary Geotechnical Report 721 Eastern Avenue ...721eastern.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/04/... · Preliminary Geotechnical Report 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY

F I N A L R E P O R T – R E V I S E D

Preliminary Geotechnical Report 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

Prepared for

General Motors of Canada Company 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa, ON L1H 8P7

March 5, 2018

CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road, Suite 400 Toronto, ON M2J 1R3

PR0222181511KWO ES-1 REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

Executive Summary CH2M HILL Canada Limited (CH2M) is providing professional services to complete a Preliminary Level Geotechnical Report based on the investigation conducted at the property owned by General Motors of Canada Company (GM Canada) located at 721 Eastern Avenue, in the City of Toronto, Ontario (the Subject Property). In December 2015, sixteen (16) boreholes were advanced as part of a broader investigation at the Subject Property. Of these boreholes, eight (8) were advanced to assess the geotechnical aspects (preliminary level) of the Subject Property. It should be noted the factual data and recommendations are preliminary only and may change when more information becomes available.

Additional subsurface investigations were conducted in February 2016 and December 2016 as part of the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for site characterization and hydrogeological purposes but did not include any further specifically geotechnical related work other than limited grain-size analysis, general stratigraphic observations and depth to water table. Each of the investigations are briefly described herein and have been used to augment the original Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (December 2015).

At two locations, namely borehole BH18-15 and monitoring well MW17-15, a 170 millimetre (mm) thick conventional concrete slab was advanced through at the surface. At monitoring well MW03-15 a 1.07 metre (m) thick surficial layer of sand and gravel fill was encountered. At all other locations within the property, the surficial conditions consisted of a 50-mm thick asphaltic concrete layer. Below the conventional concrete slab and the asphaltic concrete layer, fill materials were encountered which consisted of sand, sand and gravel, gravel with sand, silty sand and silty clay. The fill materials ranged in thickness from 0.76 to 3.05 m and extended to elevations ranging from 76.09 to 73.71 metres above sea level (masl). Borehole BH15-15 was terminated within the fill based on auger refusal.

Below the fill materials, the native soils at the Subject Property consist of sand, clayey silt and silty clay to clay. The native sand deposit was encountered at one location, namely monitoring well MW01-15. The thickness of the sand was measured to be 1.22 m and was encountered at elevations ranging from 75.79 to 74.57 masl (1.22 to 2.44 mbgs). The clayey silt deposits were encountered at elevations ranging from 75.73 to 73.35 masl (1.07 to 3.66 mbgs). The thickness of these soils ranged from 0.46 to 1.73 m. The silty clay to clay deposits were encountered at elevations ranging from 76.09 to 64.17 masl (0.81 to 12.59 mbgs). The thickness of these soils ranged from 0.15 to 10.64 m. With the exception of borehole BH18-15, all boreholes were terminated in the silty clay to clay deposit.

No bedrock coring was completed as part of this investigation. Quaternary Geological Maps (Sharpe, D.R., 1980) indicate that the bedrock at the Subject Property is Shale of the Georgian Bay Formation. Based on the investigations carried out on the Subject Property, inferred bedrock is anticipated between 12.47 and 12.59 m depth from ground surface.

Nine (9) monitoring wells were installed as part of this investigation for future groundwater level measurements. The measured groundwater levels are considerably shallow and range from 0.96 to 2.03 metres below ground surface. In addition to the field program a laboratory testing program was completed which included geotechnical testing.

Based on the conditions encountered during the field program and the test results of the laboratory program, preliminary design recommendations and considerations have been provided to support the Proposed Development.

The Subject Property has been given a conditional Site Class of “D” as per the 2012 Ontario Building Code Table 4.1.8.4.A. Based on the findings of this investigation, the deep subgrade deposits exhibit engineering properties which meet the criteria for Site Class “E” as defined in the Ontario Building Code. The data

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 PR0222181511KWO REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

collected from the three deep borings completed warrant in-situ seismic testing to confirm the Site Class in comparison to the Ontario Building Code.

It is assumed that the Proposed Development will consist of a multi-storey commercial building with no basement. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, preliminary design recommendations with respect to foundations have been provided.

End bearing driven H-Piles socketed into the Shale Bedrock is recommended for the foundation of the proposed building(s). This recommendation was chosen based on the following criteria:

• Thickness of the combined fill material (maximum encountered thickness of 3.05 m); • Contamination level of the Subject Property; • Inconsistency of the existing fill material (classified as random fill) and its compaction level; • Soft to very soft consistency of the clayey overburden material; and • Shallow groundwater of near 1.0 m below existing ground surface.

Preliminary settlement analysis indicates that due to the compressible clay deposits below the existing fill, a slab on grade construction method will not be achievable. A structural concrete slab supported on pile caps is recommended. Due to the shallow groundwater encountered, a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum thickness of 150 mm of 19 mm clear stone should be placed below the slab. Geo synthetic fabric (geotextile) should be placed below the 19 mm clear stone to prevent migration of fine particles from intruding into the vapour barrier. Consideration should be given to the use of geo synthetic mesh (geogrid) for structural reinforcement of the soil where localized soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable material is present.

Full time supervision of the piling operations should be carried out by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer.

A supplemental geotechnical investigation should be considered to determine the engineering properties of the Shale Bedrock.

The new parking areas and roads must be constructed as per the City of Toronto’s pavement structure guidelines and construction specifications. The minimum recommended pavement structure is as follows:

• Surface – 40 mm HL3 • Binder – 95 mm HL8 (100 mm for minor Collector Roads) • Granular Base – 50 mm of Granular A • Granular Sub Base – 250 mm of Granular B Type II

Consideration should be given to the use of geo synthetic mesh and fabrics to reinforce the subgrade.

PR0222181511KWO I REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

Contents Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. iii

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report ............................................................ 1-1 1.3 Overview of the Proposed Development ........................................................................ 1-2

1.3.1 Phase 1: the GM Campus .................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Phase 2: Sites 2 + 3 ............................................................................................. 1-2

2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Field Investigations .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 December 2015 Investigation ............................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 February 2016 Investigation ............................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 December 2016 Investigation ............................................................................. 2-3

2.3 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 2-4

3 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Regional Physiography ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Seismic Considerations ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Existing Pavement ............................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2.1 Asphaltic Concrete .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Concrete .............................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3 Fill Material ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.1 Sand to Sand and Gravel Fill ............................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Silty Clay Fill ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.3 Sandy Silt Fill ....................................................................................................... 3-3

3.4 Native Overburden Soil .................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.1 Sand .................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Clayey Silt ............................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4.3 Silty Clay to Clay .................................................................................................. 3-4

3.5 Bedrock ............................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.6 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-4

4 Laboratory Testing Results .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Grain Size Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Atterberg Limits Analysis ................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 One-Dimensional Consolidation Tests ............................................................................. 4-2

5 Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Building Foundations ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 End Bearing Driven H-Piles ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Structural Concrete Slab ..................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 Recommended Next Steps for Detailed Design .................................................. 5-3

5.2 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................. 5-3 5.3 Frost Penetration Depth .................................................................................................. 5-4

CONTENTS

Section Page

II PR0222181511KWO REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

6 Construction Recommendations ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Excavation and Groundwater Control ............................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Shoring Design Parameters .............................................................................................. 6-1

7 Limitations of Report ............................................................................................................ 7-1

8 Closure ................................................................................................................................. 8-1

9 References ............................................................................................................................ 9-1

Appendixes

A Explanation of Borehole Logs Borehole Logs December 2015 Borehole Logs February 2016 Borehole Logs December 2016 B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results – December 2015 C Grain Size Analysis – February and December 2016

Tables

1 Summary of December 2015 Borehole Locations at Subject Property 2 Summary of February 2016 Borehole Locations at Subject Property 3 Summary of December 2016 Borehole Locations at Subject Property 4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Sample Summary – December 2015 5 Geotechnical Related Parameters Laboratory Testing Sample Summary – Since December 2015 6 Seismic Parameters 7 Groundwater Measurements Summary 8 Grain Size Analysis Test Results Summary 9 Atterberg Limits Analysis Test Results Summary 10 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test Results Summary 11 Minimum Pavement Structure 12 Earth Pressure Soil Parameter Definitions 13 Earth Pressure Soil Parameters

PR0222181511KWO III REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

Acronyms and Abbreviations AC Asphaltic Concrete

ASTM American Standard Test Method

CH2M CH2M HILL Canada Limited

CSRS Canadian Spatial Reference System

GM Canada General Motors of Canada Company

K value Hydraulic Conductivity Value

km Kilometer

kPA Kilopascal

m metre

m3 cubic metre

masl Metres Above Sea Level

mbgs metre below ground surface

MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment (now the MOECC)

MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

OBC Ontario Building Code

O. Reg. Ontario Regulation

ODC One Dimensional Consolidation

OGS Ontario Geological Survey

OPA Official Plan Amendment

OPSS Ontario Provincial Standards and Specifications

OPSD Ontario Provincial Standard Drawing

R&D Research and Development

ROW right-of-way

SPMDD Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

SPT Standard Penetration Test

SVT Shear Vane Test

Table 3 Standards Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition for Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use for coarse grained soils

TRCA Toronto Regional Conservation Authority

TW Thin Wall Tube

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VST Vane Shear Test

SECTION 1

PR0222181511KWO 1-1 REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

Introduction 1.1 Project Background CH2M HILL Canada Limited (CH2M) is pleased to present this Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Revised PGR) to General Motors of Canada Company (GM Canada) for the Subject Property located at 721 Eastern Avenue, north of Lake Shore Boulevard East and west of Leslie Street, in the City of Toronto, Ontario (“City”). A Site Location Plan is provided as Figure 1.

On March 31, 2017, GM Canada submitted an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment along with a Plan of Subdivision (files 17 137240 STE 30 OZ and 17 137249 STE 30 SB respectively) to permit the development of office space, research, and development facilities, ancillary retail, and an auto dealership on the Subject Property. As part of the above-noted applications, the Toronto GM Mobility Campus Planning Rationale (dated March 29, 2017) was submitted to the City. A Notice of Complete Application and Assignment of Application under the City's STAR Process was received on May 18, 2017. As part of the above noted applications, a Preliminary Geotechnical Report (original PGR; CH2M, 2017a) was submitted to the City in March 2017.

An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) application was submitted on October 30, 2017. A Notice of Complete Application for the OPA was received dated November 6, 2017.

On November 30, 2017, an application for Site Plan Approval was filed for the development of Site 1 and the new Public Right-of-Way (ROW) (17 269708 STE 30 SA). A PGR Addendum letter, dated November 28, 2017, was submitted as part of that application.

1.2 Purpose of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report As in the original March 2017 submission (original PGR), the proposed development will support employment space across 3 development blocks (referred to as Sites 1, 2 and 3).

The purpose of the investigation in December 2015, related to the original PGR, was to assess the soil and groundwater conditions at the Subject Property related to preliminary geotechnical considerations for possible future development. This revised and updated report has now considered additional available geotechnical-related information that has been assembled and collected between January 2016 and February 2018 to further support the understanding of the Subject Property from a geotechnical perspective and provide an updated subsurface assessment based on the current understanding of conceptual design plans for the Subject Property.

This report includes factual results of the field investigations program carried out for this project, the results of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and preliminary design recommendations for the proposed construction as they relate to the geotechnical aspects of the project. The scope of the reporting requirements for preliminary geotechnical consideration to support a proposed future development was communicated to CH2M in December 2015. This Revised PGR addresses comments from the City received to date and summarizes the key changes to the proposed development.

The comments and input received to date include City staff’s comments in the Preliminary Staff Report (dated August 23, 2017), corresponding discussions with City staff, comments from the community (in particular from the community meeting on November 2, 2017) and comments from the Design Review Panel (November 2, 2017).

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1-2 PR0222181511KWO REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

1.3 Overview of the Proposed Development GM Canada envisions a master planned employment campus that secures the Subject Property as an employment generator for the long term while integrating a range of employment uses in well designed and attractive urban buildings. As in the March 2017 and November 2017 submissions, at full build-out, the proposed development will support employment space across 3 development blocks (referred to as Site 1, 2 and 3) and a publicly accessible private open space (referred to as Innovation Plaza or Site 4). The development proposal for the Subject Property provides for 74,500 m2 of employment uses, creating an opportunity for up to 2,550 new high-order jobs.

The development will occur in phases. The first phase prioritizes the development of the Toronto GM Mobility Campus, Innovation Plaza and the new public ROW and associated infrastructure and grading. Phase 2 includes the development of Sites 2 and 3 and additional site works. The updated proposed Site Plan Layout is presented in Figure 2.

1.3.1 Phase 1: the GM Campus 1.3.1.1 Site 1 The “Toronto GM Mobility Campus” will be located on the south portion of the Subject Property (“Site 1”). The Toronto GM Mobility Campus will be housed in a multi-functional 5-storey 26,266 m2 building, comprised entirely of employment uses. The building has been carefully designed in order to ensure prominence, visibility, access and an active frontage on Lake Shore Boulevard, Eastern Avenue and the new public ROW.

1.3.1.2 New Public Right-of-Way The proposed development will be serviced by a new public ROW that will connect Eastern Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard and the Lower Don Trail through the Subject Property. The new Rushbrooke Avenue Public ROW (or “new public ROW”) is designed as a local road with a 20.0 m wide ROW aligning with the eastern property line of the Subject Property.

1.3.1.3 Innovation Plaza Innovation Plaza - the new privately owned but publicly accessible open space - will form the main pedestrian link south from Eastern Avenue to the GM Mobility Campus. This enhancement will be provided in the first phase of development with Site 1 in an interim condition and will be enhanced through subsequent development approvals associated with Site 2 and Site 3.

1.3.2 Phase 2: Sites 2 + 3 The northern portion of the Subject Property is composed of Sites 2 and 3 and an enhanced Innovation Plaza. Sites 2 and 3 are proposed to be developed for over 48,000 m2 (~518,000 ft2) of combined non-residential uses including office and ancillary employee-serving retail uses. When combined with the employment space proposed in the GM Campus, the entire Subject Property will be a long-term employment generator for the immediate South of Eastern community and the broader City.

The OPA, ZBA and Plan of Subdivision applications address Sites 2 and 3 to provide for and secure a general framework for the entirety of the Subject Property. No site plan application has yet been submitted for Sites 2 and 3 as a detailed design exercise will only occur when a development partner is brought on or the lands are sold.

SECTION 2


Methodology The initial geotechnical investigation was carried out in December 2015, and the original PGR was finalized for submission to the City in March 2017 (CH2M, 2017a). The purpose of the report was to assess the soil and groundwater conditions at the 721 Eastern Property related to preliminary geotechnical considerations for possible future development at the Subject Property. The current Proposed Development plans were not known at the time of the 2015 investigation.

This report includes updates to the geological stratigraphy information of the Site, based on the 2016 environmental site investigation results. The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and preliminary design recommendations for the alignment of the new proposed public ROW as they relate to the geotechnical aspects of the project were reviewed considering the recent site design changes.

2.1 Site Description The Subject Property is located at 721 Eastern Avenue in the City of Toronto, Ontario. It comprises of an approximate area of 2.8 hectares (7 acres). Currently, the property consists of two multi-storey buildings. The larger of the two buildings is located within the northwest quadrant of the property and measures approximately 90 m by 115 m. The smaller of the two buildings is located within the southeast quadrant of the property and measures approximately 22 m by 55 m. The remainder of the property consists of asphaltic concrete pavement thus rendering the ground surface relatively flat. The overall gradient of the site slopes towards the south and east. The ground surface at the borehole locations range between 76.67 and 77.01 metres above sea level (masl).

2.2 Field Investigations The initial preliminary geotechnical investigation program was carried out from December 14 to 17, and 21, 2015 in tandem with the drilling conducted for Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).

Additional subsurface investigations were conducted in February 2016 and December 2016 as part of the ESA for contaminant delineation, characterization and hydrogeological purposes but did not include any further specifically geotechnical related work other than limited grain-size analysis, general stratigraphic observations and depth to water table. Each of the investigations are briefly described below.

Prior to commencing the drilling activities all utilities were located through the Ontario One Call system and additionally the services of a private locating firm were procured for any outstanding utilities.

Prior to commencing the drilling activities all utilities were again located through the Ontario One Call system and utilizing the service of OnSite locates, a private locator.

All boreholes, except where monitoring wells have been installed, were backfilled with bentonite pellets in accordance with Ontario Water Resources Act R.R.O. 1990, Ontario Regulation 903. The results of the field in-situ testing, observations and geologic descriptions have been logged and plotted on the Log of Boreholes, Appendix A. It should be noted that the logs for both the February and December 2016 Investigations are not presented in Geotechnical format but rather typical ESA sampling format as these locations were installed to fulfill ESA objectives. These have been included to further supplement the subsurface knowledge and stratigraphy of the Subject Property.

SECTION 2 – METHODOLOGY


2.2.1 December 2015 Investigation The investigation included the advancement of sixteen (16) boreholes strategically located throughout the Subject Property. Two additional boreholes were proposed within the Subject Property but were cancelled due to refusal within 0.3 m of the surface. A Borehole Location Plan is provided as Figure 3. The boreholes were located with a handheld GPS unit and laid out in the field by CH2M staff. The GPS coordinates are referenced to Northing and Easting positions using UTM Zone 17 NAD 83 CSRS for the respective borehole locations. The ground surface elevations for each borehole were surveyed by J.D. Barnes Limited on February 5, 2016. The GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations are given in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of December 2015 Borehole Locations at Subject Property

Location Ground Surface Elevation (masl)

UTM Coordinates (Zone 17 NAD 83-CSRS)

Easting Northing

BH02-15 76.83 634532.0 4835444.7

BH06-15 77.22 634562.6 4835314.1

BH08-15 77.02 634573.9 4835378.8

BH10-15 76.79 634590.1 4835426.6

BH15-15 76.90 634536.4 4835430.0

BH16-15 76.96 634542.8 4835415.1

BH18-15 76.94 634463.4 4835350.7

MW01-15 77.01 634431.8 4835409.9

MW03-15 76.76 634473.8 4835260.2

MW07-15 76.81 634589.5 4835338.7

MW09-15 77.09 634545.5 4835402.5

MW11-15 76.67 634578.6 4835466.6

MW12-15 76.85 634443.5 4835373.5

MW13-15 76.85 634455.9 4835336.9

MW14-15 76.73 634477.8 4835322.0

MW17-15 76.93 634457.1 4835377.8

Drilling and soil samples collected were completed using the services of a specialist drilling contractor, Atcost Drilling Services. Inc., utilizing a CME 85 truck-mounted drilling rig as well as a track mounted 7822DT Geoprobe utilizing a direct push percussion hammer method. The drilling was supervised full time between two members of CH2M’s geotechnical and environmental team under the indirect supervision of a Senior Geotechnical Engineer.

The distribution of boreholes between the two drill rigs were divided equally as follows: boreholes MW01-15, BH02-15, MW09-15, BH10-15, MW12-15, MW13-15, MW17-15 and BH18-15 were completed via the track mounted 7822DT Geoprobe. Boreholes MW03-15, BH06-15, MW07-15, BH08-15, MW11-15, MW14-15, BH15-15 and BH16-15 were completed via the truck mounted CME 85. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and Vane Shear Tests (VST) were carried out at frequent intervals for the boreholes completed with the truck mounted CME 85. The results of the SPT tests in terms of ‘N’



values, have been used to infer the consistency of cohesive soils, or relative density of cohesionless soil. Additionally, nine (9) thin wall (TW) tube samples were taken from five (5) borehole locations at select depth intervals. The soils cuttings were managed and contained in transport drums for proper disposal.

Groundwater conditions within the boreholes were observed during the drilling investigation and recorded prior to backfilling. Nine (9) groundwater monitoring wells were installed as part of this investigation.

The geotechnical soil samples were carefully sealed, labelled, preserved and transported to our laboratory for final classification and further testing. The thin wall tube samples were carefully preserved and transported to the geotechnical laboratory for testing.

2.2.2 February 2016 Investigation A total of 12 monitoring wells and one borehole were installed as per Table 2 and as shown on Figure 3.

Drilling and soil samples collected were completed using Profile Drilling utilizing a Power Probe 9700VTR. The drilling was supervised full time by a CH2M environmental technician.

Monitoring well and borehole elevation survey was completed on Friday February 5, 2016 by JD Barnes to capture ground surface and measurement point elevations at these 13 locations.

Table 2. Summary of February 2016 Borehole Locations at Subject Property

Location Ground Surface Elevation (masl) UTM Coordinates (Zone 17 NAD 83-CSRS)

Easting Northing

BH28-16 76.94 634487.1 4835368.8

MW19-16 76.96 634422.8 4835414.9

MW20-16 76.76 634508.4 4835444.4

MW21-16 76.83 634468.4 4835431.2

MW22-16 76.88 634429.2 4835397.6

MW23-16 76.84 634435.2 4835379.5

MW24-16 76.83 634441.0 4835362.8

MW25-16 76.86 634459.3 4835306.4

MW26-16 77.26 634574.3 4835313.8

MW27-16 76.94 634474.2 4835412.9

MW29-16 77.06 634528.6 4835315.4

MW30-16 76.96 634422.5 4835415.8

MW31-16 76.76 634509.1 4835444.5

2.2.3 December 2016 Investigation A total of 11 monitoring wells were installed during this phase of investigation for groundwater sampling with soil samples collected from 14 new borehole locations. Drilling and soil samples collected were completed by Profile Drilling utilizing either a Power Probe 9700VTR or 9100P utilizing a direct push percussion hammer method for soil sampling and augering capability where required for well installation. The drilling was supervised full time by a CH2M environmental technician.



All sampling locations are shown in Figure 3 and were located using the most up to date survey data collected by WSP in December 2016. These locations are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of December 2016 Borehole Locations at Subject Property Location Ground Surface Elevation

(masl) UTM Coordinates (Zone 17 NAD 83-CSRS)

Easting Northing

BH33-16 76.95 634494.8 4835400.5

BH36-16 78.13 634514.8 4835358.8

BH40-16 77.24 634609.7 4835345.4

BH43-16 76.94 634581.1 4835360.2

BH45-16 77.18 634575.4 4835313.0

BH46-16 76.94 634494.6 4835351.9

BH47-16 76.93 634470.8 4835344.6

MW32-16 76.84 634489.0 4835425.4

MW34-16 76.95 634499.8 4835386.1

MW35-16 76.95 634500.1 4835384.9

MW37-16 77.10 634559.5 4835373.2

MW38-16 77.13 634560.6 4835373.6

MW39-16 77.25 634606.0 4835372.3

MW41-16 77.02 634614.2 4835333.5

MW42-16 77.03 634612.6 4835333.0

MW44-16 76.82 634589.4 4835337.7

MW48-16 76.94 634478.9 4835347.4

MW49-16 76.95 634478.4 4835348.8

2.3 Laboratory Testing The soil samples secured by the split barrel sampler of the SPT tests were properly sealed, labeled and transported to our laboratory for further examination and final classification. Several samples were selected for geotechnical laboratory tests including gradation analysis, Atterberg Limits tests and natural moisture contents. Of the nine thin wall tube samples collected, five (5) samples were submitted to the geotechnical laboratory for consolidation testing. The summary of the geotechnical laboratory testing program is shown in Table 4 below with the results reported on the borehole logs contained in Appendix A.

Table 4. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Sample Summary – December 2015

Borehole Gradation Analysis Atterberg Limits Test One-Dimensional Consolidation Test

MW03-15 TW7, SS13 TW7, SS13 TW7

BH06-15 TW7 TW7 TW7

MW07-15 TW9 TW9 TW9

BH08-15 TW7, SS11 TW7, SS11



The laboratory testing program summarized above was carried out to confirm the textural classifications of the samples and provide geotechnical parameters of the underlying materials. The results of the geotechnical laboratory tests are provided in Appendix B.

No further geotechnical laboratory testing has been completed since December 2015. Grain size analysis has been conducted on additional samples from within the Subject Property and these samples are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Geotechnical Related Parameters Laboratory Testing Sample Summary – Since December 2015

Borehole Sample Number Depth of Sample – Grain Size Analysis (mbgs)

MW32-16 (1-3) DT2 0.61-0.91

MW32-16 (10-12) DT6 3.05-3.66

BH40-16 (0-2) DT1 0.00-0.61

MW37-16 (20-24) DT6a 6.10-7.30

MW41-16 (2-4) DT2a (20-24) DT6a

1.22-1.83 6.10-7.32

MW44-16 (25-27) DT7a 7.62-8.23

MW48-16 (0-2) DT1a (22-24) DT6b

0.15-0.61 6.71-7.32

The laboratory testing program summarized above was carried out to confirm the field grain size classifications of the samples and therefore are presented herein to further augment the grain size results from December 2015. The results of these geotechnical laboratory tests are provided in Appendix C.

SECTION 3


Subsurface Conditions A detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations only are provided in the Logs of Boreholes, Appendix A. With the exception of monitoring wells MW03-15, MW09-15, MW17-15 and borehole BH18-15, the drilling advanced through a 50-mm thick layer of asphaltic concrete. At two locations, namely borehole BH18-15 and monitoring well MW17-15, a 170-mm thick conventional concrete slab was advanced through at the surface. At monitoring well MW03-15 a 1.07 m thick surficial layer of sand and gravel fill was encountered. All boreholes were advanced through fill materials, typically consisting of sand to sand and gravel. Localized fill consisting of gravel with sand, silty sand and silty clay was also encountered. The fill materials ranged in thickness from 0.69 to 3.66 m and extended to elevations ranging from 76.24 to 73.59 masl. Several boreholes (BH18-15, BH40-16 and BH46/47-16) were terminated within the fill based on auger refusal. Below the fill materials, the native soils at the Subject Property consist of sand, clayey silt and silty clay to clay deposits. Native sand was encountered at one location, namely monitoring well MW01-15. The thickness of the sand was measured to be 1.22 m and was encountered at an elevation ranging from 75.79 to 74.57 masl. The clayey silt deposits ranged in thickness from 0.46 to 1.73 m and were encountered at elevations ranging from 75.73 to 73.35 masl. Organic silt and peat layers, generally less than 20 cm thick were noted at several locations (BH43-16, BH45-16, MW37-38-16, MW41/42-16 and MW48-16) ranging from 74 to 75.5 masl in the south half of the Subject Property. This layer may be indicative of the original Lake bottom prior to infilling of the southern half of the Subject Property. The native silty clay to clay deposits ranged in thickness from 0.15 to 10.64 m and were encountered at elevations ranging from 76.09 to 64.17 masl. With the exception of borehole BH18-15 all boreholes were terminated in the silty clay to clay deposit. No bedrock coring was completed as part of this investigation. Quaternary Geological Maps (Sharpe, D.R., 1980) indicate that the bedrock at the Subject Property is Shale of the Georgian Bay Formation. At borehole BH08-15, monitoring well MW03-15 and MW07-15 inferred bedrock was encountered based on auger refusal. The depth at which auger refusal was encountered ranged from 12.47 to 12.59 mbgs at an elevation of 64.55 to 64.03 masl. A brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered is presented in Sections 3.2 to 3.5 below. It should be noted that the subsurface conditions described are for the borehole locations only.

3.1 Regional Physiography According to “The Physiography of Southern Ontario” (Chapman and Putnam, 1984) the Subject Property lies within the physiographic region known as the Iroquois Plain. The Iroquois Plain is described as the lowland bordering Lake Ontario extending from the Niagara River to the Trent River which was deposited when the last glacier at the end of the last ice age was receding. The prehistoric glacial Lake Iroquois was an enlargement of Lake Ontario. Locally, the surficial soils consist of fill materials. The upper soils are expected to be coarse grained glaciolacustrine foreshore and basin deposits (OGS, 2010). These deposits are expected to range from nearshore and beach sand and gravel with minor silt and clays (Barnett, 1991) to sand and silty sand shoreline deposits (Sharpe, 1980). The lower deposits contain significant amounts of clay and likely belong to the Sunnybrook Till deposit which is described as a clay-rich till (Sharpe, 1980). Inferred bedrock was encountered at three locations below the native clayey deposits. Based on Quaternary Geological maps, the shale bedrock at the Subject Property is Shale of the Georgian Bay Formation (Sharpe, 1980). The bedrock is described as shale with interbedded dolomitic siltstone and minor limestone. The Georgian Bay Formation is approximately 250 m thick and dips to the southeast at approximately 5 m per kilometre (km).

SECTION 3 – SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS


3.1.1 Seismic Considerations It is required that structures within the Subject Property be designed to withstand forces caused by seismic activity in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC). The related parameters for the design and consideration of seismic activities acting on the proposed structures are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Seismic Parameters

Parameter Site Source

Site Class D* 2012 Ontario Building Code Table 4.1.8.4.A

Sa (0.2) 0.258 2015 National Building Code of Canada Seismic Hazard Values

Sa (1.0) 0.064 2015 National Building Code of Canada Seismic Hazard Values

Fa 1.29 2012 Ontario Building Code Table 4.1.8.4.B

Fv 1.4 2012 Ontario Building Code Table 4.1.8.4.C

Note:

*Conditional based on comments below.

The conditional classification is based on the variable results of the preliminary information available at the time of the preliminary investigation. Consideration is given to the Ontario Building Code’s criteria for Site Class “E” which includes any profile with more than 3 m of soil that has a plasticity index greater than 20, a natural moisture content greater than 40% and undrained shear strength less than 25 kPa.

The silty clay to clay deposits which were encountered in borehole BH08-15 and monitoring wells MW03-15 and MW07-15 ranged in thickness from 9.54 to 10.64 m and were described as having very soft to soft consistencies and moist to wet water content. Based on the in-situ testing completed within these three boreholes, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance values ranged from 0 to 28 blows per 300 mm indicating a very soft to stiff consistency but was generally soft. Additionally, in-situ shear vane tests (SVT) were completed in these deposits to confirm the undrained shear strength. The corrected values of the in-situ undrained shear strength ranged from 6 to 200 kPa indicating a very soft to very stiff consistency. Due to the variable results of the in-situ SVT’s completed, it cannot be confirmed whether a profile exists within the deposit which contains greater than 3 m of soil with undrained shear strength less than 25 kPa. However, based on the field descriptions and the results of the in-situ testing, there is some extent of this deposit which meets the undrained shear strength criteria.

Laboratory natural moisture content tests were performed on select samples obtained within the silty clay to clay deposits encountered in borehole BH08-15 and monitoring well MW07-15. The results of the laboratory tests completed indicate that the natural moisture content of the samples obtained range from 15.6 to 34.6%. Additionally, Atterberg Limits’ tests were completed on four samples obtained within the silty clay to clay deposit encountered within the three mentioned boreholes. Based on the results of the tests completed, the plasticity index ranges from 9.1 to 21.1.

The results of the investigation did not determine that the criteria for Site Class “E” has been met. There is concern that the significantly large silty clay to clay deposit can contain a profile which meets this criteria on Site and within the proposed building footprint. The Subject Property has been given a conditional Site Class of “D” based on the findings of the investigation as they compare to the 2012 Ontario Building Code Table 4.1.8.4.A. Prior to the development and detailed design for each of the Sites, and as part of the next level of geotechnical site investigation, in-situ seismic testing must be completed at the Subject Property to confirm this classification.



3.2 Existing Pavement 3.2.1 Asphaltic Concrete With the exception of 6 locations (MW03-15, MW09-15, MW17-15, MW21-16, MW37-16, BH45-16) and those located inside existing buildings, all boreholes were advanced through a surficial layer of asphaltic concrete (AC). The thickness of the AC varied between 50 and 150 mm. At all locations, the AC was underlain by sand and gravel to sand fill. At BH06-15, a second AC layer was encountered below the sand fill at a depth of 0.1 mbgs. The second AC layer was measured to be 100 mm thick. At MW41/42-16 a thicker, 410 mm crushed asphaltic fill layer was encountered at the ground surface.

3.2.2 Concrete At the thirteen boreholes installed within the existing buildings, a surficial concrete slab was encountered. The thickness of the concrete was measured to vary between 150 and 250 mm. At these locations, the concrete was underlain by sand and gravel fill.

3.3 Fill Material 3.3.1 Sand to Sand and Gravel Fill With the exception of monitoring well MW03-15, sand to sand and gravel fill material was encountered below the surficial AC and concrete slab in all boreholes. The fill ranged in thickness from 0.69 m to 3.66 m but was generally approximately 1.5 m to 2.0 m in thickness. The sand to sand and gravel fill contained traces of silt, brick fragments, cinders, ash, slag and wood fragments. The fill was brown to grey with black staining and dry to moist.

Standard Penetration resistances in the sand to sand and gravel fill had ‘N’ values ranging from 1 to 25 blows per 300 mm indicating a very loose to compact relative density but was generally loose.

3.3.2 Silty Clay Fill Below the sand to sand and gravel fill in boreholes MW03-15 and MW14-15, a layer of silty clay fill was encountered. The silty clay fill ranged in thickness from 1.22 m to 1.98 m and extended to depths ranging from 2.44 m to 3.05 m below ground surface. The silty clay fill contained some brick fragments, was dark grey to black and moist to saturated.

Standard Penetration resistances in the earth fill had ‘N’ values ranging from 2 to 4 blows per 300 mm indicating a very soft to soft consistency.

3.3.3 Sandy Silt Fill Below the sand and gravel fill in borehole MW01-15, a layer of sandy silt fill was encountered. The thickness of the sandy silt fill was measured to be 0.61 m and extended to a depth of 1.22 m below ground surface. The fill material contained trace brick fragments, was moist and dark brown with black staining.

3.4 Native Overburden Soil 3.4.1 Sand Below the sandy silt fill in borehole MW01-15, a layer of native sand was encountered. The thickness of the native sand deposit was measured to be 1.22 m and extended to a depth of 2.44 m below ground surface. The native sand contained some silt, was saturated and yellow to greyish brown in colour.



3.4.2 Clayey Silt Below the native sand deposit in borehole MW01-15 and the sand to sand and gravel fill in boreholes BH02-15, BH10-15, MW12-15 and MW13-15, a native layer of clayey silt was encountered. The thickness of the clayey silt deposit ranged from 0.46 m to 1.73 m and extended to depths ranging from 1.83 m to 3.66 m below ground surface. The native clayey silt contained traces of sand and gravel, was moist to wet and brown to grey, generally mottled with occasional black staining.

3.4.3 Silty Clay to Clay Below the fill materials and native deposits in all boreholes, with the exception of borehole BH18-15, native silty clay to clay was encountered which extended to the vertical limit of investigation in all boreholes. The native silty clay to clay deposits contained traces of sand and gravel, was brown to grey with occasional mottling, oxidation staining and was moist to wet.

Standard Penetration resistances in the silty clay to clay deposit had ‘N’ values ranging from 0 to 15 blows per 300 mm indicating a very soft to stiff consistency but was typically firm. The natural moisture content of the silty clay to clay deposits ranged from 11.4% to 34.6% indicating a moist to wet condition.

Additionally, in-situ VSTs were completed in the silty clay to clay deposit at several borehole locations. The corrected peak undrained shear strength values have been calculated in accordance with ASTM D2573 and reported on the Logs of Boreholes, Appendix A. Generally, the field values of the undrained shear strength ranged from 41.4 kPa to greater than 200 kPa indicating a firm to hard consistency. The corrected values of the undrained shear strength ranged from 6 kPa to 200 kPa indicating a firm to very stiff consistency. The sensitivity of the silty clay to clay deposits were calculated based on the measured remolded shear stress and ranged from 1.0 to 4.0.

Four samples of the native silty clay to clay deposits were submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing, namely MW03-15 TW7 and SS13, MW07-15 TW9 and BH08-15 SS11. All samples were submitted for grain size analysis tests. By mass, the samples contained 0% to 8% gravel, 5% to 24% Sand, 33% to 74% Silt and 26% to 61% Clay. Additionally, all samples were submitted for Atterberg Limits tests. The Plastic Limit ranged from 13.8% to 18.9%, the Liquid Limit ranged from 22.9% to 39.5% and the Plasticity Index ranged from 9.1 to 21.1. The samples are classified as inorganic clays with low to medium plasticity (Cl to CL).

3.5 Bedrock As part of this investigation, BH08-15, MW03-15 and MW07-15 were advanced to auger refusal on inferred bedrock. The inferred bedrock surface ranges from 12.47 to 12.59 metres below ground surface. A previous investigation carried out by Jacques Whitford and Associates Limited, “Project No. 10337” dated November 13, 1998 indicate borehole termination depths ranging from 12.2 to 12.9 mbgs based on BH4, BH5 and BH6. It is deduced form the above information that the bedrock at the Subject Property will be encountered at depths ranging from 12.2 to 12.9 mbgs. Based on Ontario Geological Survey Map 2545 (OGS, 1991) it is anticipated that the bedrock will consist of Shale of the Georgian Bay Formation. Weathered Bedrock can range in thickness and will be confirmed by a supplemental Geotechnical Investigation at the detailed design stage.

3.6 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater observations were made in the open boreholes at the time of completion prior to backfilling in accordance with Ontario Water Resources Act R.R.O. 1990, Ontario Regulation 903, latest amendment. Nine (9) groundwater monitoring wells were installed as part of the December 2015 investigation with another twenty-three (23) installed during the two subsequent investigations. The groundwater measurements made in the monitoring wells are given in Table 7 below.



Table 7. Groundwater Measurements Summary

Monitoring Well

Groundwater Level December 21, 2015

Groundwater Level January 16, 2017

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

MW01-15 1.48 75.53 1.33 75.68

MW03-15 1.20 75.56 0.80 75.96

MW07-15 1.45 75.36 1.30 75.51

MW09-15 1.89 75.07 1.89 75.20

MW11-15 2.02 74.65 1.69* 74.98*

MW12-15 1.02 75.72 1.08 75.77

MW13-15 1.12 75.73 0.94 75.91

MW14-15 1.10 75.63 0.83 75.90

MW17-15 1.16 75.63 1.22 75.71

MW19-16 - - 1.32 75.65

MW20-16 - - 2.02 74.74

MW21-16 - - 1.69 75.14

MW22-16 - - 1.04 75.84

MW23-16 - - 0.85 75.99

MW24-16 - - 0.84 75.99

MW25-16 - - 0.77 76.09

MW26-16 - - 1.71 75.55

MW27-16 - - 1.56 75.38

MW29-16 - - 1.29 75.77

MW30-16^ - - 1.32 75.63

MW31-16^ - - 1.98 74.77

MW32-16 - - 1.75 75.09

MW34-16^ - - 1.57 75.38

MW35-16 - - 1.52 75.43

MW37-16^ - - 1.57 75.53

MW38-16 - - 1.62 75.51

MW39-16 - - 1.79 75.46

MW41-16^ - - 1.60 75.42

MW42-16 - - 1.50 75.53

MW44-16^ - - 1.43 75.39

MW48-16^ - - 1.17 75.77



Table 7. Groundwater Measurements Summary

Monitoring Well

Groundwater Level December 21, 2015

Groundwater Level January 16, 2017

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

MW49-16 - - 1.14 75.81

Notes:

^ = Screened in deeper overburden; not representative of water table

* = not accessible due to snow pile; measurement from February 10, 2016

As shown in the table above, the groundwater level at the Subject Property is relatively shallow and ranges from 0.77 to 2.02 metres below ground surface (74.74 to 76.09 meters above sea level). It should be noted that groundwater levels change and fluctuate seasonally in response to climate conditions and/or heavy infiltration events.

SECTION 4


Laboratory Testing Results Detailed results of the geotechnical laboratory tests performed on the soil samples can be found in Appendix B. A brief description of the results of the geotechnical laboratory testing results is given in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 below.

A total of forty-seven (47) samples were submitted to Thurber Engineering Ltd. for geotechnical testing. The laboratory tests included gradation analysis, Atterberg Limits tests, one-dimensional consolidation tests and natural moisture contents. Thurber Engineering Ltd is accredited by the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories.

4.1 Grain Size Analysis Laboratory Grain Size Analysis tests were performed on thirteen (13) representative samples of soils obtained from boreholes as indicated in Table 8. The results of the Grain Size Analysis tests are presented in Appendix B as well as Table 8 below.

Table 8. Grain Size Analysis Test Results Summary

Borehole Depth (mbgs) %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

MW03-15 3.96 – 4.41 0 5 66 29

MW03-15 10.67 – 11.27 8 24 42 26

MW07-15 6.1 – 6.55 0 0 74 26

BH08-15 7.62 – 8.22 0 6 33 61

MW32-16 0.31-0.91 0 72.7 23.1 4.2

MW32-16 3.05-3.66 0 21.6 60.7 17.7

BH40-16 0.00-0.61 0 90.9 7.8 1.3

MW37-16 6.10-7.30 0 7.9 66 26.1

MW41-16 1.22-1.83 0 67.8 29.3 2.9

MW41-16 6.10-7.32 0 4.6 60.8 34.5

MW44-16 7.62-8.23 0 37.0 50.0 13.0

MW48-16 0.0-0.61 0 72.5 19.5 8

MW48-16 6.71-7.32 0 9.8 63.7 26.5

The results of the grain size analysis for the above selected samples collected from below the fill (~2 mbgs) reveal that the soils are generally fine grained, containing greater than 50% of the mass passing the 75 μm sieve size. These soils are estimated to have very low hydraulic conductivity values typically less than 10-6 m/s and are considered relatively impermeable. The grain size analysis from the fill indicate coarse soils or greater than 50% sand.

SECTION 4 – LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS


4.2 Atterberg Limits Analysis Laboratory Atterberg Limits tests were performed on the four (4) representative samples of soils in addition to the grain size analysis tests. The results of the Atterberg Limits tests are presented in Appendix B as well as Table 9 below.

Table 9. Atterberg Limits Analysis Test Results Summary

Borehole Depth (mbgs) Sample Description Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Plasticity Index

Classification

MW03-15 3.96 – 4.41 SILTY CLAY, trace sand 31.3 18.9 12.4 CL

MW03-15 10.67 – 11.27 SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel

22.9 13.8 9.1 CL

MW07-15 6.10 – 6.55 SILTY CLAY 29.0 18.0 11.0 CL

BH08-15 7.62 – 8.22 SILTY CLAY, trace sand 39.5 18.4 21.1 CI

The results of the Atterberg Limits tests for the above selected samples indicate that the soils are inorganic clays with low to medium plasticity (Cl to CL). These clays are referred to as “lean clay” because they have a higher silt content.

4.3 One-Dimensional Consolidation Tests Laboratory One-Dimensional Consolidation (ODC) Tests were performed on two (2) representative soil samples obtained from boreholes MW03-15 and BH07-15. The results of the ODC tests are presented in Appendix B as well as Table 10 below.

Table 10. One-Dimensional Consolidation Test Results Summary

Borehole Depth (mbgs) Approximate Pre-consolidation

Pressure, σ'c (kN/m2) Compression Index, Cc Swelling Index, Cs

MW03-15 3.95-4.55 220 0.17 0.013

MW07-15 6.10-6.55 225 0.16 0.021

Based on the results of the laboratory tests, the samples had an interpreted pre-consolidation pressure ranging from 220 to 225 kPa and a swelling index to compression index ratio ranging from 1:8 to 1:13.

SECTION 5


Discussion and Recommendations The discussion and recommendations below are based on the factual data obtained from the field investigation as well as the laboratory testing results. The recommendations are based on CH2M’s understanding of the proposed construction at the Subject Property as described in Section 1. This includes the proposed construction of the following: a new multi storey commercial building (GM Mobility Campus) with no basement, parking areas within and surrounding the building and access roads within Site 1.

The proposed developments on Sites 2 and 3 are in the schematic design stage as described in Section 1.3.2 and details relating to internal configuration, final massing, at grade uses, and parking structures have yet to be determined. For the purposes of this assessment and as suggested in discussion with City of Toronto engineering, it has been assumed that a multi-level subgrade (~10 mbgs) parking garage may be considered in future designs for Sites 2 and 3.

The initial investigation was completed without consideration for the proposed developments on Sites 2 and 3. The discussions and recommendations provided below have been prepared for Site 1 only but may be considered for Sites 2 and 3. The additional conceptual design elements that are being considered for Sites 2 and 3, which are not common with current design elements for Site 1, such as underground parking structures, have not been included in this assessment. The foundation engineering guidelines are in accordance with the most recent edition of the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM).

The field program revealed that the majority of the site comprises of asphaltic concrete pavement and two multi-storey buildings. The two existing buildings are located within the northwest and southeast quadrants of the 3.439 hectares (8.5 acres) property. The pavement structure typically consists of a 50-mm surficial layer of asphaltic concrete underlain by sand to sand and gravel fill ranging in thickness from 0.77 m to 2.7 m. The native soils at the Subject Property typically consist of clayey silt to sand deposits underlain by firm silty clay to clay deposits.

5.1 Building Foundations It is our understanding that the proposed developments at the subject property would consist of multi storey buildings (original design) with possible underground structures on Sites 2 and 3 (new information, 2018). Preliminary design recommendations with respect to the building foundations have been given below based on the current information available. At the detailed design stage, the design team must give consideration to the relatively shallow groundwater level at the Subject Property.

5.1.1 End Bearing Driven H-Piles The existing fill materials and underlying native very soft to firm silty clay to clay deposits are considered unsuitable for supporting conventional spread footing foundations. Additionally, the groundwater level was measured to range from 0.77 to 2.02 mbgs, which would likely warrant dewatering measures during the construction of conventional spread footings. Due to these two factors, it is recommended that the proposed multi storey commercial buildings be founded on end bearing driven H-Piles seated within the Shale Bedrock. It is recommended that a supplemental geotechnical investigation be completed to determine the engineering parameters of the bedrock at the Subject Property. A Geotechnical Engineer should monitor the driving of the piles in the field and confirm the capacity during the construction. The pile termination criteria will be determined by the driving hammer type, helmet, pile dimensions and length.

SECTION 5 – DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Consideration must be given to the yield strength of the pile material when selecting the appropriate driving hammer. In conformance with the most recent edition of the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), the allowable geotechnical stress of the pile should be limited to a factor of 2 times the modulus of elasticity to the speed of strain wave in the pile until field verification can be completed. The rated energy of the driving hammer should not exceed a value of 6 x 106 Newton-metre (Joules) times the cross-sectional area of the pile. The impact stress delivered by the hammer should not exceed the yield strength of the steel. Consideration should be given to the eccentricity of the hammer blows, bending and reflected forces from the pile toe. A driving shoe on the toe of the pile is recommended to prevent deformation of the pile particularly when penetrating the Bedrock. Protection should be considered for corrosion as the fill materials and water table will contribute to the steel corroding over time.

The native soils at the Subject Property mainly consist of cohesive clayey silt, silty clay and clay deposits. The inferred surface of the bedrock determined by the field drilling is estimated to range from 12.47 to 12.78 mbgs. The bottom depth of the fill materials ranged from 0.69 to 3.66 mbgs. Therefore, the thickness of the cohesive overburden at the Subject Property will range from approximately 9.34 m to 11.99 m which represents a significant length of the proposed piles. The native cohesive soils will be subject to further consolidation through the construction of the structural slab and associated backfill. Through this consolidation the movement of the cohesive soils adjacent to the piles will induce negative skin frictions resulting in down-drag forces. The down-drag forces can be calculated when the size of the pile has been finalized based on the length of the pile embedded in the cohesive soils, the perimeter length of the pile and the unit negative skin friction. The unit negative skin friction can be calculated when the final surface grade elevation is known combined with the consolidations test results.

Steel H-Piles are considered low displacement piles whereby they do not significantly displace the penetrated soil adjacent to the pile. However, the underlying native cohesive soils have relatively high naturally occurring moisture content and are below the measured groundwater level. The dynamic driving of the steel piles will likely generate high pore water pressures which can temporarily reduce the bearing capacity of the driven pile and adjacent piles as well as affect the reconsolidation process of the clay around the pile. Therefore, it is recommended that the top of the piles be measured upon completion and up to 30 days after completion of the nearest adjacent piles.

The bearing capacity of the piles should be confirmed by load testing. The Structural Engineer in consultation with the contractor shall determine the exact number of piles to be tested. A minimum of 1% of the piles installed is recommended for load testing. Full time supervision of the piling production should be carried out by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer.

5.1.2 Structural Concrete Slab Preliminary settlement analysis indicates that a slab on grade construction method is not achievable due to the significant compressible clay deposits below the existing fill material. Therefore, the piles caps for the end bearing driven H-Piles will support a structural concrete slab. Due to the relatively shallow groundwater level (0.77 to 2.02 mbgs), it is recommended that a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum thickness of 150 mm of 19 mm clear stone should be placed below the slab. Consideration should be given to the use of geo synthetic fabric (geotextile) and mesh (geogrid) for the construction of the structural slab. To prevent migration of the fill materials from contaminating the moisture barrier, a geotextile fabric should be placed below the 19 mm clear stone. A Geotechnical Engineer should inspect the subgrade for any soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable material prior to placing the fabric. Consideration should also be given to a geogrid for additional reinforcement of the subgrade soils.

Additionally, it is recommended that under floor drains be installed. The finished floor grade should be a minimum of 150 mm above the exterior grade. The grade of the ground surface around the perimeter of the building should slope away at a minimum 5% gradient for at least 1.5 m and at a 2% gradient or



more beyond this distance. A perimeter drain should be provided consisting of perforated pipe surrounded by 150 mm of 19 mm clear stone. A filter cloth should be provided around the pipe to prevent the intrusion of fine particles.

5.1.3 Recommended Next Steps for Detailed Design It should be noted that the purpose of this report is to provide preliminary recommendations with respect to geotechnical design only. A supplemental geotechnical investigation must be conducted at the detailed design stage for each Site in order to establish confirmation of the preferred foundation alternative and investigate the Site Classification for Seismic Site Response. These supplemental geotechnical investigations must include bedrock coring to establish engineering parameters required for building designs for each Site.

5.2 Pavement Design Proposed at-grade parking areas that will be configured on the existing pavement structures will not require any additional structural reinforcement provided they are in compliance with The City of Toronto’s minimum design requirements. The thickness of the existing pavement structure is confirmed at the borehole locations only and can vary across the Subject Property.

Where rehabilitation of the existing pavement structures for at-grade parking areas occurs, it is anticipated that the subgrade material will generally consist of sand to sand and gravel fill material underlain by native soft to firm silty clay to clay deposits with local clayey silt or sand. The subgrade soils are considered frost susceptible and typically have poor drainage capacities.

Considering these factors and the City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Guideline Summary (Applied Research Associates Inc., 2006), the pavement structure design recommendations are presented in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Minimum Pavement Structure

Pavement Layer Minimum Thickness Compaction Requirements

Surface 40 mm OPSS HL3 OPSS 310

Binder 95 mm OPSS HL8 OPSS 310

Granular Base 50 mm Granular A 100% SPMDD* (ASTM D-698)

Granular Sub Base 250 mm of Granular B Type II or 375 mm of Granular B Type I 100% SPMDD* (ASTM D-698)

Note:

*Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

Other road types and at-grade parking areas should be constructed in accordance with the City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Matrix. For the upper 1 m of subgrade directly below the granular sub base materials, the soils must be compacted to 98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Below this depth, the subgrade must be compacted to 95% SPMDD. The granular base and sub base should be placed in lifts not exceeding a thickness of 150 mm and must be compacted to 100% SPMDD as shown in Table 11 above. The asphaltic concrete surface and binder layers should be rolled and compacted as per Ontario Provincial Standards Specification (OPSS) 310.



All materials (gradations, physical properties, etc.) and their respective placement for the asphaltic concrete, granular and engineered fill should conform to OPSS 310, 501, 1010 and 150 as well as the applicable City of Toronto specifications. Quality control procedures should be maintained during the construction process to confirm the subgrade moisture and density requirements are achieved. The finished pavement surface and underlying subgrade should be free of depressions and should be crowned and sloped at a cross fall of at least 2% for the pavement surface and 3% for the underlying subgrade. Sub-drains must be provided to facilitate effective drainage of the pavement structures and minimize subgrade softening.

The new proposed public ROW which is intended for eventual conveyance to the City of Toronto, should be constructed to meet the City’s pavement design specification for public ROWs. Consideration must be given to the use of geo-synthetic mesh and fabrics to reinforce the subgrade. Localized compressible organic materials (peat) were observed below the fill layers. These materials can consolidate under the increased stresses of the new pavements and ensuing traffic loads. This can lead to failure of the pavement structure as well as deformations. Reinforcement of the subgrade can provide additional resistance to these increased stresses to bridge localized failures.

The subgrade soils should be free of any organic, deleterious or otherwise unsuitable material and should be proof-rolled and inspected by a Geotechnical Engineer for localized soft areas prior to the placement of sub base granular materials. The subgrade should be of uniform material type, for example, if semi-pervious to pervious sandy materials are placed within a depression of relatively impermeable silty clay material, localized water can become trapped resulting in ponding which would adversely affect the pavement structure should freeze thaw cycles occur before being adequately drained. Severe loading conditions will occur during the construction process. Provisions (half loads, restricted lanes, etc.) should be made if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather environments, especially when wet, un-drained subgrade conditions occur.

The very soft to soft and very loose to loose soils are considered unsuitable for subgrade support of the pavement structure and subsequent traffic loads. Where these localized unsuitable subgrade conditions occur, it is recommended that geosynthetic reinforcement of the subgrade soils be considered. A Geotechnical Engineer should inspect the subgrade prior to placing any granular sub-base material for final confirmation of the suitability of the subgrade.

The groundwater level at the Subject Property ranges from 0.77 to 2.02 mbgs. At these levels, a freeze thaw cycle could occur and cause the underlying subgrade materials to heave which would adversely affect the pavement structure. It is recommended that an adequate drainage system be constructed. Consideration should be given to the use of geo fabric materials to convey the flow of water through a desired path.

5.3 Frost Penetration Depth The silty clay fill and native silty clay to clay soils are considered frost susceptible and will heave and settle when exposed to inclement frost penetration. The typical frost penetration depth for the Subject Property is expected to be approximately 1.2 mbgs based on the Ontario Provincial Standard Drawing (OPSD) 3090.101. All footings and otherwise shallow foundations that will be exposed to frost shall be covered by a minimum 1.2 m of soil cover or thermal insulation for frost protection. If construction is carried out during the winter months, all footing locations where excavated soils become exposed to potential frost penetration should be poured within the day to prevent potential future settlements. If the footings cannot be poured within the same day the soils are excavated, the surface should be covered with thermal insulation equivalent to 1.2 m of soil cover to prevent potential freezing of the frost susceptible soils at the Subject Property.

SECTION 6


Construction Recommendations 6.1 Excavation and Groundwater Control Any excavations carried out at the Subject Property must be completed in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The undisturbed native firm to stiff silty clay to clay and any fill material above the water table are classified as Type 3 soils. For the soils below the water table, and the very soft to soft and very loose to loose soils are classified as Type 4 soils.

As per the OHSA, all slopes for temporary excavations in Type 3 soil should not exceed 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. Where excavations are carried out in Type 4 soils, the slopes should not exceed 3.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. Where excavations are carried out through multiple soil types, the side slope geometry is governed by the soil with the highest number designation. Where loose or soft soil is encountered or within seepage zones, it will be necessary to flatten the side slopes to achieve stability. Any excavated side slopes should not be left exposed to inclement weather.

Where workers must enter excavations with vertical side-walls greater than 1.2 m, the excavation must be supported in accordance with the OSHA and Regulation for Construction Projects.

Based on the field observations made during the drilling program, it is anticipated that significant groundwater seepage is likely to occur where excavations are made below the groundwater level. If groundwater levels are intercepted within the excavation, adequate pumping must be provided to prevent significant groundwater volumes from accumulating. A dewatering system such as well points can be used to depress the groundwater level below the excavation bases.

The native on-site soils are considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill material provided any organic, deleterious and/or unsuitable materials are excluded. The silty clay to clay soils must be effectively compacted with heavy vibratory pad-type rollers of sufficient size to knead the soil into a homogeneous mass. The bulking factor for the excavated silty clay deposit is approximately 1.4 and the shrinkage factor when compacted is approximately 1.05. Where imported fill is needed, documentation should be provided verifying that the soils are suitable for Commercial usage as per the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act of Ontario, dated April 15, 2011 and considering the Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal (MOECC, April 24, 2017). Where excavations encroach on any building foundations, or where the side walls cannot be suitably sloped in accordance with the OHSA and Regulation for Construction Projects, a support system will be needed.

6.2 Shoring Design Parameters No excavation should extend below any structural foundations without adequate support being provided. The shoring system should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressures of the surrounding soils while preserving the soils beneath any structure in an undisturbed condition. The parameters used in the determination of the earth pressures acting on trench boxes, sheet piles or other shoring systems are defined in Table 12 below.

SECTION 6 – CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS


Table 12. Earth Pressure Soil Parameter Definitions

Parameter Definition Units

Φ’ internal angle of friction degrees

Cu undrained shear strength (cohesive soils) kPa

γ bulk unit weight of soil (above water table) kN / m3

γsat submerged 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 parameters listed above as referenced to the site-specific conditions for use in the design of shoring systems are calculated in Table 13 below.

Table 13. Earth Pressure Soil Parameters

Soil Cu Φ’ γ γsat Ka Kp Ko

Granular ‘A’ - 32 ο 21.0 11.2 0.31 3.25 0.47

Granular ‘B’ - 30 ο 20.5 10.7 0.33 3.00 0.50

Native Silty Clay – firm to stiff 25 24ο 18.0 8.2 0.42 2.37 0.59

Native Silty Clay – soft 15 22ο 17.0 7.2 0.45 2.19 0.62

The soils within the frost penetration depth (1.2 mbgs) will not contribute to the lateral resistance and should not be included in the calculations except for the weight of the soil. Where the excavation is braced at one level, the shoring system should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressure acting against the wall interface in a triangular earth pressure distribution. The earth pressure distribution can be calculated with the above soil parameters. Preliminary unbalanced earth pressure distributions subject to a horizontal earth pressure, P, can be calculated at any depth, H, using the following formula:

P = K(γ[H-Hw] + γsatHw +q) + γsatHw

where: P = lateral earth pressure, kPa K = applicable lateral earth

γ = bulk unit weight of soil above groundwater, kN / m3

γsat = submerged unit weight of soil, kN / m3 H = depth, m Hw = depth below groundwater, m q = surcharge load, kPa

If the shoring system is designed to be braced at more than one level, the earth pressure should consist of uniformly acting distribution.

SECTION 7

PR0222181511KWO 7‐1 REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED, 2018

Limitations of Report The design recommendations and discussions presented in this report are intended for the use of GM Canada, their design engineers, architects, and review agencies only, and are being provided at preliminary level only. The factual data obtained and recommendations discussed in this report are preliminary and may change as more information becomes available based on the recommended supplemental investigation.

The factual information obtained from the field investigation has been implied from non‐continuous sampling and does not reflect the exact plane of change within the stratigraphy. Subsurface information determined at the borehole locations are confirmed at these locations only as indicated on the Borehole Location Plan (Figure 3). The recommendations of the investigation are applicable only to the project described in the text. There is no warranty express or implied as to the use any party makes of this report. The actual subsurface conditions between boreholes may differ from those encountered at the time of this investigation, as soil stratigraphy boundaries do not always follow as straight lines between boreholes. Should these conditions be realized during the time of construction, the client, and/or contractor shall contact our office to review the differentiations within the subsurface conditions and re‐evaluate the recommendations as made within this investigative report.

Only limited number of boreholes were advanced for the preliminary level geotechnical assessment of the Subject Property due to access limitation and project schedule constraints. Further investigation is required to complete the assessment. Structural engineering and intended building design information were not available for preparation of this report.

This investigation has been completed in accordance with industry standards and accepted geotechnical practices. CH2M implies no warranty to the use of which any party makes of this report.

SECTION 9


References Applied Research Associates Inc., 2006. City of Toronto Pavement Structural Design Guideline Summary, November 30, 2006.

Barnett, P.J., Cowan, W.R. and Henry, A.P. 1991. Quaternary geology of Ontario, southern sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2556, scale 1:1 000 000.

Building Code Act, 1992. Latest Amendment Ontario Regulation 332/12

Canadian Geotechnical Society, CANADIAN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL. 2006. Fourth Edition, Canadian Geotechnical Society, 488 p

CH2M HILL. 2018a. Revised Hydrogeological Report, 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, March 2, 2018.

CH2M HILL. 2018b. Second Addendum to Hydrogeological Report for 721 Eastern Avenue, Site Plan Approval Application – Site 1; files: 17 137240 STE 30 OZ and 17 137249 STE 30 SB, March 2, 2018.

CH2M HILL. 2017a. Final Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Report, 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, March 28, 2017.

CH2M HILL. 2017b. Hydrogeological Report, 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, May 16, 2017.

CH2M HILL. 2017c. Addendum to Hydrogeological Report for 721 Eastern Avenue, Site Plan Approval Application – Site 1; files: 17 137240 STE 30 OZ and 17 137249 STE 30 SB, November 28, 2017.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2, 270 pp.

Construction Specifications for Road Works, April 2015. City of Toronto.

Health Canada, 2014. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality-Summary Table. Water and Air Quality Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

MOE, 2015. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ministry of the Environment, 2011.

MOECC, 2017. Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal, https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMyMzMw&statusId=MjAwOTA2&language=en, posted on the Ontario Environmental registry on April 24, 2017.

Occupation Health and Safety Act, Ontario Regulation 213.

Ontario Geological Survey 1991. Bedrock geology of Ontario, explanatory notes and legend; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2545.

Ontario Geological Survey, 2010. Surficial geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 128-REV, scale 1:50,000.

Ontario Regulation 558 made under the Environmental Protection Act.

Quadrangle 2018. Architectural Plans dated February 13, 2018.

Sharpe, D. R. 1980. Quaternary Geology or Toronto and Surrounding Area; Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map P.2204, Geological Series Scale 1:100,000. Compiled 1980.

Toronto (City of), 2015. Construction Specifications for Road Works. April 2015

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMyMzMw&statusId=MjAwOTA2&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMyMzMw&statusId=MjAwOTA2&language=en

Figures

February 16, 2018

SOURCE: QUADRANGLE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, MARCH 5, 2018

0

668893_F07,dwg

20

SCALE

40m iii,

aj<(

. - �Cl;ic!-1!' ... =NT � �:.{> ,."- ,to':., - f � *,; ��:A�ENT ,_., -,. � ,:,- i! �,.., ,_.,. ,/

�,{j> -I" ,; ,,' • ,.

.O.SPHALT ,#' •ooE<:>=PAVEMBfT ,,; .if EASTEfNAVENUE EASTERN AVENYE PIN2105:2-0l5!1 EOO•DFPAVEMENT

,j' ,,_.)� ',�i� �RETI

;- ::� -l°'f'

.i, ,I"'-"!-;",_.. .,.,�,:,/!' ;�·:1/;1!\ � .� �<,"-

-.."-#�tr4>6',f> � ,(, '\?,f> �'r

.,.,._ ,t,'>"- =:;:-

7:"'1��--�w .. �.�,f�A�',��,;,,;4'--½,•��r 'vf �::�' '::t��;Jf::i;:;,,�.;:C-,:��'"� .• ,�J�� ':°; !:• .. ,.•,

�.:<f> �l

• �.,��' IU:Z ..J ,'ilM::6', '"��f,::::::: :r;r;w;i1 : : : : : : : :1:i�am :� c> "'::. '''™�;, - .:.---.--

\ ,(s,;ll-

�E1� .

,.

,, 0.1�

/

1:--..,"- I::!!

i'

/? ;! ,f,f FENO

"1 ,/'

/f l

r·

••

I SITE2 I 4 STOREYS 78.20FFE

10STOREYS AVERAGE ORADE:lOOOC HEIGHT ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE:xxxrn -t7tl.20FFE

,..,.,..,.

AVUIAGIGltAOl:

H!IQHf AIOWAV!RAO!

OMOl:IOClft

•11AOllfll

� ..

BUILDING ENTRANCE

·,,..:ipvATIO�

.!iSTOREYS

I SITE3 I 4STOREYS 78.20FFE

10STOREYS AVERAGE GRADE:xxo: HEIOHTABOVEAVEAAOE OR-'OE:xxxrn t-711.20FFE

AVERAGE GRADE:,wo: HEIGHT "90VE AVEAAGE GRADE:xxxrn

,.,.,..,.

A\111W31�:

H!IOHJ AIOV! AV!MOf

ORAOl:-

•11AOIIIII

i>£<0�p$1

\}$-� sl'o1<� eo\l'-€'/

�< O'.W

•• ,! .-,:t;,

__.,1\ .. �.,

��.. �', -�i- "'""' •• �·"""' ,.,;

� , ... • ::'��- ,, "-·' '. ,��; �"'"-"' .... ti �.,p i? � .... �,; .....,� ��

.,.

,f

,,_.,. -,,_� ,,_,,_J>

--;,Sl;I �f' �� <!'

.� ..... $, -l";<f

1.54ll,EI,.';) u;g(l'51

;,;if H ii

FIGURE 2

Proposed Site Plan - March 2018 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Toronto GM Mobility Campus General Motors of Canada Company 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

dtz.

jcaron

Line

jcaron

Polygonal Line

!A

!=

!=

!=

!A

!=

!A

!=

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!=!=

!=

!=

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!=

!=

!=

!=

!=

!=

!A

!A!A

!A!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!=

Leslie Street

Lane N Eastern E Winnifred Eastern Avenue

Lane W Leslie

N Mosley

Caroline Avenue

Lake Shore Boulevard East

Lane S Queen

E Winnifred

Rushbrooke Avenue

Mosley Street

Lane W Rushbrooke N Eastern

Lane W Berkshire N Eastern

Berkshire Avenue

Larchmount Avenue

Lane E Caroline N Eastern

ProposedConveyance

Parcels

Site 1

Site 3

Site 2

InnovationPlaza

MW11-15

BH02-15

BH15-15

BH16-15

MW09-15

BH10-15

MW07-15

BH06-15

MW03-15

MW14-15MW13-15

MW12-15

MW01-15

MW17-15

BH18-15BH18-15

BH08-15

BH28-16

MW19-16

MW20-16

MW21-16

MW22-16

MW23-16

MW24-16

MW25-16MW26-16

MW27-16

MW29-16

MW30-16

MW31-16

BH33-16

BH36-16

BH40-16

BH43-16BH46-16

BH47-16

MW32-16

MW34-16MW35-16 MW37-16

MW38-16MW39-16

MW41-16MW42-16MW44-16

MW48-16

MW49-16

BH45-16

\\KWOFSP01\GIS\PROJECTS\GM_EASTERNAVE\GIS\MAPFILES\GEOTECH\MAR_2018\BOREHOLE_MONITORINGWELLLOCATIONS.MXD MJOZWIAK 2/16/2018 2:40:37 PM

0 20 4010 30

Metres³!= Borehole!A Monitoring Well

Site Development Plan AreasProposed Conveyance Parcels

Notes:1. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

F ig u re 3B o re ho le a nd M o n ito ring W e ll Loca tionsP re lim in ary G e o te chn ica l R eportG e ne ra l M o to rs o f C anada C om pany72 1 E as te rn A ve . To ron to , O n ta rio

Appendix A Explanation of Borehole Logs

TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN PROGRESS BY TURNING CHALLENGE INTO OPPORTUNITY

Explanation of Borehole Logs

Samples taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are retained in our subcontractor’s laboratory for 60 days and then disposed unless special disposition is requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of time, even in sealed jars, are subject to moisture loss, which changes the density and strength of cohesive soil—generally increasing soil strength from that originally encountered in the field. Since the samples are then no longer representative of the moisture, density, and strength conditions initially encountered, potential observers should recognize this factor if considering sample re‐ examination weeks or months after samples were retained. Water levels indicated on the boring logs are those measured in the boreholes at the time indicated. In pervious soils (sands, gravels), the indicated groundwater levels are considered reliable. In impervious soils (silts, clays), the indicated levels may not be reliable. For boreholes or wells in low permeability soils, relatively long periods of time are usually required for the groundwater to reach equilibrium. A more reliable and accurate determination of water levels is made from monitoring wells or piezometers sensing aquifers of interest with readings over a period of weeks to months. The water table depth listed in the header block of a boring log is an approximation of the location of the water table based on encountering water or wet conditions in the borehole during drilling or is a water level depth measured in the open borehole while drilling (WD) or after drilling (AD). Since these measurements are made in an open borehole, they may not represent the actual level of the water table.

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS Split spoon SSA Power auger

TW Thin Wall tube sample HSA Hollow‐stem auger

AS Auger cuttings sample RB Tri‐cone rotary bit

WS Wash cuttings sample FT Fish tail bit

PST Piston (Osterberg) sampler DB Diamond coring bit

BS Bulk sample from exposed material VST Vane shear test

CST Continuous sample tube PT Pressuremeter test

FREQUENCY OF COBBLES AND BOULDERS

Term Occurrence

Very few (trace) Fewer than 1 occurrence per 3 metre

Few Approximately 1 occurrence per 3 metre

Occasional Approximately 2 to 3 occurrences per 3 metre

Frequent Approximately 3 to 4 occurrence per 3 metre

Very frequent More than 5 occurrences per 3 metre


SOIL STRUCTURE/FABRIC

Term Description

Massive Same color, texture and appearance throughout (homogeneous)

Layer Apparently continuous horizontal bed over 25 mm in thickness

Pocket/lens Apparently discontinuous zone over 25 mm in thickness

Laminated (fissile) Alternating horizontal beds less than 6 mm in thickness

Stratified Alternating horizontal beds (layers) over 6 mm in thickness

Partings Very thin but visible bed of soil, usually silt

Cemented “weakly” crumbles or breaks with handling or little finger pressure “moderately” crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure “strongly” does not crumble or break with finger

Blocky Cohesive soil that breaks into cubic lumps (typically from desiccation)

Fissured (jointed) Planar discontinuities (typically from sliding, movement or desiccation)

MOISTURE/WATER TERMS

Term Occurrence

Dry Soil contains no free water

Moist Damp to touch (only partially saturated if loose granular, may be saturated if dense or cohesive)

Wet Visible free water (saturated/below water table)

Consistency of Cohesive Soils Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils

Undrained Shear Strength, kPa

Consistency SPT N‐Value (blows per

300 mm) Relative Density

0 to 12 Very Soft 0 to 4 Very Loose

12 to 25 Soft 4 to 10 Loose

25 to 50 Firm 10 to 30 Compact

50 to 100 Stiff 30 to 50 Dense

100 to 200 Very StiffOver 50 Very Dense

Over 200 Hard

Standard Penetration Test N values equal the total blows for the 2nd and 3rd 0.15 m of penetration of a 50 mm O.D. split‐spoon sampler driven by a 63.5 kilogram hammer falling 0.76 m, except where otherwise noted. N values are shown on the boring logs for both cohesive and non‐cohesive (cohesionless) soils, although the consistency of cohesive soils is generally correlated to Undrained Shear Strength values. Samples for which refusal occurs while driving the split spoon sampler have N values indicated as 100+.


BEDROCK

Fresh: No Visible signs of bedrock weathering. Perhaps slight discoloration along major discontinuities. Slightly Weathered: Discoloration indicates weathering of bedrock and discontinuity surfaces. All the bedrock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition. Moderately Weathered: Less than half the bedrock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored bedrock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones. Highly Weathered: More than half the bedrock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored bedrock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. Completely Weathered: All the bedrock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact. Residual Soil: All bedrock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported. Spacing (mm) Joint Classification Bedding, Laminates, Bands > 6000 Extremely Wide ‐ 2000 – 6000 Very Wide Very Thick 600 – 2000 Wide Thick 200 ‐ 600 Moderate Medium 60 – 200 Close Thin 20 – 60 Very Close Very Thin < 20 Extremely Close Laminated < 6 ‐ Thinly Laminated

Total Core Recovery (TCR): The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run Solid Core Recovery (SCR): The percentage of solid drill core, regardless the length, recovered at the full diameter, measure relative to the length of the total core run. Rock Quality Designation (RQD): Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (Rock Quality Designation) RQD in which all pieces of sound core over 100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting or weathering in the mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however it can be used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is subjective and is underlain by the resumption that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock. RQD % Rock Quality 0 to 25 Very Poor 25 to 50 Poor 50 to 75 Fair 75 to 90 Good 90 to 100 Excellent Strength Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) Extremely Weak < 1 Very Weak 1 – 5 Weak 5 – 25 Medium Strong 25 – 50 Strong 50 – 100 Very Strong 100 – 250 Extremely Strong > 250

Borehole Logs December 2015

Asphalt

0.05

1.32

3.05

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Brown to black,moist, medium grained, poorly sorted, tracebrick / glass / slag

black staining

CLAYEY SILT: Grey to brown, moist to wet,low plasticity, travel sand & gravel

black staining ends

more clay content, medium to high plasticity,wet

CLAY: Brown, moist, mottling, trace silt /gravel, trace oxidation

increased silt content

Bottom of borehole at 4.57 mbgs

Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan

Sampler Type: Pneumatic

Logged By: J.Nicolas

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH02-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)

Insitu (kPa)Remoulded (kPa)

Str

ata

Plo

t

General Motors Canada

Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634532

Ground Elev. (masl): 76.84

Total Depth (mbgs): 4.57

20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron

Drilling Contractor: Atcost

Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG

721 Eastern AveProject:

SPTMoisture Content (%)

CommentsPlastic Liquid

Drill Rig: Direct Push

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane

Date Completed: 12/18/15 Northing (m): 4835445

DT1

DT2

DT3

0.8

0.8

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

76.78

75.52

73.79

72.26

91.4

152.4

76.2

Asphalt

0.050.1

0.2

1.83

2.74

ASPHALT

SAND (FILL): Brown, dry, fine grained, wellsorted

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey, dry, coarse,poorly sorted

ash, cinders, black, moist

SAND (FILL): Black, wet, fine grained, somegravel, odourous

SILTY CLAY: Grey to brown, moist, mottled,high plasticity, soft

grey, moist

wet


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Anthony

Sampler Type: Auto-hammer 63.5kg, 76.2cm

Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH06-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634563



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

ST7

SS8

8

6

2

3

1

-

-

11

7

2

1

0

-

-

1.6

1.7

2.3

1.3

1.7

0.2

0.2

20.6

25.5

44

25

6

2

2

104

97

62

24

44

25

6

2

2

26

9

3

1

1

-

-

18

16

3

1

1

-

-

77.1777.12

77.02

75.39

74.48

72.35

48.3

50.8

30.5

35.6

61.0

61.0

61.0

Asphalt

0.05

1.83

3.05

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey, dry, coarsegrained, poorly sorted

black, cinders, slag

CLAY: Grey to brown, moist, high plasticity,soft, some black staining

no black staining

SILTY CLAY: Grey, saturated, high plasticity,soft

wet

Soil Descriptions

Driller: Wayne/James


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH08-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634574



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

31SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME75

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

ST7

SS8

20

12

2

3

2

-

11

16

9

1

1

-

1

0.5

0.7

1.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

26.6

27

32

28

11

4

5

3

5025

32

28

11

4

5

3

12

17

8

1

2

-

1

20

11

3

3

3

-

2

76.97

75.19

73.97

61.0

25.4

5.1

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

6.1

SILTY CLAY: Grey, saturated, high plasticity,soft

CLAY: Grey, moist, high plasticity, soft, tracefine sand seams

wet, trace round gravel

Soil Descriptions



Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH08-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634574



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 605.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

32SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME75

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS9

ST10

SS11

SS12

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

0.0

0.0

0.0

18 39

31.5

22.3

34.6

18.5

5

2

4

50

18

10

25

9

5

5

2

4

2

1

1

3

1

3

70.92

PI=21,

gravel=0%sand=6%silt=33%clay=61%

61.0

61.0

61.0

CLAY: Grey, moist, high plasticity, soft, tracefine sand seams

some angular gravel


Soil Descriptions



Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH08-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634574



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 6010.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

33SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME75

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS13

SS14

1

0

10

0.0

0.0

18.31

100

63

1

>50

0

50/5

1

64.55Boreholeterminatedon inferredbedrockbased onaugerrefusal.

61.0

27.9

Asphalt

0.05

1.07

1.83

ASPHALT

SAND (FILL): Dark brown to black, moist,medium grained, well sorted, some gravel,trace wood chips

CLAYEY SILT: Grey, wet, mottled, lowplasticity, some sand

black staining

more clay, no staining, saturated

CLAY: Grey, wet, medium to high plasticity,mottling, some silt


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH10-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634590



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT2

DT3

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

76.75

75.73

74.97

72.23

86.4

152.4

152.4

Asphalt

0.05

0.81

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Black, dry, coarsegrained, poorly sorted

SILTY CLAY: Brown to grey, moist, mottled,medium plasticity


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH15-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634536



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

5

3

2

14

2

2

1.3

1.0

1.0

24

6

4

22

6

4

13

3

2

9

3

2

76.85

76.09

75.08

45.7

61.0

61.0

Asphalt

0.05

1.22

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey to black, dry,coarse grained, poorly sorted, some brick

SILTY CLAY: Brown to grey, moist, mottled,high plasticity


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH16-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634543



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

3

3

2

11

2

1

1.3

1.5

1.0

15

5

4

15

5

4

10

3

2

5

2

2

76.92

75.75

75.14

30.5

5.1

61.0

Concrete

0.17

CONCRETE

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Brown, moist,medium grained, poorly sorted, track brick /wood chips

wet, trace cobbles, more gravel

black staining


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

BH18-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634463



20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

0.2

3.7

76.78

75.42

152.4

Asphalt

0.05

0.61

1.22

2.44

3.66

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Dark brown, moist,trace silt / brick

SANDY SILT (FILL): Dark brown to black,moist, trace brick

black staining

SAND: Yellow, fine grained, well sorted

saturated

greyish brown, some silt

CLAYEY SILT: Grey, moist, mediumplasticity, brown mottling, trace sand

increased clay content

CLAY: Grey, moist, high plasticity, mottling,trace to some silt Bottom of borehole at 3.81 mbgs

Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW01-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t


Date Taken: 1/7/2016

Boring Diameter (cm): 11.43

Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634432


Total Depth (mbgs): 3.81 Pipe Elev. (masl): 76.94 Pipe Diameter (cm): 5.08

Groundwater (mbtop): 1.27

20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT2

DT3

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

76.96

76.40

75.79

74.57

73.35

73.20

91.4

134.6

76.2

Gravel

1.07

3.05

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Dark brown, moist,poorly sorted, some brick

SILTY CLAY (FILL): Dark grey, moist, highplasticity, some black fragments, some brick

SILTY CLAY: Grey to brown, moist, highplasticity, soft, mottled

Soil Descriptions



Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW03-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634474




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

31SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

ST7

SS8

-

2

2

2

3

2

-

3

1

2

1

1

2

0.0

0.2

0.2

-

-

0.0

0.0

19 31

7

3

2

2

3

6

6221

7

3

2

2

3

6

-

4

1

1

1

1

3

-

3

2

1

1

2

3

75.69

73.71

PI=12,


61.0

50.8

45.7

55.9

61.0


some round gravel and sand

very soft

wet

Soil Descriptions



Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW03-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634474




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 605.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

32SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS9

SS10

SS11

4

10

4

1

3

1

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

15

9

0

200

15

9

0

7

4

0

8

5

0

61.0

61.0

61.0



Soil Descriptions



Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW03-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634474




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 6010.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

33SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


ST12

SS13

SS14

0

0

12

0.0

0.0

14 23

0

100

7055

0

207

0

19

0

50/4

64.17

PI=9,


Boreholeterminatedon inferredbedrockbased onaugerrefusal.

61.0

40.6

Asphalt

0.05

2.44

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey to black, dry,coarse grained, poorly sorted, some wood

wet

saturated


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW07-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634590




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

31SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

ST7

SS8

6

4

0

1

3

-

11

2

3

1

2

-

2

17

4

1

1

6

7

200

128

55

79

17

4

1

1

6

7

10

3

0

0

3

-

3

7

1

1

1

3

-

4

76.76

74.37

20.3

25.4

50.8

61.0

61.0


high plasticity

trace sand / gravel

Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW07-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634590




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 605.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

32SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


ST9

SS10

SS11

4

5

5

1

2

18 29

24

27

15.6

8

7

3541

8

7

3

3

5

4

PI=11,


61.0

61.0



Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW07-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t

Continuation:




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634590




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 6010.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

33SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


ST12

SS13

1

13.9100

2828

7566

64.28 Boreholeterminatedon inferredbedrockbased onaugerrefusal.

35.6

Asphalt

0.76

2.13

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Brown to black,moist, medium grained, poorly sorted, tracebrick / cinders

SAND (FILL): Brown to black, moist, finegrained, well sorted, some silt, trace gravel

less gravel, light brown

SILTY CLAY: Grey to brown, moist, mediumto high plasticity, mottled, trace sand

wet, more clay content, high plasticity


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW09-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634546




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT3

DT5

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

76.33

74.96

73.28

86.4

88.9

76.2

Asphalt

0.05

1.32

3.66

ASPHALT

SAND (FILL): Black to brown, moist, mediumgrained, well sorted

SILTY CLAY: Grey to brown, wet, highplasticity, soft, mottled, some sand

saturated, very soft

wet

moist

CLAY: Grey, moist, high plasticity, soft


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW11-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634579




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

3

4

1

3

-

2

2

4

4

1

1

0

-

1

1

1

1.6

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.0

0.0

5

6

1

1

4

4

5

200

5

6

1

1

4

4

5

3

2

1

0

-

2

2

2

2

4

0

1

-

2

2

3

76.62

75.35

73.01

71.79

50.8

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

Asphalt

0.05

1.47

1.98

2.44

ASPHALT

SAND (FILL): Brown to black, moist, fine tomedium grained, well sorted, some gravel,trace brick

GRAVEL with SAND (FILL): Grey, moist towet, trace boulders

strong hydrocarbon odour

saturated

CLAYEY SILT: Grey, wet, medium plasticity,brown mottling, trace fine grained sand

CLAY: Brown, moist to wet, high plasticity,trace silt / gravel


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW12-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634444




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT2

DT3

0.3

0.3

16.4

1.2

0.7

76.80

75.38

74.87

74.41

73.04

96.5

137.2

76.2

Asphalt

0.05

1.07

1.83

3.05

ASPHALT

SAND (FILL): Grey, moist, medium grained,some gravel / silt

black staining

GRAVEL with SAND (FILL): Grey, moist,trace boulders

CLAYEY SILT: Grey, wet, medium plasticity,mottling

saturated

more clay content

wet

CLAY: Brown to grey, wet to moist, highplasticity, mottling, trace silt

moist


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW13-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634456




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT2

0.8

0.3

0.1

0.1

76.80

75.78

75.02

73.80

73.04

91.4

152.4

Asphalt

0.05

1.22

2.44

ASPHALT

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey, dry, coarsegrained, poorly sorted

black, odourous

SILTY CLAY (FILL): Black, moist, soft, highplasticity, odourous

saturated, free product, sheen

wet

CLAY: Grey, wet, very soft, high plasticity

moist


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Mike/Ryan


Logged By: M.Barons

ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW14-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634478




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG




Drill Rig: CME85

SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

ST6

SS7

SS8

5

2

1

-

6

6

13

2

1

0

-

2

3

100

12

2

4

10

10

7928

263

12

2

4

10

8

13

5

1

2

-

4

4

50/3

7

1

2

-

6

4

76.68

75.51

74.29

71.85

30.5

45.7

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

61.0

Concrete

0.17

0.76

1.52

2.44

CONCRETE

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Dark brown, moist,medium grained, well sorted

SAND (FILL): Dark grey to black, coarsegrained, poorly sorted, medium to coarsegrained, trace gravel, black staining, stronghydrocarbon odour

black staining ends

CLAY: Grey, wet to very wet, mottled, tracesilt

SILTY CLAY: Brown, wet to moist, mottled


Soil Descriptions

Driller: Jamie/Ryan



ELEV.

DEPTH

(masl)

(mbgs)

We

ll S

chem

atic

TY

PE

/ N

o.

of

PID

(p

pm

)

Blo

ws/

15c

m

SP

T (

N V

alu

e)

FIELD TESTING

SC

AL

E (

mb

gs)

668893

MW17-15

Client:

Boring:

Job No.:

Sheet No.:

Torvane (kg/cm2)


Str

ata

Plo

t




Atterberg Limits

Easting (m): 634457




20 40 60

Penetration Testing

DCPT

80 20 40 600.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Reviewer: J. Caron


Rec

ove

ry (

cm)

11SOIL BORING LOG





SAMPLES LAB TESTING

80

Shear Vane


DT1

DT2

DT3

35.4

245

115

23.1

4.6

76.76

76.17

75.41

74.49

73.12

99.1

152.4

76.2

Borehole Logs February 2016

Borehole Logs December 2016

77.560.18

76.471.27

75.612.13

CONCRETE:

SAND (FILL): Dark brown, moist, fine grained, trace silt, trace coal, slag andgravel.

- Light brown, decreased silt content below 0.51 mbgs.

SLAG AND SILT (FILL): Dark brown with Fe staining, trace coal, very moist.

- Wet, black, strong hydrocarbon like odour below 1.83 mbgs.

- Refusal on concrete at 2.13 mbgs. Bottom of borehole at 2.13 mbgs

Borehole backfilledwith bentonite uponcompletion

pH(13:50)

(0.18-0.61)

Metals & Inorg.PAHs

(13:58)(1.22-1.83)

PHCs & BTEXVOCs(14:02)

(1.83-2.13)

100

79

50

79

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

40

DEPTH(mbgs)

Page 1 of 1T

YP

E

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SOILDESCRIPTION

EM L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DEPTH

PROJECT NUMBER: 668893

20

(mbgs)

ORGANIC VAPOUR READING(ppm)

ELEV.

LOCATION: 721 Eastern Avenue

60

A

Canada LimitedCH2M

S

DRAFT2/8/2017

(masl)

P

Par

amet

ers

Ana

lyze

d(t

ime

)(s

amp

le in

terv

al m

bgs)

SOIL VAPOR INSTRUMENT: MiniRAE 3000 SN No.: 592-911151

GROUND ELEVATION: 77.24 masl

NORTHING: 4835345.4

EASTING: 634609.7

DATE DRILLED: December 13, 2016

DRILLER: Profile Drilling

DRILL METHOD: Power Probe 9100P

HILL

S

80Rec

over

y (%

)

BOREHOLE COMPLETIONDETAILS

RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH40-16

CALIBRATED?: Yes

LOGGED BY: M. Shiry

SP

T(b

low

s/15

cm)

721E

AS

TE

RN

_BH

_FT

2M;

GM

EA

ST

ER

N2.

GP

J; L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB; 4

3107

9 -

WA

LLA

CE

.GD

T; 2

/8/1

7

1.3

1.9

2.7

6.3

Refer to adjacent deeper MW34-16

77.390.20

76.990.61

75.821.78

75.412.19

69.67

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey to light brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand and fine gravel, trace silt.SAND AND SILT (FILL): Black, moist, some slag, trace coal and metaldebris.

SANDY SILT (FILL): Light brown, moist, some clay, medium plasticity, finesand, trace orange mottling.

- Grey, increased moisture, trace gravel below 1.30 mbgs.

ORGANIC SILT: Black, medium plasticity, trace fine gravel, trace rootlets.

CLAYEY SILT: Brownish grey, very moist, high plasticity, occasional seamsof fine sand, trace orange mottling, some black staining at upper contact fromabove.

- Transitioning to light brown at 3.35 mbgs.

- Transitioning to grey at 5.49 mbgs.

- Very moist to wet at 6.10 mbgs.

- Trace fine to coarse sand below 7.62 mbgs.

Flushmount casing

Concrete

Bentonite seal

No. 2 silica sandfilter pack

50 mm SCH 40PVC, #10 slot wellscreen

Caved

Metals & Inorg.pH

PCBsPAHsABNs


(0.30-0.61)

Metals & Inorg.PAHs

PHCs & BTEX(11:31)

(4.27-4.88)

Grain Size(11:39)

(6.10-7.32)

35

63

100

100

100

100

100

DT1a

DT1b

DT2a

DT2b

DT3a

DT3b

DT4a

DT4b

DT5a

DT5b

DT6a

DT6b

DT7a

40

DEPTH(mbgs)

Page 1 of 2T

YP

E

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SOILDESCRIPTION

EM L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DEPTH


20

(mbgs)


ELEV.


60

A

Canada LimitedCH2M

S

DRAFT2/8/2017


(masl)

P

WATER ELEVATION: 75.53 masl

WATER LEVEL DATE: January 16, 2017

MOE WELL TAG#: A212559

Par

amet

ers

Ana

lyze

d(t

ime

)(s

amp

le in

terv

al m

bgs)


HILL

S

80Rec

over

y (%

)


CALIBRATED?: Yes


NORTHING: 4835373.2

EASTING: 634559.5LOGGED BY: M. Shiry


DRILL METHOD: Power Probe 9700VTR

TOP OF PIPE: 76.95 masl

RECORD OF MONITORING WELL: MW37-16

SP

T(b

low

s/15

cm)

721E

AS

TE

RN

_MW

_FT

2M;

GM

EA

ST

ER

N2.

GP

J; L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB; 4

3107

9 -

WA

LLA

CE

.GD

T; 2

/8/1

7

2.7

4.7

5.4

5.4

4.5

4.4

6.4

6.6

4.7

5.3

4.4

5.3

3.7

7.92

69.068.53

SILTY CLAY TILL: Grey, very moist to wet, high plasticity, trace fine to coarsesand, trace fine gravel.


pHInorganics

(11:43)(7.92-8.53)

DT7b

40

DEPTH(mbgs)

Page 2 of 2T

YP

E

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SOILDESCRIPTION

EM L

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

DEPTH


20

(mbgs)


ELEV.


60

A

Canada LimitedCH2M

S

DRAFT2/8/2017


(masl)

P




Par

amet

ers

Ana

lyze

d(t

ime

)(s

amp

le in

terv

al m

bgs)


HILL

S

80Rec

over

y (%

)


CALIBRATED?: Yes


NORTHING: 4835373.2 EASTING:

634559.5LOGGED BY: M. Shiry





SP

T(b

low

s/15

cm)

721E

AS

TE

RN

_MW

_FT

2M;

GM

EA

ST

ER

N2.

GP

J; L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB; 4

3107

9 -

WA

LLA

CE

.GD

T; 2

/8/1

7

6.0

77.420.20

77.020.61

75.851.78

75.442.19

74.273.35

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL): Grey to light brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand and fine gravel, trace silt.SAND AND SILT (FILL): Black, moist, some slag, trace coal and metaldebris.

SANDY SILT (FILL): Light brown, moist, some clay, medium plasticity, finesand, trace orange mottling.

- Grey, increased moisture, trace gravel below 1.30 mbgs.

ORGANIC SILT: Black, medium plasticity, trace fine gravel, trace rootlets.

CLAYEY SILT: Brownish grey, very moist, high plasticity, occasional seamsof fine sand, trace orange mottling, some black staining at upper contact fromabove.

- Lithology inferred from adjacent borehole MW37-16. Bottom of borehole at 3.35 mbgs

Flushmount casing

Concrete

Bentonite seal

No. 2 silica sandfilter pack50 mm SCH 40PVC, #10 slot wellscreen

40

DEPTH(mbgs)

Page 1 of 1T

YP

E

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SOILDESCRIPTION

EM L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DEPTH


20

(mbgs)


ELEV.


60

A

Canada LimitedCH2M

S

DRAFT2/8/2017


(masl)

P




Par

amet

ers

Ana

lyze

d(t

ime

)(s

amp

le in

terv

al m

bgs)


HILL

S

80Rec

over

y (%

)


CALIBRATED?: Yes


NORTHING: 4835373.6

EASTING: 634560.6LOGGED BY: M. Shiry





SP

T(b

low

s/15

cm)

721E

AS

TE

RN

_MW

_FT

2M;

GM

EA

ST

ER

N2.

GP

J; L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB; 4

3107

9 -

WA

LLA

CE

.GD

T; 2

/8/1

7

77.600.15

76.830.91

76.581.17

75.921.83

74.093.66

70.437.32

CONCRETE:

SILTY SAND (FILL): Top 15 cm brown then light brown, moist, fine grained,trace fine gravel.

SILTY SAND (FILL): Black, dry to moist, trace brick.

SILT AND SAND (FILL): Pale yellow, fine to coarse grained, cemented.

FILL: Slag, grey, wet, some silt and sand.

- No recovery 2.44 to 3.66 mbgs.

CLAYEY SILT: Brown, wet, high plasticity.


Flushmount casing

Concrete

Bentonite seal

No. 2 silica sandfilter pack50 mm SCH 40PVC, #10 slot wellscreen

Caved

Metals & Inorg.PAHs


(0.91-1.22)

Metals & Inorg.PAHs

PHCs & BTEX(13:31)

(4.88-6.10)

90

21

0

8

8

0

DT1a

DT1b

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

DT6

40

DEPTH(mbgs)

Page 1 of 1T

YP

E

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SOILDESCRIPTION

EM L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DEPTH


20

(mbgs)


ELEV.


60

A

Canada LimitedCH2M

S

DRAFT2/8/2017


(masl)

P




Par

amet

ers

Ana

lyze

d(t

ime

)(s

amp

le in

terv

al m

bgs)


HILL

S

80Rec

over

y (%

)


CALIBRATED?: Yes


NORTHING: 4835372.3 EASTING:

634606.0LOGGED BY: M. Shiry





SP

T(b

low

s/15

cm)

721E

AS

TE

RN

_MW

_FT

2M;

GM

EA

ST

ER

N2.

GP

J; L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB; 4

3107

9 -

WA

LLA

CE

.GD

T; 2

/8/1

7

3.5

3.0

5.3

4.6

3.1



Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory

Test Results – December 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

CL-ML

ML

CL

CI

OL

MI-OI

CH

MH-OH

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CL

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m) ELEV. (m)

7.924.19

10.976.32

SYMBOL

BH8-15MW3-15MW3-15MW7-15

LEGEND

FIGURE 1

Date

Project 11168

Prep'd

Chkd.

TH

UR

BA

LT 1

1168

.GP

J 1

/20/

16

EA

WM

Eastern Avenue

January 2016

CLIENT: CH2M Canada Ltd. FILE NUMBER: 11168

PROJECT: Eastern Avenue REPORT DATE:

TEST DATES: January 06, 2016 - January 16, 2016

SAMPLE: BH7-15 TW9 at 20'-21'6"

Silty clay, trace oxides, grey. 72% silt and 28% clay. LL = 29.0% and PL = 18.0%

PROCEDURE:

Start of Test End of Test

Wet Dens. (kg/m3) 2130.8 2286.0

Dry Dens. (kg/m3) 1737.3 1961.3

Moisture Cont. (%) 22.6 16.6

Void Ratio 0.583 0.402

Note:

Consolidation Test Report

Test carried out in accordance with Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils, ASTM D 2435-04, method A

A Specific Gravity (Gs) of 2.75 was assumed for the void ratio and saturation calculations.

20-Jan-2016

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

1 10 100 1000 10000

Vo

id R

ati

o

Pressure (kPa)

Void Ratio vs. Pressure

Project #: 11168Client: CH2M Canada Ltd.Project Name: Eastern AvenueSample: BH7-15 TW9 at 20'-21'6"

TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 1 of 3

Eastern Avenue

11168 BH7-15 TW9 at 20'-21'6"

TRIMMING:

LOADING:

CALCULATIONS:

Pressure Corr. H. Avg. H. D90 t90 cv Void mv k

(kPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (min) (cm2/s) Ratio (m

2/kN) (cm/s)

0.0 25.400 0.583

6.1 25.308 25.354 -0.101 1.04 2.18E-02 0.577 5.97E-04 1.28E-06

25.7 25.109 25.209 -0.250 0.64 3.51E-02 0.565 4.01E-04 1.38E-06

49.9 25.007 25.058 -0.081 0.88 2.51E-02 0.559 1.68E-04 4.13E-07

96.6 24.867 24.937 -0.107 1.02 2.15E-02 0.550 1.20E-04 2.53E-07

193.2 24.597 24.732 -0.122 1.00 2.16E-02 0.533 1.12E-04 2.38E-07

385.7 24.131 24.364 -0.245 1.37 1.53E-02 0.504 9.84E-05 1.48E-07

770.7 23.469 23.800 -0.320 1.77 1.13E-02 0.463 7.13E-05 7.91E-08

1540.7 22.687 23.078 -0.420 2.07 9.08E-03 0.414 4.33E-05 3.85E-08

3081.4 21.897 22.292 -0.494 2.46 7.12E-03 0.365

770.7 22.027 21.962 0.373

193.2 22.232 22.130 0.386

49.9 22.499 22.366 0.402

Notes: Cv and k calculated using t90 values

A seating load of 6.1 kPa was applied and the consolidometer was flooded with distilled water.

Sample was monitored to ensure no swelling effect occurred before the start of the test. Subsequent

loads were applied after a constant load increment duration of 24 hours.


Coefficients of Consolidation were calculated by the square root time method.

The Specimen was manually trimmed to the size of consolidation ring, then mounted in a fixed ring

consolidometer.

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(cm

2/s

ec)

Pressure (kPa)

Coefficient of Consoildation vs. Pressure


TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 2 of 3

Eastern Avenue

11168 BH7-15 TW9 at 20'-21'6"


1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Hyd

rau

lic C

on

du

cti

vit

y (

cm

/sec)

Pressure (kPa)

Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Pressure


1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

mv

(m2/k

N)

Pressure (kPa)

mv vs. Pressure


TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 3 of 3

CLIENT: CH2M Canada Ltd. FILE NUMBER: 11168

PROJECT: Eastern Avenue REPORT DATE:

TEST DATES: January 06, 2016 - January 16, 2016

SAMPLE: MW3-15 TW7 at 13'

Silty clay, tr. sand, tr. oxides, tr. organics, grey.

Silt = 65%, clay = 28%, sand = 7%. LL = 31.3% and PL = 18.9%.

PROCEDURE:

Start of Test End of Test

Wet Dens. (kg/m3) 2104.3 2280.7

Dry Dens. (kg/m3) 1695.7 1964.6

Moisture Cont. (%) 24.1 16.1

Void Ratio 0.622 0.400

Note:


Test carried out in accordance with Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils, ASTM D 2435-04, method A

A Specific Gravity (Gs) of 2.75 was assumed for the void ratio and saturation calculations.

19-Jan-2016

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

1 10 100 1000 10000

Vo

id R

ati

o

Pressure (kPa)

Void Ratio vs. Pressure

Project #: 11168Client: CH2M Canada Ltd.Project Name: Eastern AvenueSample: MW3-15 TW7 at 13'

TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 1 of 3

Eastern Avenue

11168 MW3-15 TW7 at 13'

TRIMMING:

LOADING:

CALCULATIONS:

Pressure Corr. H. Avg. H. D90 t90 cv Void mv k

(kPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (min) (cm2/s) Ratio (m

2/kN) (cm/s)

0.0 20.000 0.622

5.0 19.880 19.940 -0.084 0.44 3.20E-02 0.612 1.20E-03 3.76E-06

17.6 19.729 19.805 -0.154 0.46 3.00E-02 0.600 6.03E-04 1.77E-06

34.5 19.573 19.651 -0.103 0.51 2.67E-02 0.587 4.68E-04 1.22E-06

68.5 19.383 19.478 -0.137 0.47 2.87E-02 0.572 2.85E-04 8.05E-07

136.9 19.139 19.261 -0.150 0.52 2.53E-02 0.552 1.84E-04 4.56E-07

273.2 18.814 18.977 -0.190 0.59 2.15E-02 0.526 1.25E-04 2.62E-07

545.5 18.308 18.561 -0.248 0.75 1.63E-02 0.485 9.88E-05 1.58E-07

1057.7 17.677 17.993 -0.390 2.07 5.52E-03 0.434 6.73E-05 3.64E-08

2080.1 16.941 17.309 -0.405 1.17 9.08E-03 0.374 4.07E-05 3.62E-08

545.5 17.018 16.980 0.380

136.9 17.115 17.067 0.388

34.5 17.262 17.189 0.400

Notes: Cv and k calculated using t90 values

A seating load of 5.0 kPa was applied and the consolidometer was flooded with distilled water.

Sample was monitored to ensure no swelling effect occurred before the start of the test. Subsequent

loads were applied after a constant load increment duration of 24 hours.


Coefficients of Consolidation were calculated by the square root time method.

The Specimen was manually trimmed to the size of consolidation ring, then mounted in a fixed ring

consolidometer.

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(cm

2/s

ec)

Pressure (kPa)

Coefficient of Consoildation vs. Pressure


TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 2 of 3

Eastern Avenue

11168 MW3-15 TW7 at 13'


1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Hyd

rau

lic C

on

du

cti

vit

y (

cm

/sec)

Pressure (kPa)

Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Pressure


1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

mv

(m2/k

N)

Pressure (kPa)

mv vs. Pressure


TEST DONE BY: EA/BT

REVIEWED BY: KS

Page 3 of 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m) ELEV. (m)

7.924.19

10.976.32

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SYMBOL

BH8-15MW3-15MW3-15MW7-15

Size of openings, inchesU.S.S. Sieve size, meshes/inch

SAND GRAVEL

3040 10

COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINESILT and CLAYCOBBLE

SIZE

60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50

FIGURE 1

Date

Project 11168

Prep'd

Chkd.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

- T

HU

RB

ER

111

68.

GP

J 1

/20/

16

EA

WM

Eastern Avenue

January 2016

Appendix C Grain Size Analysis –

February and December 2016

Grain Size Analysis Report

Client Sample ID: DPM586-01R\MW37-16-20-24Maxxam Sample ID: QG3386-01

Maxxam Job #: B6B1454Description

Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing

Tot. Sample Wt (g)*: 8.02 Batch # (Sieve): Sieve 4 4.750 100.0

> 2 mm Sample Wt (g)*: 0.00 Batch # (Hydro): Sieve 10 2.000 100.0 * Dry mass based on Sieve Aliquot Sieve 20 0.850 99.9

Analysis Date (Sieve): Sieve 40 0.425 99.9

Analysis Date (Hydro): Sieve 100 0.150 99.4

Sieve 200 0.075 98.8

R1min 0.0423 90.0

Min (mm) Max (mm) Percentage R3min 0.0250 81.2

Sand 0.050 2.000 7.9 R10min 0.0143 69.7

Silt 0.002 0.050 66.0 R30min 0.0086 55.8

Clay - 0.002 26.1 R90min 0.0052 41.8

** Calculations based only on sub 2 mm fraction. R270min 0.0030 30.4 Compatible with USDA and Canadian Soil Triangles R1080min 0.0016 24.1

Soil Classification***:Based on the entire sample

98.8Fine Textured Soil

Based on the < 2 mm fraction ****98.8Fine Textured Soil

**** Grain size analysis performed to classify the soil material according to the criteria prescribed in Section 42.2

of Ontario Regulation 153/04 as amended by Ontario Regulation 511/09, and conducted in accordance with test

procedures outlined in ASTM D422.

*** ON Regulation 153/04 requires coarse:fine determination on the < 2 mm fraction. Other jurisdictions may require the entire sample, thus both classifications are provided Note: Clay/Silt/Sand/Gravel Graphic above Graph: Sand | Silt | Clay fractions in accordance with USDA and Canadian System of Soil Classification. Sub fractions in accordance with the British (BSI) system for information purposes.

Classification = Percentage (by mass) less than 0.075 mm =

Grain Size Proportion (%)**:

Percentage (by mass) less than 0.075 mm = Classification =

85039418504207

2016/12/152016/12/16

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 98.4

R1min 0.0423 94.5


Sand 0.050 2.000 4.6 R10min 0.0139 79.1

Silt 0.002 0.050 60.8 R30min 0.0084 65.1

Clay - 0.002 34.5 R90min 0.0050 52.3












85039418504207

2016/12/152016/12/16

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 43.0

R1min 0.0496 25.8


Sand 0.050 2.000 67.8 R10min 0.0164 13.4

Silt 0.002 0.050 29.3 R30min 0.0096 9.6

Clay - 0.002 2.9 R90min 0.0056 6.7



43.0Coarse Textured Soil









85039418504207

2016/12/152016/12/16

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 97.4

R1min 0.0463 58.0


Sand 0.050 2.000 37.0 R10min 0.0159 29.6

Silt 0.002 0.050 50.0 R30min 0.0093 24.7

Clay - 0.002 13.0 R90min 0.0054 19.7












85039418504207

2016/12/152016/12/16

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm

Grain Size Analysis Report (QA-SRM)

Sieve Batch #: 8503941

Hydrometer Batch #: 8504207

Standard Reference Material

Fraction % Recovery Minimum Maximum

> 0.075 mm 101 88 112

< 0.075 mm 99 92 108

Sand 88 75 125

Silt 117 75 125

Clay 86 75 125

Sieve

Acceptance Limits

Hydrometer


Client Sample ID: MW32-16-1-3 (DQA451-01R)Maxxam Sample ID: QH0010-01


Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 62.7

R1min 0.0502 27.2


Sand 0.050 2.000 72.7 R10min 0.0163 15.6

Silt 0.002 0.050 23.1 R30min 0.0095 13.0

Clay - 0.002 4.2 R90min 0.0055 9.1












85072868508395

2016/12/212016/12/20

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 96.4

R1min 0.0435 73.7


Sand 0.050 2.000 21.6 R10min 0.0147 51.4

Silt 0.002 0.050 60.7 R30min 0.0088 39.8

Clay - 0.002 17.7 R90min 0.0052 29.2












85072868508395

2016/12/212016/12/20

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm


Client Sample ID: BH40-16-0-2 (DQA456-01R)Maxxam Sample ID: QH0012-01


Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 26.5

R1min 0.0523 9.2


Sand 0.050 2.000 90.9 R10min 0.0166 6.6

Silt 0.002 0.050 7.8 R30min 0.0097 3.9

Clay - 0.002 1.3 R90min 0.0056 2.6




Based on the < 2 mm fraction ****26.8Coarse Textured Soil








85072868508395

2016/12/212016/12/20

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 34.5

R1min 0.0497 24.4


Sand 0.050 2.000 72.5 R10min 0.0160 18.3

Silt 0.002 0.050 19.5 R30min 0.0094 15.3

Clay - 0.002 8.0 R90min 0.0054 13.2




Based on the < 2 mm fraction ****38.6Coarse Textured Soil








85072868508395

2016/12/212016/12/20

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm




Particle Size (mm)

Percent Passing





Sieve 200 0.075 95.7

R1min 0.0421 88.4


Sand 0.050 2.000 9.8 R10min 0.0142 67.5

Silt 0.002 0.050 63.7 R30min 0.0085 54.0

Clay - 0.002 26.5 R90min 0.0051 40.5












85072868508395

2016/12/212016/12/20

Sie

veH

ydro

met

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

CLAY< 0.002

mm

SILT

Fine0.002 - 0.0063 mm

Medium0.0063 - 0.02 mm

Coarse0.002 - 0.05 mm

SAND

Fine0.05 - 0.2 mm

Medium0.2 - 0.63 mm

Coarse0.63 - 2 mm

GRAVEL

Fine2 - 6.3 mm

Med> 6.3

> 0.075 mm< 0.075 mm

Grain Size Analysis Report (QA-SRM)

Sieve Batch #: 8507286

Hydrometer Batch #: 8508395

Standard Reference Material

Fraction % Recovery Minimum Maximum

> 0.075 mm 101 88 112

< 0.075 mm 100 92 108

Sand 101 75 125

Silt 97 75 125

Clay 104 75 125

Sieve

Acceptance Limits

Hydrometer

Documents

Preliminary Geotechnical Report 721 Eastern Avenue ...721eastern.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/04/... · Preliminary Geotechnical Report 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario