12, 16 & 20 Cordova Avenue

Terraprobe Consulting Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering

Construction Materials Inspection & Testing

Terraprobe Inc. Greater Toronto Hamilton – Niagara Central Ontario Northern Ontario

11 Indell Lane 903 Barton Street, Unit 22 220 Bayview Drive, Unit 25 1012 Kelly Lake Rd., Unit 1

Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3 Stoney Creek, ON L8E 5P5 Barrie, Ontario L4N 4Y8 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 5P4

(905) 796-2650 Fax: 796-2250 (905) 643-7560 Fax: 643-7559 (705) 739-8355 Fax: 739-8369 (705) 670-0460 Fax: 670-0558

www.terraprobe.ca

DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT 12, 16 & 20 CORDOVA AVENUE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

Prepared For: Minto Cordova LP 4101 Yonge Street, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M2P 1N6

Attention: Mr. Frank Pagliuca

File No. 1-17-0848-01 Issued: August 8, 2018

Revised (Rev.1): November 9, 2018

© Terraprobe Inc.

Distribution of Report:

1 PDF Copy - Minto Cordova LP 1 Copy - Minto Cordova LP 1 Copy - Terraprobe Inc.

Minto Cordova LP Revised (Rev.1): November 9, 2018 12, 16 & 20 Cordova Avenue, Toronto, Ontario File No. 1-17-0848-01

Terraprobe Page No. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1 STRATIGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE AND EARTH FILL ......................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 NATIVE SAND ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 SANDY SILT .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.4 GLACIAL TILL ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.5 PRACTICAL REFUSAL (POSSIBLE WEATHERED BEDROCK) ................................................................. 4

2.2 GROUND WATER ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN ...................................................................................... 6

3.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................ 7

3.1.1 SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 RAFT FOUNDATION ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 9

3.3 EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................. 10

3.4 SLAB ON GRADE DESIGN PARAMETERS ..................................................................................... 11

3.5 BASEMENT DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................... 12

3.6 SITE SERVICING ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.6.1 BEDDING .................................................................................................................................... 13 3.6.2 BACKFILL ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.6.3 TRENCH PLUGS .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY ............................................................ 15

4.1 EXCAVATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 GROUND WATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 16

4.3 EARTH-RETENTION SHORING SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 17

4.3.1 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................... 17 4.3.2 CAISSON AND SOLDIER PILE TOE EMBEDMENT .............................................................................. 18 4.3.3 LATERAL BRACING ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 18

4.4 SITE WORK .............................................................................................................................. 19

4.5 QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 19

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT ........................................................................................... 20

5.1 PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 CHANGES IN SITE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 21

5.3 USE OF REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 22


Terraprobe Page No. ii

FIGURES

Figure 1 – SITE LOCATION PLAN

Figure 2 – BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN (EXISTING CONDITION)

Figure 3 – BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN (PROPOSED CONDITION)

Figure 4 – SUBSURFACE PROFILE

APPENDICES

Appendix A – ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY; BOREHOLE LOGS

Appendix B – GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

Appendix C – BASEMENT DRAINAGE DETAILS


Terraprobe Page No. 1

1.0 THE PROJECT

Terraprobe Inc. was retained by Minto Cordova LP to conduct a subsurface investigation and provide

detailed geotechnical engineering design recommendations for the proposed redevelopment of municipal

addresses 12, 16 & 20 Cordova Avenue. The properties under consideration in this report are located

south of Dundas Street West and west of Islington Avenue, in Toronto, Ontario. A site location plan is

provided as Figure 1. Terraprobe is also providing Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments

(ESA) and a hydrogeological study under separate covers.

The site is currently occupied by four (4) residential buildings. The proposed redevelopment includes

demolishing the existing residential dwellings and constructing a 27-storey tower resting on a P5

underground parking structure, with a lowest finished floor elevation (FFE) at Elev. 109.2 ±m (i.e. about

16 ±m below grade). The following drawing set was provided to Terraprobe for review in preparation of

this revised (Rev.1) report:

“12-20 Cordova Ave”, Project No. 18-101, Drawing No. A1-1 to A5-1, dated November 16,

2018, by Rafael + Bigauskas Architects.

Terraprobe completed a previous subsurface investigation (Boreholes 1 to 3, and 101) for this

redevelopment in February 2018 for the purposes of preliminary geotechnical engineering design

(“Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Engineering Design Report – 12-20 Cordova Avenue,

Etobicoke, Ontario”, File No. 1-17-0848-01, dated March 15, 2018).

For the purposes of detailed design, the subsurface investigation involved the following:

For detailed geotechnical engineering design purposes:

o One (1) exterior borehole (Borehole 201-D) to a target depth of 23 m below grade, and

four (4) exterior boreholes (Boreholes 202 to 205) to a target depth of 20 m below grade,

or until practical refusal

For hydrogeological and environmental purposes:

o Two (2) interior boreholes (Boreholes 301 and 302) to a target depth of 3 m below grade,

or until practical refusal (the boreholes were advanced using a direct-push machine,

therefore N-Values were not measured)

o One (1) exterior 150 mm pumping well (Pump Well 1) installed at a target depth of 20 m

below grade



o Two (2) exterior boreholes (Borehole 201-S, 401-D) to a target depth of 8 and 23 m

below grade, respectively.

The locations of the boreholes are provided on the Borehole Location Plans as Figure 2 (Existing

Condition) and Figure 3 (Proposed Condition). A subsurface profile of the boreholes is provided as

Figure 4. The results of the individual boreholes are recorded on the Borehole Logs in Appendix A. A

summary of the geotechnical laboratory tests is provided in Appendix B.

Interpretation, analysis and advice with respect to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the proposed

development are provided, based on the information secured from this investigation. The anticipated

construction conditions pertaining to foundation design, seismic site classification, slab on grade design,

earth pressure design, basement drainage, excavation, shoring design, short term dewatering and other

constructability recommendations are discussed.

2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The borehole elevations and coordinates are provided relative to geodetic datum (NAD 83). The

horizontal coordinates are reported relative to the Universal Transverse Mercator geographic coordinate

system (UTM Zone 17T). The boreholes were surveyed for horizontal coordinates and geodetic elevations

with a Trimble R10 Receiver connected to the Global Navigation Satellite System and the Can-Net

Virtual Reference Station Network.

The subsurface soil and ground water conditions encountered in the boreholes are presented on the

attached Borehole Logs in Appendix A. The stratigraphic boundaries indicated on the geotechnical

Borehole Logs are inferred from non-continuous samples and observations of drilling resistance and

typically represent a transition from one soil type to another. These boundaries should not be interpreted

to represent exact planes of geological change. The subsurface conditions have been confirmed in a series

of widely spaced boreholes and will vary between and beyond the borehole locations. The discussion has

been simplified in terms of the major soil strata for the purposes of geotechnical design.

Asphaltic concrete material thicknesses provided in the report were obtained at individual borehole

locations, as measured through the collar of the open borehole. Thicknesses may vary between and

beyond borehole locations.

2.1 Stratigraphy

The following stratigraphy is based on the exterior borehole findings (Boreholes 1 to 3, 101, 201-D to

205, and 401-D), as well as the geotechnical laboratory testing conducted on selected representative soil

samples. Boreholes 301 and 302 were advanced using a direct-push machine and encountered practical

refusals at depths of 1.8 to 2.9 m below the basement slab (Elev. 123.0 to 121.8 m); N-values were not

measured, therefore these Borehole Logs are included for reference only. The summary below is provided



for general guidance only. Detailed depths/elevations/thicknesses are given in the following subsections.

In general, five (5) main stratigraphic units were encountered on site as follows:

1. A layer of earth fill (about 1.8 ±m thick on average), overlying

2. Native sand (about 6.6 ±m thick on average), underlain by

3. Sandy silt (about 7.2 ±m thick on average), underlain by

4. A variable glacial till (about 5 ±m thick on average), underlain by

5. Practical refusal on possible weathered bedrock at Elev. 102 to 106 ±m (from the southeast

portion of the site to the northwest portion of the site). Due to the site access, project time

constraints and limited equipment availability, rock coring was not performed at this site.

The stabilized ground water table is at about Elev. 120 ±m.

2.1.1 Pavement Structure and Earth Fill

Boreholes 1 to 3, 101, 204, and 205 encountered a pavement structure at grade consisting of 50 to

165 mm of asphaltic concrete underlain by 15 mm of aggregate (in Borehole 101 only) and a layer of

earth fill extending to depths of 1.5 to 2.3 m below grade (Elev. 122.7 to 123.9 m below grade).

Boreholes 201-S and 201-D, 202, and 203 were located adjacent to Boreholes 1, 2, and 3, respectively;

the 200-series boreholes were straight drilled to a depth of 7.6 m below grade (Elev. 117.4 to 118.8 m)

prior to sampling, and hence did not observe the earth fill. The earth fill varies in composition from sand

to silty sand, with trace amounts of clay, gravel, and deleterious materials (ash and cinders, asphalt and

brick fragments, organics, rootlets). Due to the variation and inconsistent placement of the earth fill

material, the relative density of the earth fill varies but is on average loose.

2.1.2 Native Sand

Underlying the earth fill, Boreholes 1 to 3, 101, 204 and 205 encountered a native sand deposit at depths

of 1.5 to 2.3 m below grade (Elev. 122.5 to 123.4 m). The sand deposit extends to 3.0 to 12.2 m below

grade (Elev. 112.5 to 122 m). The sand contains a variable amount of gravel (ranging from trace gravel to

gravelly), and is generally brown and transitions from moist to wet with increasing depth. The Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) results (N-Values) measured in the sand ranged from 4 blows per 300 mm of

penetration to 93 blows per 225 mm of penetration, indicating a loose to very dense relative density (on

average compact above Elev. 120 ±m and dense below Elev. 120 ±m in Boreholes 1, 2 and 101, and

consistently dense to very dense in Boreholes 3 and 201-D to 205, and 401-D).

Underlying the sand deposit, Borehole 204 (advanced in the southern portion of the site) encountered an

upper glacial till at a depth of 3.0 m below grade (Elev. 122.0 m) extending to a depth of 7.6 m below

grade (Elev. 117.4 m). This upper glacial till was not observed in the remaining boreholes. The glacial till

consists of a sandy silt matrix, contains trace amounts of clay and gravel, and is brown and moist. The



SPT N-Values measured in the glacial till are greater than 50 blows per less than 300 mm of penetration,

indicating a very dense relative density.

2.1.3 Sandy Silt

Underlying the sand deposit and glacial till observed in Borehole 204, a sandy silt deposit was

encountered at depths of 6.1 to 12.2 m below grade (Elev. 112.4 to 118.5 m). Boreholes 2 and 3 were

terminated in the silt at depths of 8.2 to 9.8 m below grade (Elev. 14.8 to 116.7 m), whereas the remaining

boreholes fully penetrated the deposit at depths of 12.2 to 16.8 m below grade (Elev. 108.2 to 112.4 m).

The sandy silt contains trace clay, transitions from brown to grey with increasing depth, and is generally

wet. The SPT N-Values measured in the silt ranged from 22 blows to 100 blows per 300 mm of

penetration, indicating a compact to very dense relative density (on average very dense).

2.1.4 Glacial Till

Underlying the sand silt deposit, the boreholes encountered a variable glacial till deposit at depths of 12.2

to 16.8 m below grade (Elev. 108.2 to 112.4 m). Borehole 1 was terminated in the glacial till at a depth of

17.4 m below grade (Elev. 107.6 m). Boreholes 202 to 205 encountered practical refusal at depths of 17.4

to 19.5 m below grade (Elev. 105.4 to 107.6 m), whereas Boreholes 101, 201-D and 401-D fully

penetrated the glacial till at depths of 16.8 to 22.9 m below grade (Elev. 101.8 to 108.2 m). The glacial till

varies from cohesive to cohesionless, with a matrix ranging from clayey silt, to sandy silt, to silty sand, to

gravelly sand, to sand and gravel, contains trace to some clay, and is consistently grey and moist.

Boreholes 202, 203 and 204 observed trace to some shale fragments embedded within the glacial till with

increasing depth. Borehole 203 encountered a zone of dense sand and silt embedded in the glacial till at a

depth of 16.8 m below grade (Elev. 108.1 m) extending to a depth of 18.3 m below grade (Elev. 106.6 m).

The SPT N-Values measured in cohesive glacial till were consistently greater than 50 blows per less than

300 mm of penetration, suggesting a hard consistency, and ranged from 26 to 141 blows per 300 mm of

penetration in the cohesionless glacial till, indicating a compact to very dense relative density (on average

dense in Boreholes 202 and 203, and very dense in the remaining boreholes).

2.1.5 Practical Refusal (Possible Weathered Bedrock)

Underlying the glacial till in Boreholes 101, 201-D and 401-D, possible weathered bedrock was inferred

at a depth of 22.9 m below grade (Elev. 101.8 to 102.1 m) based on the tri-cone grinding, drilling

observations, samples recovered, and the practical refusals observed. Boreholes 202 to 204 encountered

practical tri-cone and sampler refusal at depths of 17.6 to 19.5 m below grade (Elev. 10.54 to 107.0 m);

samples of the weathered bedrock were not recovered in these boreholes. It is not clear if this refusal was

on boulders or bedrock. Due to the site access, project time constraints and limited equipment availability,

rock coring was not performed at this site.



2.2 Ground Water

The boreholes were cased by hollow stem augers or advanced using mud rotary techniques and contained

drill fluid upon completion of drilling, therefore depth to cave measurements were not practical. The

boreholes were instrumented with 50 mm dia. ground water monitoring wells to facilitate long-term

ground water monitoring. Stabilized ground water level measurements were made in the monitoring wells

at least one week after the completion of drilling. The ground water measurements are shown on the

Borehole Logs and are summarized as follows.

BH No.

Depth of BH (m)

On completion

(m) Strata Screened

Water Depth / Elev. (m)

July 3, 2018


July 4, 2018


July 8, 2018


Aug 7, 2018

Unstabilized Water Level

1 17.4 16.9 Sandy Silt

(Elev. 108.8 to 111.8 m) 5.4 / 119.6 5.4 / 119.6 5.7 / 119.3 5.5 / 119.5

2 9.8 7.5 Sandy Silt

(Elev. 115.5 to 118.5 m) 5.3 / 119.2 5.3 / 119.2 5.4 / 119.1 5.4 / 119.1

3 8.2 6.6 Gravelly Sand

(Elev. 117.3 to 120.3 m) 3.9 / 120.9 4.0 / 120.8 4.0 / 120.8 4.3 / 120.5

101 23.3 Dry Silt and Silt Glacial Till

(Elev. 102.0 to 105.1 m) 7.5 / 117.3 7.5 / 117.3 7.8 / 117.0 7.5 / 117.2

201-S 23 Dry Sand

(Elev. 117.5 to 120.5 m) 5.4 / 119.7 Not Measured 5.5 / 119.6

201-D 7.6

Contained drill fluid upon

completion of drilling.

Monitoring well not installed.

202 17.6 Gravelly Sand Glacial Till (Elev. 107.8 to 110.8 m)

7.3 / 117.4 Not

Measured 7.9 / 116.8 7.3 / 117.3

203 19.5 Sandy Silt Glacial Till and Sand

and Silt (Elev. 106.6 to 109.6 m)

5.3 / 119.6 5.3 / 119.6 6.7 / 118.2 5.5 / 119.4

204 18.4 Sandy Silt to Silty Sand Glacial

Till (Elev. 106.9 to 109.9 m)

5.3 / 119.7 5.3 / 119.7 6.8 / 118.2 5.5 / 119.5

205 18.6 Sandy Silt and Sandy Silt

Glacial Till (Elev. 107.5 to 110.5 m)

5.4 / 120.2 5.4 / 120.25 6.1 / 119.5 5.6 / 120.0

401-S 10.7 Sandy Silt

(Elev. 114.7 to 117.8 m) Wells were not installed during this

period.

5.5 / 119.9

401-D 22.4 Glacial Till

(Elev. 103.0 to 106.0 m) 6.5 / 118.9



For design purposes, the stabilized ground water table is at about Elev. 120 ±m. In general, the excavation

to the P5 FFE at Elev. 109.2 ±m will extend below the stabilized ground water table. The native sand is

considered a high permeability material, which will permit the free flow of water below the ground water

table. The glacial tills and sand silt soils are considered low to moderate permeability materials, and will

typically preclude the free flow of water; zones of cohesionless soils (sands and gravels) embedded within

the glacial till will produce water when penetrated.

Construction dewatering at adjacent sites, existing building drains or dewatering systems, and seasonal

fluctuations may cause significant changes to the depth of the ground water table over time. Additional

information pertaining to ground water at the site is discussed in the Hydrogeological Report by

Terraprobe under a separate cover (File No. 1-17-0848-46).

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

The following discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from this

investigation, and are intended for use of the owner and the design engineer. Contractors bidding or

providing services on this project should review the factual data and determine their own conclusions

regarding construction methods and scheduling.

This report is provided on the basis of these terms of reference and on the assumption that the design

features relevant to the geotechnical analyses will be in accordance with applicable codes, standards and

guidelines of practice. If there are any changes to the site development features or any additional

information relevant to the interpretations made of the subsurface information with respect to the

geotechnical analyses or other recommendations, then Terraprobe should be retained to review the

implications of these changes with respect to the contents of this report.

Considering that the P5 level (FFE at Elev. 109.2 ±m) will be made in the wet cohesionless soils below

the ground water table (Elev. 120 ±m), Terraprobe recommends two options for the site:

1. Conventional spread footings, with waterproofed walls designed to withstand lateral hydrostatic

pressure (i.e. an impermeable interlocking caisson wall must be installed to control ground water

during construction), and a subfloor drainage system; or

2. Raft foundation with fully waterproofed walls and base (i.e. full “bathtub” solution).



3.1 Foundation Design Parameters

The proposed redevelopment includes demolishing the existing residential dwellings and constructing a

27-storey tower resting on a P5 underground parking structure, with a lowest finished floor elevation

(FFE) at Elev. 109.2 ±m. For design purposes, the stabilized ground water table is at about Elev. 120 ±m.

Below the P5 level (about 11 ±m below the stabilized ground water table) conventional spread footing

foundations would be made on very dense native soils below the stabilized ground water table. The soils

must be dewatered to a minimum of 1.2 m below the lowest founding elevation prior to reaching down to

the ground water table, to preserve the in situ integrity of the native cohesionless soils. If the subsurface is

not dewatered prior to excavation, the cohesionless soils will become disturbed by the ingress of ground

water and the following recommendations for bearing capacity will not be valid.

3.1.1 Spread Footing Foundations

Below the P5 level (FFE at Elev. 109.2 ±m), conventional spread footing foundations made to bear on the

dewatered very dense native soils at Elev. 108 ±m can be designed using a maximum factored

geotechnical resistance at ultimate limit state (ULS) of 900 kPa. The maximum net geotechnical reaction

at serviceability limit state (SLS) is 600 kPa, for an estimated total settlement of 25 mm.

For these bearing pressures, the minimum width of isolated footings must be 2.0 m. These minimum

dimensions apply regardless of loading considerations, in conjunction with the above recommended

geotechnical resistance. The settlement at SLS will occur as load is applied, and is linear and

non-recoverable. Differential settlement is a function of spacing, loading and foundation size.

Footings stepped from one level to another must be at a slope not exceeding 7 vertical to 10 horizontal.

The design earth cover for frost protection of foundations exposed to ambient environmental temperatures

is 1.2 metres in the Greater Toronto area. Experience suggests that the temperature in “unheated”

underground parking levels two or more levels below grade with normal ventilation provisions is not as

severe as the ambient open air condition. Certainly, the earth cover required to prevent frost effects on

foundations in the lower parking levels need not be any greater than 1.2 metres, and experience in a

number of structures has shown that perimeter foundations provided with 600 mm of cover perform

adequately as do interior isolated foundations with 900 mm of cover. At locations adjacent to ventilation

shafts, it is normal practice to provide insulation to ensure that foundations are not affected by the cold air

flow.

Prior to pouring concrete for the footings, the footing subgrade must be cleaned of deleterious materials,

softened, disturbed, or caved materials, and any standing water. As per the Ontario Building Code (2012),

the footing excavations must be inspected and approved by Terraprobe to ensure the bearing capacities

stated above are applicable. If soft soils are encountered at the proposed bearing depths during footing

excavation, sub-excavation to competent soil is required under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.



Furthermore, native soils tend to weather and deteriorate on exposure to the atmosphere or to surface

water, therefore foundation bases that will remain open and exposed to the atmosphere for an extended

period of time shall be protected by applying a skim coat of lean concrete. If construction is to proceed in

freezing conditions, temporary frost protection for the footing bases and concrete must be provided.

3.1.2 Raft Foundation

If for whatever reason a drained foundation scheme is not used, then a raft slab and a fully waterproofed

structure could be considered. Should the underground levels be designed as a waterproof “tanked”

structure with no permanent dewatering, a raft foundation will be required to carry structural loads. A raft

foundation covering the whole width of the site (about 35 ±m) is considered in the discussion below on a

preliminary basis only. Pressuremeter testing could be performed at the site to improve the following

preliminary capacities.

Five (P5) Underground Levels

Considering five (P5) underground levels (Elev. 109.2 ±m), the excavation for a raft-supported structure

will remove about 250 kPa of effective stress at the raft base elevation (assumed Elev. 107.2 ±m).

Assuming that the foundation is made on dewatered, undisturbed native soils, a raft foundation bearing at

Elev. 107.2 ±m (about 2 ±m below the P5 FFE) can therefore be designed using an overall bearing

pressure of 250 kPa, resulting in no additional net change in effective stress on the foundation soils and

therefore negligible settlement. For up to 25 mm of settlement, a rigid raft foundation (about 35 ±m x

35 ±m) can be designed assuming a preliminary uniformly disturbed net geotechnical reaction at SLS of

160 kPa (i.e. a total bearing pressure at the raft base of 410 kPa). For up to 50 mm of settlement, a rigid

raft foundation (about 35 ±m x 35 ±m) can be designed using a preliminary uniformly distributed net

geotechnical reaction at SLS of 320 kPa (i.e. a total bearing pressure at the raft base of 570 kPa).

The modulus of subgrade reaction appropriate for the design of a raft supported on the undisturbed very

dense soils at Elev. 108 ±m is 11 MPa/m for 50 mm of settlement.

The maximum factored geotechnical resistance at ULS of a raft foundation at this elevation should be

limited to 2,000 kPa for preliminary purposes only.

General Raft Recommendations

It will be necessary to positively dewater the site to a minimum 1.2 m below the proposed bottom of the

raft founding elevation (i.e. to Elev. 106.8 ±m) prior to excavation to preserve the in situ integrity of the

native soils. If the subsurface is not dewatered prior to excavation, the native soils will become disturbed

by the ingress of ground water and the above recommendations for bearing capacity will not be valid.



The site should not be excavated below Elev. 120 ±m without positive dewatering in place, to preserve

the native soils in their undisturbed state. A discussion on the dewatering approach is provided in

Section 4.2, using a caisson cutoff wall, and in Terraprobe’s Hydrogeological Report (File No.

1-17-0848-46)

During construction it will be necessary to consider the potential uplift pressure on the underside of a raft

foundation due to hydrostatic forces. Positive dewatering operations during construction must be

continued until such time as the factored structural dead load exceeds the potential factored uplift forces.

The raft design parameters provided here are based on assuming a conceptual uniform load imparted

across the entire base of the raft. In reality, the structural design of a raft will not produce uniform loading

at the base of the raft. Concentrated loads which locally exceed the SLS bearing pressure may not produce

a large amount of settlement, given their localized nature and reduced zone of influence. To account for

all of this, raft foundation design should be an iterative process between the structural and geotechnical

engineers. Once the preliminary structural design is complete and the induced loading at the base of the

raft is known, the resulting SLS loading and configuration must be assessed by Terraprobe and the

resulting total and differential settlements must be estimated. The settlement results are then reviewed by

the structural engineer, and the design is revised as needed.

3.2 Earthquake Design Parameters

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

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

structure, the spectral response acceleration and the site classification.

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

4.1.8.4A of the Ontario Building Code (2012). The classification is based on the determination of the

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

measurements have been taken. Alternatively, the classification is estimated on the basis of rational

analysis of undrained shear strength (su) or penetration resistance (N-values).

s avg

d

d

ii

n

i

sii

n

1

1

S u avg

d

d

s

ii

n

i

u ii

n

1

1

Navg

d

d

N

ii

n

i

ii

n

1

1

Shear wave velocity

Undrained shear strength

SPT N-values

Beneath the proposed foundations for this site, the site soils consist of very dense sandy silt and glacial

tills. Based on this information and a rational analysis of the SPT N-Values, It is recommended that the



site designation for seismic analysis is Class C for foundations made uniformly on very dense native soils,

as per Table 4.1.8.4.A of the Ontario Building Code (2012). Tables 4.1.8.4.B and 4.1.8.4.C. of the same

code provide the applicable acceleration and velocity-based site coefficients.

Site Class Values of Fa

Sa(0.2) ≤ 0.25 Sa(0.2) = 0.50 Sa(0.2) = 0.75 Sa(0.2) = 1.00 Sa(0.2)≥ 1.25

C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Site Class Values of Fv

Sa(1.0) ≤ 0.1 Sa(1.0) = 0.2 Sa(1.0) = 0.3 Sa(1.0) = 0.4 Sa(1.0) ≥ 0.5

C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3.3 Earth Pressure Design Parameters

The appropriate values for use in the design of structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures at this site

are tabulated as follows:

Stratum/Parameter γ φ Ka Ko Kp

Compact Granular Fill

Granular ‘B’ (OPSS 1010) 21 32 0.31 0.47 3.26

Existing Earth Fill 19 29 0.35 0.52 2.88

Native Sands and Silts 21 34 0.28 0.44 3.54

Glacial Till 21 36 0.26 0.41 3.85

where: γ = bulk unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

φ = internal angle of friction (degrees)

Ka = Rankine active earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)

Ko = Rankine at-rest earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)

Kp = Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)

The above earth pressure parameters pertain to a horizontal grade condition behind a retaining structure.

Values of earth pressure parameters for an inclined retained grade condition will vary.

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

based on the following equation:

𝑷 = 𝑲[𝜸(𝒉 − 𝒉𝒘) + 𝜸′𝒉𝒘 + 𝒒] + 𝜸𝒘𝒉𝒘



where, P = the horizontal pressure at depth, h (m)

K = the earth pressure coefficient

hw = the depth below the groundwater level (m)

γ = the bulk unit weight of soil, (kN/m3)

γ’ = the submerged unit weight of the exterior soil, (γ - 9.8 kN/m3)

q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

The above equation pertains to a horizontal grade condition behind a retaining structure. Values of earth

pressure against retaining structures for an inclined retaining grade condition will vary.

Where the wall backfill can be drained effectively to eliminate hydrostatic pressures on the wall that

would otherwise act in conjunction with the earth pressure, this equation can be simplified to:

𝐏 = 𝐊[𝛄𝐡 + 𝐪]

To ensure that there is no hydrostatic pressure acting in conjunction with the earth pressure, where the

structure is built by open cut excavation methods, this equation assumes that free-draining granular

backfill such as Granular ‘B’ (OPSS 1010) is used and effective drainage is provided.

Consideration must also be given to the possible effects of frost on structures retaining earth. Pressures

induced by freezing in frost-susceptible soils exert pressures and are effectively irresistible.

The factored geotechnical resistance to sliding of earth retaining structures is developed by friction

between the base of the footing and the soil. This friction (R) depends on the normal load on the soil

contact (N) and the frictional resistance of the soil (tan φ) expressed as: R = N tan φ. This is an

unfactored resistance. The factored resistance at ULS is Rf = 0.8 N tan φ.

3.4 Slab on Grade Design Parameters

The P5 slab is set at Elev. 109.2 ±m, and will be made on dense to very dense native sandy silt and glacial

till. The native soils constitute an adequate subgrade for the support of a slab on grade for a drained

foundation scheme. The modulus of subgrade reaction appropriate for the design of a fully drained

slab-on-grade resting on the granular drainage layer resting on the native soils is 60,000 kPa/m.

Prior to the construction of the slab, it is recommended that the silt subgrade be cut neat and inspected

under the supervision of Terraprobe for obvious loose or disturbed areas as exposed, or for areas

containing excessively deleterious materials or moisture. Proof-rolling of the native subgrade is not

recommended as this will disturb the otherwise competent soil. These areas shall be recompacted in place

and retested, or else replaced with Granular B placed as engineered fill (in lifts 150 mm thick or less and

compacted to a minimum of 98 % SPMDD).



It is necessary that building floor slabs be provided with a capillary moisture barrier and drainage layer.

This is made by placing the slab on a minimum 300 mm layer of HL-8 Coarse Aggregate or 19 mm clear

stone (OPSS 1004) compacted by vibration to a dense state. Cohesionless soils below the stabilized

ground water table will be encountered at the subgrade for the slab on grade. Therefore, a suitable

non-woven geotextile filter (Terrafix 360R or equivalent approved by Terraprobe) must be installed (with

a minimum 900 mm overlap) below the HL-8 Coarse Aggregate or 19 mm clear stone; otherwise, without

proper filtering there may be entry of fines from the surrounding subgrade soils into the bedding. This

loss of ground could result in a loss of support of the slab and clogging of the subfloor drainage system.

The water level in the wet subgrade must be lowered at least 1.2 m below the lowest excavation elevation

prior to excavation for the duration of below grade construction. To preserve the integrity of the subgrade

once the subgrade elevation is reached, a skim coat of lean concrete could be applied to create a

trafficable surface.

If a waterproofed/tanked solution is chosen, then raft design parameters are provided in Section 3.1.2.

3.5 Basement Drainage

A separate Hydrogeological Report has been prepared by Terraprobe for this site

(File. No. 1-17-0848-46), which provides the approximate amount of daily temporary (construction) and

permanent ground water collection and discharge.

To assist in maintaining dry basements and preventing seepage, it is recommended that exterior grades

around the building be sloped away at a 2 % gradient or more, for a distance of at least 1.2 metres. For a

drained foundation scheme, provision of nominal subfloor drainage is required in conjunction with the

perimeter drainage of the structure, to collect and remove the water that infiltrates at the building

perimeter and under the floor. Perimeter and subfloor drainage are required throughout below grade areas.

It is recommended that the subfloor drainage system consists of minimum 100 mm diameter perforated

pipes wrapped in filter fabric spaced at a maximum of 3 metres on centre. The pipes must be surrounded

by a minimum of 100 mm of 19 mm clear stone/HL-8 Coarse Aggregate, and the pipe inverts should be a

minimum 300 mm below the base of the slab. The elevator pits can be drained separately with an

independent lower pumping sump or can be designed as water proof structures which are below the

drainage level. A typical basement subdrain detail is provided in Appendix C. The subfloor drains can be

constructed in trenches as shown in the typical detail, or alternatively they can be constructed on a flat

subgrade subexcavated at least 300 mm below the base of the slab.

Prefabricated drainage composites, such as Mirafi G-Series or Terradrain 200 (Terrafix), should be

incorporated between shoring walls and the cast-in-place concrete foundation wall to make a drained

cavity. Drainage from the cavity must be collected at the base of the wall in non-perforated pipes and

conveyed directly to the sumps. The flow to the building sump from the subsurface drainage will be



governed largely by the building perimeter drainage collection during rainfall and runoff events. Typical

shored and open cut excavation drainage details are provided in Appendix C.

The drainage system is a critical structural element, since it keeps water pressure from acting on the

basement floor slab or on the foundation walls. As such, the sump that ensures the performance of this

system must have a duplexed pump arrangement for 100% pumping redundancy and these pumps must be

on emergency power. The size of the pump should be adequate to accommodate the anticipated ground

water and storm event flows. It is expected that the seepage can be controlled with typical widely

available commercial sump pumps.

If for any reason a drained structure is not preferred, the structure could be designed as a waterproofed

structure designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures and uplift.

3.6 Site Servicing

3.6.1 Bedding

In general, the existing earth fill and native sand at the site compacted to a minimum of 98% SPMDD, or

neatly cut sandy silt and glacial till soils, will provide adequate support for buried services on a

conventional well graded granular base material. Where disturbance of the trench base has occurred, such

as due to ground water seepage or construction traffic, the disturbed soils should be sub-excavated and

replaced with suitably compacted granular fill.

Granular bedding material should consist of a conventional Class ‘B’ bedding, such as Granular ‘A’,

conforming to OPSS 1010 specification. The bedding material should be compacted to a minimum of

95% SPMDD. The use of HL 8 coarse aggregate (sewer stone) or 19 mm clear stone bedding is

prohibited at this site since without proper filtering, there may be entry of fines from the surrounding soils

into the bedding. This loss of ground could result in a loss of support to the pipes and possible future

settlements.

If services are situated in the cohesionless deposits below the stabilized ground water table

(Elev. 120 ±m), the subgrade must be dewatered a minimum of 1.2 m below the lowest excavation level

and trench plugs be installed to protect the groundwater and to prevent its lowering due to the “French

Drain” effect of the granular bedding and backfill material. The use of HL 8 coarse aggregate (sewer

stone) or 19 mm clear stone (OPSS 1004) bedding is not permitted.

3.6.2 Backfill

In general, excavated soils encountered on site may be re-used as backfill, provided the moisture content

of these materials is within 2% of optimum to ensure adequate compaction, the trenches are wide enough

to accommodate large compaction equipment, and the soil is free of any deleterious material (e.g. brick



fragments, cinders). Soils wet of optimum could be put aside to dry, tilled to reduce the moisture content

so that they can be effectively compacted, or could be mixed with less wet material. Alternatively,

materials of higher moisture content could be wasted and replaced with imported material which can be

readily compacted.

The backfill should consist of clean earth fill and should be placed in lifts of 150 mm thickness or less

and compacted to a minimum of 98% SPMMD (in settlement sensitive areas) and 95% SPMDD (in

non-settlement sensitive areas) at a water content within 2% of optimum. Existing earth fill and native

sandy silts and glacial tills will be difficult to place and compact successfully in narrow trench

excavations, where large compaction equipment could not operate. For narrow trench excavations, it is

recommended that free draining granular material, such as OPSS 1010 Granular ‘B’ be used in order to

allow for adequate compaction using vibratory equipment. The placement and inspection of any earth fill

as backfill must be conducted under the full time observation of Terraprobe, the geotechnical engineer.

The sandy silts and glacial tills are not immediately free draining and will be difficult to handle and

compact if they become wet as a result of inclement weather or seepage. Hence, it can be expected that

earthworks carried out during wet periods (i.e., spring and fall) of the year may result in increased

earthwork costs. The cohesive soils and specifically the silt at this site are susceptible to frost effects. If

the building has flush entrances, care must be taken in detailing the exterior slabs/sidewalks, providing

insulation and/or drainage and/or non-frost susceptible backfill to maintain the flush threshold during

freezing weather conditions.

3.6.3 Trench Plugs

Clay plugs are usually installed in trenches to protect the groundwater and to prevent its lowering due to

the “French Drain” effect of the granular bedding and backfill material. If the invert of the trench is below

the water table and local drawdown of the groundwater level cannot be tolerated for environmental or any

other reasons, then clay plugs must be installed within the granular bedding and the granular zones of

backfill material.

Clay plugs should be placed in the trenches at 50 m intervals along the full length of the trench, where the

invert of the trench is below the water table. The plug should be 1 m thick measured along the pipe, and

should completely replace the granular bedding and sand backfill placed above the springline and the

obvert of the sewer or watermain. The clay plugs must be compacted to 95% SPMDD. Material used for

the clay plugs should contain not less than 15% particles finer than 2 microns and should have a

coefficient of permeability less than 10-6

cm/second. Only the clayey silt to sandy silt portions of the

glacial till meets these criteria; in general, the majority of the site soils do not meet these criteria.

Unshrinkable fill can also be used as a substitute for clay plugs. Before construction the contractor should

submit a representative sample of the proposed clay plug material for permeability and particle size



testing to verify compliance with the specifications. During construction, further representative samples

should be tested to determine its acceptability.

Alternatively, cut off collars can be installed around the pipe barrel to achieve the same effect. Collars

should not be placed closer than 1.0 m to a pipe joint and precautions should be taken to ensure that 95%

compaction is achieved around the collars. Watertight connections are required between the collar and the

pipe wall.

4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY

4.1 Excavations

Excavations must be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario

Regulation 213/91 (as amended), Construction Projects, Part III – Excavations, Sections 222 through 242.

These regulations designate four (4) broad classifications of soils to stipulate appropriate measures for

excavation safety. For practical purposes, the earth fill and native cohesionless soils (sands and silts) are

considered Type 3 soils above the ground water table and Type 4 below, and the glacial tills are

considered Type 2 soils.

Where workers must enter excavations advanced deeper than 1.2 m, the trench walls should be suitably

sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for

Construction Projects. The regulation stipulates maximum slopes of excavation by soil type as follows:

Soil Type Base of Slope Steepest Slope Inclination

1 within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

2 within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

3 from bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

4 from bottom of trench 3 horizontal to 1 vertical

Minimum support system requirements for steeper excavations are stipulated in the Occupational Health

and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects, and include provisions for timbering, shoring

and moveable trench boxes.

The overburden soils can be removed by conventional excavation equipment. Excavations at this site may

encounter construction debris, deleterious materials and other obstructions in the earth fill and native

cobble/boulder obstructions. The size and distribution of cobbles/boulders/obstructions cannot be

predicted with boreholes, as the sampler size is insufficient to secure representative particles of this size.

The risk and responsibility for the removal and disposal of cobbles/boulders/obstructions must be

addressed in the contract documents for foundations, excavations and shoring contractors.



4.2 Ground Water Control

Ground water control and considerations pertaining to ground water and drainage are discussed in

Terraprobe’s Hydrogeological Report for the site under a separate cover (File No. 1-17-0848-46).

For design purposes, the stabilized ground water table is at about Elev. 120 ±m. The excavation to the P5

level (FFE at Elev. 109.2 ±m) will extend about 11 ±m below the stabilized ground water table. The

glacial tills and sand silt soils are considered low to moderate permeability materials, which will typically

preclude the free flow of water; zones of cohesionless soils embedded within the glacial till will produce

water when penetrated.

Positive dewatering during construction is required to a minimum 1.2 m below the lowest excavation

elevation prior to excavation below the stabilized ground water table. Without prior positive dewatering,

the native subgrade below the ground water table at this site will become disturbed and will lose their

integrity to support foundations. The water level must be kept at least 1.2 m below the lowest excavation

elevation during construction. The installation of a skim coat of lean concrete (mud-slab) is recommended

to preserve the subgrade integrity, and to provide a working platform.

An impermeable interlocking caisson wall is required and will be constructed along the entire extent of

the excavation, extending into the possible weathered bedrock; the soil overburden would be cut off,

precluding ground water flow into the excavation. For this situation, Terraprobe recommends advancing a

few additional boreholes (without sampling the soil overburden) to bedrock, with rock coring, to confirm

the bedrock elevation and quality at this site; dewatering can likely be accomplished by pumping from the

sealed excavation and cut-off using sump pumps. A caisson wall would also prevent any sloughing of

weak soils and loss of ground during lagging installation. It is possible that the bedrock elevation varies

considerably across the site due to proximity to the Humber River Valley.

The relevant project information must be provided to a professional dewatering contractor who will be

responsible for the design and installation of the dewatering systems. The dewatering system must be

properly installed and screened to ensure that sediment and fine soils are not removed, which could result

in settlement of the ground or structures near the site. Once the dewatering method and shoring system are

designed, Terraprobe should be retained to evaluate the potential impacts (i.e. settlement) to nearby

structures and land caused by lowering the water table.

If for any reason a drained structure is not preferred, the structure could be designed as a waterproofed

structure designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures and uplift. For a raft waterproofed foundation

scheme, the dewatering must remain on until such time as factored dead loads exceed factored uplift

loads.



4.3 Earth-Retention Shoring Systems

The site is bounded by municipal road Cordova Avenue to the north, and existing commercial properties

and associated parking lots to the south, east and west. No excavation shall extend below the foundations

of existing adjacent structures without adequate alternative support being provided. Where excavations

cannot be sloped, they can be supported using a shoring system such as soldier piles and lagging shoring

or a continuous interlocking caisson wall shoring.

Should soldier pile and lagging shoring be constructed, the wet cohesionless soils encountered below the

stabilized ground water table (Elev. 120 ׅ±m) could potentially slough into the excavation during the

installation of lagging boards, and may need to be dewatered prior to excavation for lagging installation.

The dewatering system must be filtered such that fines are not removed with the ground water resulting in

loss of ground.

The shoring system would best be supported by pre-stressed soil anchors extending beneath the adjacent

lands and municipal roads. Pre-stressed anchors are installed and stressed in advance of excavation and

this limits movement of the shoring system as much as is practically possible. The use of anchors on

adjacent properties requires the consent of the adjacent land owners, expressed in encroachment

agreements. The City Transportation and Works Department negotiates “permits” for the encroachment in

City lands, which are generally allowed.

4.3.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution

If the shoring is supported with a single level of earth anchor or bracing, a triangular earth pressure

distribution similar to that used for the basement wall design is appropriate. Where multiple supports are

used to support the excavation, research has shown that a distributed pressure diagram more realistically

approximates the earth pressure on a shoring system of this type, when restrained by pre-tensioned

anchors. For the native cohesionless soils, the multi-level supported shoring can be designed based on a

rectangular earth pressure distribution with a maximum pressure defined by:

𝑷 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 𝑲[𝜸𝑯 + 𝒒]

where, P = the horizontal pressure at depth, H (kPa)

K = the earth pressure coefficient (see Section 3.3)

H = the total depth of the excavation (m)

γ = the bulk unit weight of soil, (kN/m3)

q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

For ground water pressure distribution along the shoring wall in conjunction with the above soil

pressures, the stabilized ground water table should be taken at Elev. 120 ±m. The ground water pressure

distribution is only applicable where an impermeable boundary condition is created along the perimeter of



the excavation, as is the case with a continuous interlocking caisson wall. Conventional soldier pile and

lagging do not experience the water pressures, as water is allowed to drain freely through the wall.

4.3.2 Caisson and Soldier Pile Toe Embedment

Caisson and solider pile toes will be made in the very dense native soils below the P5 level. The

horizontal resistance of the caisson and solider pile toes will be developed by embedment below the base

of the excavation, where resistance is developed from passive earth pressure.

The native cohesionless soils at this site are sufficiently permeable and wet such that augered borings

made into these soils will be unstable. It is necessary to advance temporarily cased holes to the glacial till

to prevent excess caving during the soldier pile and all augered hole installations. Drill holes for piles,

caissons, and/or fillers, utilizing temporary liners, mud drilling techniques, and/or other methods as

deemed necessary by the contractor may be required to prevent issues such as: groundwater inflow or loss

of soil into the drill holes, and disturbance to placed concrete.

4.3.3 Lateral Bracing Elements

If anchor support is necessary and determined to be feasible, the shoring system should be supported by

pre-stressed soil anchors extending beneath the adjacent lands. Pre-stressed anchors are installed and

stressed in advance of excavation and this limits movement of the shoring system as much as is

practically possible. The use of anchors on adjacent properties requires the consent of the adjacent land

owners, expressed in encroachment agreements.

Conventional earth anchors could be made with a continuous hollow stem augers or alternatively

post-grouted wash bored anchors can be made. The design adhesion for earth anchors is controlled as

much by the installation technique as the soil and therefore a proto-type anchor must be made in each

anchor level executed to demonstrate the anchor capacity and validate the design assumptions. A

proto-type anchor must be made to demonstrate the anchor capacity (performance tested). All production

anchors must be proof-tested to 133% of the design load, to validate the design assumptions.

The subsurface soils are sufficiently cohesionless, permeable and/or wet that augered holes could

experience caving. It will be necessary to advance temporarily cased holes to maintain sidewall support

and to prevent the ingress of water during soldier pile (and caisson wall fillers, if applicable) installation,

use slurry, etc. or other means or methods deemed necessary by the contractor.

Conventional earth anchors made in the dense to very dense native soils may be designed using a working

adhesion of 60 kPa. It is expected that post-grouted anchors can be made such that an anchor will safely

carry about 80 kN/m of adhered anchor length (at a nominal diameter of 150 mm).



The very dense native soils at the P5 level (Elev. 109.2 ±m) are suitable for the placement of raker

foundations. Raker footings established on the native soils at an inclination of 45 degrees can be designed

for a maximum factored geotechnical resistance at ULS of 450 kPa.

4.4 Site Work

The earth fill and native soils at this site will become disturbed and may lose their integrity to support

when subjected to traffic, particularly when wet. It can be expected that a subgrade made in the native

soils will be disturbed unless dewatered to a minimum of 1.2 m below the lowest excavation elevation,

and an adequate granular working surface is provided to protect the integrity of the subgrade soils from

construction traffic, especially during periods of wet weather. Subgrade preparation works cannot be

adequately accomplished during wet weather and the project must be scheduled accordingly. The

disturbance caused by the traffic can result in the removal of disturbed soil and use of granular fill

material for site restoration or underfloor fill that is not intrinsic to the project requirements.

The most severe loading conditions on the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently,

special provisions such as end dumping and forward spreading of earth and aggregate fills, restricted

construction lanes, and half-loads during placement of the granular base and other work may be required,

especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.

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

founding subgrade and concrete must be provided. The native soils at this site are susceptible to frost

damage. Consideration must be given to frost effects, such as heave or softening, on exposed soil surfaces

in the context of this particular project development. Depending on the weather at the time of construction

it could be necessary to install a skim coat of lean concrete (mud-slab) to preserve the subgrade integrity,

and to provide a trafficable surface.

4.5 Quality Control

Prior to the start of excavation, it is advisable to complete visual pre-construction condition surveys of

adjacent lands and buildings. These surveys document the baseline condition at the start of construction

for the adjudication of any damage claims related to the works. Even a well-executed shoring system

designed with appropriate parameters cannot preclude all movements, and depending on the existing

condition of the adjacent structure, small changes in stress or soil volume can cause displacements or

cracking. The City of Toronto will require, as a condition of the excavation permit, that the shoring

performance be monitored as excavation proceeds. Terraprobe provides shoring monitoring services.

The proposed structure may be founded on conventional spread footings, deep foundations or a raft

foundation. The foundation installations must be reviewed in the field by Terraprobe, the geotechnical

engineer, as they are constructed. The on-site review of the condition of the foundation subgrade as the

foundations are constructed is an integral part of the geotechnical design function and is required by



Section 4.2.2.2 of the Ontario Building Code (2012). If Terraprobe is not retained to carry out foundation

evaluations during construction, then Terraprobe accepts no responsibility for the performance or non-

performance of the foundations, even if they are ostensibly constructed in accordance with the conceptual

design advice contained in this report.

The long term performance of the slab on grade is highly dependent upon the subgrade support

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

subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible. The design advice

in this report is based on an assessment of the subgrade support capabilities as indicated by the boreholes.

These conditions may vary across the site depending on the final design grades and therefore, the

preparation of the subgrade and the compaction of all fill should be monitored by Terraprobe at the time

of construction to confirm material quality, thickness, and to ensure adequate compaction.

The requirements for fill placement on this project have been stipulated relative to Standard Proctor

Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). In situ determinations of density during fill placement on site are

required to demonstrate that the specified placement density is achieved. Terraprobe is a CNSC certified

operator of appropriate nuclear density gauges for this work and can provide sampling and testing

services for the project as necessary, with our qualified technical staff.

Concrete will be specified in accordance with the requirements of CAN3 - CSA A23.1. Terraprobe

maintains a CSA certified concrete laboratory and can provide concrete sampling and testing services for

the project as necessary.

Terraprobe staff can also provide quality control services for Building Envelope, Roofing and Structural

Steel, as necessary, for the Structural and Architectural quality control requirements of the project.

Terraprobe is certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau under W178.1-1996.

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT

5.1 Procedures

This investigation has been carried out using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods

consistent with those ordinarily exercised by Terraprobe and other engineering practitioners, working

under similar conditions and subject to the time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this

project. The discussions and recommendations that have been presented are based on the factual data

obtained from this investigation.

The drilling work was carried out by a drilling contractor and was observed and recorded by Terraprobe

on a full time basis. The exterior boreholes were made by a continuous flight power auger machine using

hollow stem augers and mud rotary techniques. The Terraprobe technician logged the boreholes and

examined the samples as they were obtained. The samples obtained were sealed in clean, air-tight



containers and transferred to the Terraprobe laboratory, where they were reviewed for consistency of

description by a geotechnical engineer. Ground water monitoring wells were installed in both boreholes to

measure long-term ground water levels.

The samples of the strata penetrated were obtained using the Split-Barrel Method technique

(ASTM D1586). The samples were taken at intervals. The conventional interval sampling procedure used

for this investigation does not recover continuous samples of soil at any borehole location. There is

consequently some interpolation of the borehole layering between samples and indications of changes in

stratigraphy as shown on the borehole logs are approximate.

It must be recognized that there are special risks whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied

to identify subsurface conditions. A comprehensive sampling and testing programme implemented in

accordance with the most stringent level of care may fail to detect certain conditions. Terraprobe has

assumed for the purposes of providing design parameters and advice, that the conditions that exist

between sampling points are similar to those found at the sample locations.

It may not be possible to drill a sufficient number of boreholes, or sample and report them in a way that

would provide all the subsurface information and geotechnical advice to completely identify all aspects of

the site and works that could affect construction costs, techniques, equipment and scheduling. Contractors

bidding on or undertaking work on the project must be directed to draw their own conclusions as to how

the subsurface conditions may affect them, based on their own investigations and their own

interpretations of the factual investigation results, and their approach to the construction works, cognizant

of the risks implicit in the subsurface investigation activities.

5.2 Changes in Site and Scope

It must be recognized that the passage of time, natural occurrences, and direct or indirect human

intervention at or near the site have the potential to alter subsurface conditions. In particular, caution

should be exercised in the consideration of contractual responsibilities as they relate to control of seepage,

disturbance of soils, and frost protection.

The design parameters provided and the engineering advice offered in this report are based on the factual

data obtained from this investigation made at the site by Terraprobe and are intended for use by the owner

and its retained design consultants in the design phase of the project. If there are changes to the project

scope and development features, the interpretations made of the subsurface information, the geotechnical

design parameters, advice and comments relating to constructability issues and quality control may not be

relevant or complete for the project. Terraprobe should be retained to review the implications of such

changes with respect to the contents of this report.

FIGURES

TERRAPROBE INC.

SITE

SITE

FIGURE :Terraprobe11 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3

Tel: (905) 796-2650 Fax: (905) 796-2250

Title:

File. No.:

SITE LOCATION PLAN

1-17-0848-01

1

REFERENCE

Microsoft Streets and Trips

T:\1-P

ro

ject Files\2017\1-17-0848 - 12, 16, 20,

24 C

ord

ova A

ven

ue, C

ity o

f To

ro

nto

\01-G

EO

In

vestig

atio

n\A

. D

wg

s, Lo

gs\A

uto

CA

D\1-17-0848-01 Fig

1 &

2.d

wg

, K

am

al

BH1

BH2

BH3

BH101

BH201D

BH 201S

BH202

BH205

BH203

BH204

PW1

BH301

BH302

401-S

401-D

FIGURE :Terraprobe11 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3

Tel: (905) 796-2650 Fax: (905) 796-2250

Title:

File. No.:

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

1-17-0848-01

(Proposed Condition)

3

REFERENCE

Project Name: 12-20 Cordova Ave

Project No.: 18-101,

Dwg No.: A1-1

Date: Nov. 16, 2018

By: Rafael+Bigauskas Architects

Approximate Borehole Location

Approximate Interior Borehole Location

Approximate Pump Well Location (Exterior)

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary

CORDOVA

AVENUE

Project North

T

r

u

e

N

o

r

t

h

T:\1-P

ro

ject Files\2017\1-17-0848 - 12, 16, 20,

24 C

ord

ova A

ven

ue, C

ity o

f To

ro

nto

\01-G

EO

In

vestig

atio

n\A

. D

wg

s, Lo

gs\A

uto

CA

D\1-17-0848-01 Fig

1 &

2 (2018-05-31).d

wg

, K

am

al

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

BH

1

BH

2

BH

3

BH

101

BH

201-

S-D

BH

202

BH

203

BH

204

BH

205

BH

301

BH

302BH

401-

S-D

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

EQUALLY SPACED Along SEC LINE BaselineLITHOLOGY GRAPHIC LEGEND

Asphalt

Fill

Sand

GravellySand

Sandy Silt

Sandy SiltTill

Aggregate

Sand andSilt Till

Bedrock

Blank

GravellySand Till

Clayey SiltTill

Sand andSilt

Silty SandTill

Concrete

Silty Sand

Sand andGravel

INTERPRETIVE LEGENDWL on completion of drilling

Stabilized WL, most recent

SITE MAP

Alignment: SEC LINEFrom E:618688, N:4833884, to E:618724, N:4833812

Rep

ort:

!SE

CT

ION

- T

AB

LOID

- E

LEV

File No.:11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3

(905) 796-26501-17-0848-01

Title:SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SEC LINE, EQUAL SPACING

COHESIVE SOILS(clayey silt to clay, incl.tills)

GRAVELS (gravel togravelly sand)

SILT TO SAND (not till)

0 -

34 -

62

- 4

0 -

8 -

82 -

10

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

1 -

33 -

61

- 5

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

24 -

60

- 11

- 5

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N''N'

6 -

33 -

46

- 15

PL=

11%

LL=

16%

37 -

38

- 19

- 6

'N'

25 -

47

- 24

- 4

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

3 -

34 -

49

- 14

PL=

11%

LL=

16%

0 -

55 -

43

- 2

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

23 -

37

- 31

- 9

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

50 m

m d

ia. m

onito

ring

wel

l

'N'

50 -

31

- 13

- 6

'N'

COHESIONLESS TILLSFILL

1

2

3

101

201-S-D

202

203

205

301 302

401-S-D

17

4

19

16

24

35

52

43

29

34

38

35

35

31

32

7

10

9

4

31

22

35

55

9

16

33

79

48

93 /225mm

50 /25mm

100

4

4

10

10

31

12

26

35

41

17

22

49

50 /125mm

50 /100mm

50 /100mm

50 /125mm

84 /250mm

96 /250mm

50 /125mm

50 /150mm

86

95 /275mm

71

62

100 /225mm

42

141

100 /150mm

100 /150mm

100 /150mm

23

47

72

46

28

50 /125mm

100 /150mm

100 /125mm

100 /100mm

50 /25mm

50 /125mm

73

36

38

37

26

35

50 /75mm

73 /275mm

4

22

27

39

50 /75mm

91 /275mm

50 /150mm

100 /275mm

97

73

56

67

100 /125mm

81

100 /100mm

7

14

24

72 /275mm

42

81 /275mm

63

73

88

71

48

38

49

43

100 /150mm

13

9

36

56

35

84

63

61

70

94 /250mm

50

43

44

47

50 /75mm

50 /125mm

50 /125mm

50 /25mm

APPENDICES

TERRAPROBE INC.

APPENDIX A

TERRAPROBE INC.

Terraprobe ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

SAMPLING METHODS AS auger sample CORE cored sample DP direct push FV field vane GS grab sample SS split spoon ST shelby tube WS wash sample

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance ('N' values) is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a standard 50 mm (2 in.) diameter split spoon sampler for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.). Dynamic Cone Test (DCT) resistance is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a conical steel point of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter and with 60° sides on 'A' size drill rods for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.)."

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Compactness ‘N’ value

very loose < 4 loose 4 – 10 compact 10 – 30 dense 30 – 50 very dense > 50

COHESIVE SOILS

Consistency ‘N’ value Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

very soft < 2 < 12 soft 2 – 4 12 – 25 firm 4 – 8 25 – 50 stiff 8 – 15 50 – 100 very stiff 15 – 30 100 – 200 hard > 30 > 200

COMPOSITION Term (e.g) % by weight

trace silt < 10 some silt 10 – 20 silty 20 – 35 sand and silt > 35

TESTS AND SYMBOLS

MH mechanical sieve and hydrometer analysis

w, wc water content

wL, LL liquid limit

wP, PL plastic limit

IP, PI plasticity index

k coefficient of permeability

γ soil unit weight, bulk

Gs specific gravity

φ’ internal friction angle

c’ effective cohesion

cu undrained shear strength

Unstabilized water level

1st water level measurement

2nd water level measurement

Most recent water level measurement

Undrained shear strength from field vane (with sensitivity)

Cc compression index

cv coefficient of consolidation

mv coefficient of compressibility

e void ratio

FIELD MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS Damp refers to a soil sample that does not exhibit any observable pore water from field/hand inspection.

Moist refers to a soil sample that exhibits evidence of existing pore water (e.g. sample feels cool, cohesive soil is at plastic limit) but does not have visible pore water

Wet refers to a soil sample that has visible pore water

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

WATER LEVEL READINGSDate Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

Feb 26, 2018 6.1 119.0Feb 27, 2018 6.1 118.9Mar 2, 2018 6.0 119.0Mar 6, 2018 6.0 119.0Mar 23, 2018 6.3 118.7Apr 2, 2018 5.9 119.1Apr 26, 2018 5.6 119.4May 5, 2018 5.5 119.5May 14, 2018 5.5 119.5May 30, 2018 12.0 113.0Jun 14, 2018 5.8 119.2Jul 3, 2018 5.4 119.6Jul 4, 2018 5.4 119.6Jul 8, 2018 5.7 119.3Aug 7, 2018 5.5 119.5

50mm ASPHALT

FILL, silty sand, some clay, trace gravel,trace ash and cinders, trace brickfragments, trace rootlets, trace organics,compact, dark brown, moist

SAND, some stone fragments,compact, brown, moist

GRAVELLY SAND, trace silt, compact,brown, moist

SAND, some silt, dense to very dense,brown, moist

...at 6.1 m, wet

SANDY SILT, trace clay, dense, brown,moist to wet

...at 9.1 m, compact

...at 13.7 m, trace sand

SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel,dense, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE

Unstabilized water level measured at16.9 m below ground surface uponcompletion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

1A1B

2

3

4A4B

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

PID: <5PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

SS2 Analysis:PAH

SS3 Analysis:M&I

0 34 62 4

0 8 82 10

123.51.5

122.32.7

120.44.6

117.47.6

109.215.8

107.617.4

17

4

19

16

24

35

52

43

29

34

38

35

35

31

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

125.0

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e

Description Unconfined

Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

Pocket Penetrometer Field Vane

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

Dynamic ConeMoisture / Plasticity

10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit

NaturalWater Content

LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Lab Vane

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL

Position : E: 618696, N: 4833874 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic

Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

DZ

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augersRig type : Track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : February 22, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1

Client : Minto Communities Inc.

Project : 12-20 Cordova Avenue

Location : Etobicoke, Ontario

LOG OF BOREHOLE 1fi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj

Penetration Test Values(Blows / 0.3m)

10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS



50mm ASPHALT

FILL, silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel,trace ash and cinders, trace brickfragments, trace organics, dense, brown,moist...at 0.8 m, loose

SAND, some silt, compact to loose,brown, moist

GRAVELLY SAND, trace silt, dense,brown, moist

SANDY SILT, trace clay, compact todense, brown, wet

...at 7.6 m, grey

...at 9.1 m, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

SS1 Analysis:PAH

SS2 Analysis:M&I, VOC, PHC

SS3 Analysis:M&I

SS4 Analysis:PAH

1 33 61 5

SS8 Analysis:VOC, PHC

123.01.5

119.94.6

118.46.1

114.79.8

32

7

10

9

4

31

22

35

55

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.5


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

DZ

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augersRig type : Track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




LOG OF BOREHOLE 2fi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS



130mm ASPHALT

FILL, silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel,trace brick fragments, trace organics,trace rootlets, loose to compact, darkbrown, moist

GRAVELLY SAND, trace silt, dense tovery dense, brown, moist

...at 4.6 m, some gravel, some silt, traceclay, wet

SANDY SILT, very dense, brown, wet

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

SS2 Analysis:M&I, PAH, VOC,PHC

SS5 Analysis:M&I, PAH

24 60 11 5


123.31.5

117.27.6

116.68.2

9

16

33

79

48

93 /225mm

50 /25mm

100

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.8


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

DZ

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augersRig type : Truck-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




LOG OF BOREHOLE 3fi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SSRUN


Mar 27, 2018 7.7 117.0Apr 2, 2018 7.8 116.9Apr 26, 2018 7.4 117.3May 5, 2018 7.4 117.3May 14, 2018 7.4 117.3May 30, 2018 21.2 103.5Jun 14, 2018 8.3 116.4Jul 3, 2018 7.5 117.3Jul 4, 2018 7.5 117.3Jul 8, 2018 7.8 117.0Aug 7, 2018 7.5 117.2

15mm ASPHALT165mm AGGREGATE

FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, trace clay,trace rootlets, trace asphalt fragments,trace brick fragments, trace organics,loose, dark brown, moist

SAND, some silt, trace gravel, compactto dense, brown, moist

...at 4.6 m, wet below

...at 6.1 m, sandy silt layers

...at 7.6 m, grey

SANDY SILT, trace clay, compact, grey,moist

SANDY SILT, trace clay, trace gravel,dense to very dense, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

SAND AND SILT, trace clay, tracegravel, very dense, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

...at 21.3 m, contains trace shalefragments

POSSIBLE BEDROCK, weathered,grey, shale

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry upon completion ofdrilling.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

191

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: 10

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5...at 23.3m, corebarrel jammed

TCR = 100%SCR = 0%RQD = 0%

123.21.5

112.512.2

111.013.7

107.217.5

101.822.9

101.423.3

4

4

10

10

31

12

26

35

41

17

22

49

50 /125mm

50 /100mm

50 /100mm

50 /125mm

84 /250mm

96 /250mm

50 /125mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.7


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

105

104

103

102


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

JK

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augersRig type : Truck-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : March 24, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1




LOG OF BOREHOLE 101fi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

50mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

Refer to Borehole 1 for Stratigraphy.

SAND, some silt, very dense, brown,wet

SANDY SILT, trace clay, very dense,grey, wet


SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt, traceclay, very dense, grey, wet(GLACIAL TILL)

POSSIBLE BEDROCK, weatheredshale, grey

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole contained drill water uponcompletion of drilling. Unstabilized waterlevel and cave not measured.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

W1 WATER LEVELSDate Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

Apr 26, 2018 5.8 119.2May 5, 2018 5.6 119.4May 14, 2018 5.6 119.4May 30, 2018 16.7 108.3Jun 14, 2018 5.4 119.6Jul 3, 2018 5.4 119.6Jul 4, 2018Aug 7, 2018 5.5 119.5


Jul 4, 2018 5.9 119.1Jul 8, 2018 7.4 117.6Aug 7, 2018 7.1 117.9

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

...at 0.0m, straightdrilled to 7.6m

...at 7.6m, switchedto mud rotary

6 33 46 15

37 38 19 6

SS8 Analysis:VOC

...at 19.8m, triconegrinding to 21.3m

...at 22.7m, triconerefusal

117.47.6

115.99.1

108.216.8

106.718.3

102.1102.023.0

50 /150mm

86

95 /275mm

71

62

100 /225mm

42

141

100 /150mm

100 /150mm

100 /150mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

125.0


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

105

104

103

102


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotaryRig type : Track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : April 24, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1




LOG OF BOREHOLE 201-S-Dfi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS


Apr 26, 2018 2.1 122.5May 5, 2018 5.5 119.1May 14, 2018 5.5 119.1May 30, 2018 16.7 107.9Jun 14, 2018 7.9 116.7Jul 3, 2018 7.3 117.4Jul 8, 2018 7.9 116.8Aug 7, 2018 7.3 117.3

Straight drill to 20'

SAND, some silt, compact, brown, wet

SANDY SILT, trace clay, dense to verydense, grey, wet

SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel,compact, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

GRAVELLY SAND, silty, trace clay, verydense, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

CLAYEY SILT, some shale fragments,trace sand, trace gravel, hard, grey,moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8A8B9

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: <5

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

...at 0.0m, straightdrilled to 6.1m


25 47 24 4

...at 17.2m, samplerbouncing triconerefusal

118.56.1

117.07.6

112.412.2

110.913.7

107.816.8

107.017.6

23

47

72

46

28

50 /125mm

100 /150mm

100 /125mm100 /

100mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.6


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC


Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS


Apr 26, 2018 3.6 121.3May 5, 2018 5.5 119.4May 14, 2018 5.5 119.4May 30, 2018 18.3 106.6Jun 14, 2018 6.0 118.9Jul 3, 2018 5.3 119.6Jul 4, 2018 5.3 119.6Jul 8, 2018 6.7 118.2Aug 7, 2018 5.5 119.4

Straight drill to 20'

GRAVELLY SAND, silty, trace clay, verydense, grey, moist


SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel,dense to compact, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

SAND AND SILT, trace clay, dense,grey, wet

CLAYEY SILT, some shale fragments,trace sand, trace gravel, hard, grey,moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

straight drilled to6.1m



SS3 Analysis:PHC

3 34 49 14

SS7 Analysis:VOC

0 55 43 2


118.86.1

117.37.6

111.213.7

108.116.8

106.618.3

105.419.5

50 /25mm

50 /125mm

73

36

38

37

26

35

50 /75mm73 /

275mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.9


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC


Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS



50mm ASPHALT

FILL, sand, some silt, trace gravel, traceorganics, trace rootlets, trace plasticfragments, loose to compact, dark brownto brown, moist

SAND, some silt, dense, brown, moist

SANDY SILT, trace clay, trace gravel,very dense, brown, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

...at 4.6 m, gravelly


...at 9.1 m, sand layer, wet

SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel,very dense, grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

SILTY SAND, some gravel, some shalefragments, trace clay, very dense, grey,moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: <5

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

...at 0.8m, augergrinding to 1.4m





SS8 Analysis:PHC

SS12 Analysis:VOC

...at 15.4m, samplerbouncing

23 37 31 9

...at 18.3m, loss fluidcirculation

122.72.3

122.03.0

117.47.6

109.815.2

108.216.8

106.618.4

4

22

27

39

50 /75mm

91 /275mm

50 /150mm

100 /275mm

97

73

56

67

100 /125mm

81

100 /100mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

125.0


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC


Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS



50mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

FILL, sand, some silt, trace gravel, traceorganics, trace asphalt fragments, looseto compact, dark brown to brown, moist

SAND, some silt, trace gravel, verydense to dense, brown, moist

...at 6.1 m, wet

SANDY SILT, trace clay, very dense todense, grey, wet


...at 18.2 m, gravelly, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE



1

2

3

4

5A5B

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0

SS2 Analysis:M&I

SS3 Analysis:PAH, VOC, PHC

SS4 Analysis:M&I

5B Analysis:PAH

SS7 Analysis:PHC

SS14 Analysis:VOC


123.32.3

118.07.6

108.816.8

107.018.6

7

14

24

72 /275mm

42

81 /275mm

63

73

88

71

48

38

49

43

100 /150mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

125.6


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC


Project No. : 1-17-0848-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

DP

DP

DP


May 30, 2018 2.0 122.8Jun 14, 2018 dry n/aJul 3, 2018 dry n/a

60mm CONCRETE

SILTY SAND, some gravel, compact,brown, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open uponcompletion of drilling.

1

2

3

PID: 0

PID: 5

PID: 0

DP1 Analysis:VOC, PHC

DP3 Analysis:M&I, PAH, VOC,PHC

123.01.8

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.8


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123


SOIL PROFILE

TOP OF SLAB

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Continuous samplingRig type : Pionjar, track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : May 14, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

DP

DP

DP

DP


May 30, 2018 2.5 122.2Jun 14, 2018 dry n/aJul 3, 2018 dry n/a

60mm CONCRETE

SILTY SAND, some gravel, compact,brown, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open uponcompletion of drilling.

1

2

3A3B

4

PID: 0

PID: 0

PID: 0PID: 0

PID: 0

DP1 Analysis:VOC, PHC

DP4 Analysis:M&I, PAH, VOC,PHC121.8

2.9

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

124.7


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

124

123

122


SOIL PROFILE

TOP OF SLAB

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

TW

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Continuous samplingRig type : Pionjar, track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : May 14, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1





le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

50mm ASPHALT

FILL, silty sand, some clay, trace gravel,trace brick fragments, trace cinders,loose to compact, dark brown, moist

SAND, trace to some silt, trace gravel,dense to very dense, brown, moist

...at 6.1 m, wet

SANDY SILT, trace clay, dense to verydense, grey, moist to wet

...at 12.2 m, wet below


SAND AND GRAVEL, silty, trace clay,trace shale fragments, very dense, grey,wet(GLACIAL TILL)...at 19.8 m, sandy gravel, some silt,trace clay

SAND, some silt, trace gravel, verydense, grey, wet

POSSIBLE BEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18W1 WATER LEVELS

Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)Aug 7, 2018 5.5 119.9


Aug 7, 2018 6.5 118.9

PID: <5

PID: 15

PID: 10

PID: <5

PID: 5

PID: <5

PID: 10

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5

PID: <5




SS5 Analysis:M&I, PAH, VOC,PHC


...at 18.3m, tri-conegrinding

50 31 13 6...at 19.8m, tri-conegrinding to 21.3m

...at 22.4m, tri-conerefusal

123.91.5

117.87.6

110.215.2

107.118.3

104.121.3

103.0103.022.4

13

9

36

56

35

84

63

61

70

94 /250mm

50

43

44

47

50 /75mm

50 /125mm

50 /125mm

50 /25mm

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

125.4


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

107

106

105

104

103


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL


Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

MC

NN

JC

Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotaryRig type : CME 75, truck-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0848-01

Date started : July 4, 2018

Sheet No. : 1 of 1




LOG OF BOREHOLE 401-S-Dfi

le:

1-17

-084

8-01

bh

logs

.gpj


10 20 30 40

APPENDIX B

TERRAPROBE INC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gravel (%)Depth (m) Elev. (m)

MIT SYSTEM

Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)SampleHole ID

Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS10

SS12

SS7

11.0

14.0

6.4

113.0

110.0

118.2

0

0

1

34

8

33

62

82

61

4

10

5

1

1

2

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Title:

1-17-0848-01File No.:11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3(905) 796-2650

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SILT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS6 4.8 120.1 24 60 11 53

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:



GRAVELLY SAND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS7

SS7

17.1

15.5

107.9

109.4

6

3

33

34

46

49

15

14

201D

203

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:



UPPER GLACIAL TILLSANDY SILT GLACIAL TILL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS8 17.1 107.8 0 55 43 2203

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:



SAND AND SILT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS8

SS6

SS14

SS16

18.5

13.9

17.1

19.9

106.5

110.7

107.9

105.5

37

25

23

50

38

47

37

31

19

24

31

13

6

4

9

6

201D

202

204

401D

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:



LOWER GLACIAL TILL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line

Depth (m) Elev. (m)SampleBorehole

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH

Very High Extremely HighHighLow

Upper Plasticity Range

ML

CL - ML

Liquid Limit (LL, %)

SS7

SS7

17.1

15.5

107.9

109.4

11

11

MLorOL

201D

203

LL (%) PI (%)

5

5

PL (%)

16

16

Title:


ATTERBERG LIMITS CHART

APPENDIX C

TERRAPROBE INC.

Documents

12, 16 & 20 Cordova Avenue