Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Commercial

LRL File No.: 130708 December 2013

Geotechnical InvestigationProposed New Commercial Building

1015 Dairy DriveOttawa, Ontario

Prepared for:

Drytech International Inc.92 Bentley Avenue

Ottawa, OntarioK2E 6T9

Attention: Mr. Eric Cameron P. EngVice President, MarGard Ltd.

LRL Associates Ltd.1-2884 Chamberland Street Tel: (613) 446-7777 or (877) 632-5664

Rockland, Ontario Website: www.LRL.caK4K 1M6 Fax: (613) 446-1427a

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Page i

LRL Associates Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 1

3 PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................... 2

4 SUBSURFACE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................ 3

4.1 Fill ............................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Topsoil........................................................................................................................ 4

4.3 Silty Clay .................................................................................................................... 4

4.4 Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 4

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 5

5.1 Foundations ............................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Settlement .................................................................................................................. 6

5.3 Use of Structural Fill .................................................................................................. 6

5.4 Seismic ....................................................................................................................... 7

5.5 Potential for Soil Liquefaction .................................................................................. 7

5.6 Slab-on-grade Construction...................................................................................... 7

5.7 Frost Protection ......................................................................................................... 8

5.8 Foundation Drainage ................................................................................................. 8

5.9 Foundation Walls Backfill ......................................................................................... 8

5.10 Retaining Walls and Shoring..................................................................................... 9

5.11 Trees..........................................................................................................................11

6 POTENTIAL OF CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................12

6.1 Sulphate Attack on Buried Concrete .......................................................................12

7 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................13

7.1 Excavation.................................................................................................................13

7.2 Groundwater Control................................................................................................13

7.1 Pipe Bedding Requirements ....................................................................................14

7.2 Trench Backfill ..........................................................................................................14

7.3 Reuse of On-Site Soils..............................................................................................15

8 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................15

8.1 Slope Description .....................................................................................................15

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Page ii

LRL Associates Ltd.

8.2 Assessment...............................................................................................................16

8.3 Recommendations....................................................................................................18

9 PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................................19

9.1 Paved Areas and Subgrade Preparation .................................................................20

10 INSPECTION SERVICES...............................................................................................21

11 REPORT CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................21

TABLES

Table 1 Material Properties for Shoring and Permanent Wall Design………………..........9

Table 2 Material Properties for Shoring and Permanent Wall Design (Seismic) ............11

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Page iii

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Test Pit Location Plan

Appendix B Test Pit Logs

Appendix C Laboratory Test Reports – Physical Tests

Appendix D Laboratory Certificate of Analysis – Chemical Tests

Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis Results

Appendix F Symbols and Terms Used in Test Pit Logs

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Page 1 of 22

LRL Associates Ltd.

1 INTRODUCTION

Drytech International Inc. retained the services of LRL Associates Ltd. (LRL) to carry out

a geotechnical investigation for a proposed new commercial building to be located at the

1015 Dairy Drive in Ottawa, Ontario.

The purpose of this investigation was to identify the subsurface conditions at the site by

means of a limited number of test pits, provide geotechnical recommendations with

regard to the design of foundations for the proposed building and to provide construction

considerations.

It is our understanding that the site development plan for this project will consist of the

construction of a one to three storey commercial structure with a slab-on-grade and no

basement. This new building would house the headquarters of Drytech International Inc.

and will contain a combination of office and warehouse spaces. Access lanes and

parking areas are also being proposed. Entrance to the site will be from Dairy Drive.

The new building will be serviced by municipal water and sewers.

Should there be any changes in the design features, which may relate to the guidelines

provided in the report, LRL Associates Ltd. should be advised in order to review the

report recommendations.

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed commercial building will be located at 1015 Dairy Drive, in the City of

Ottawa, Ontario. The property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of

Dairy Drive and Old Montreal Road.

The site is vacant and covered with wild grasses and shrubs. There is a large stockpile

of what appears to be topsoil located in the center of the property. The site has a minor

(approximately 2.5%) slope towards the north.


LRL Associates Ltd.

It is noted that there is a natural creek (Cardinal Creek) that flows east of the site within

a small valley. The crest of the slope of the west side of the valley is approximately 13m

from the east property line of the site and outlets into the Ottawa River,

approximately1km north of the site. The locations of the completed tests pits, the

proposed building layout, topsoil stockpile and subject slope are shown on the Test Pit

Location Plan given in Appendix A of this report.

3 PROCEDURE

The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out on November 4th, 2013 at which time

eight (8) test pits (labelled TP-1 through TP-8) were put down close to and within the

proposed footprint of the building based on the layout given by the client. With

permission from the client, a manual auger hole was also completed in the subject slope

to confirm the soil stratigraphy. Prior to the fieldwork, the test pit locations were cleared

for any underground services and utilities. The test pits were advanced using a backhoe

excavator supplied and operated by Guy Courschesne Excavation Ltd.

Sampling of the overburden materials encountered in the test pits was carried out by

means of grab samples collected from the bucket of the backhoe while digging down to

depths of ranging from 1.8m – 4.6m bgs (below ground surface). Field vane

measurements were also taken within the test pits to evaluate the undrained shear

strength of the clay found on site. Grab samples were also collected from the test pits

for subsequent examination and analysis. The fieldwork was supervised throughout by

a member of our engineering staff who oversaw the digging of the test pits, in-situ

testing, cared for the samples obtained and logged the subsurface conditions

encountered within each of the test pit.

The ground surface elevations of the test pits were measured using a laser level. The

test pit elevations were referenced to an established elevation of a manhole found on

Dairy Drive, approximately 100m north of Old Montreal Road. The geodetic elevation of

the manhole was taken from the results of a topographic survey completed of the site by

Annis, O’Sullivan, Vollebekk Ltd.


LRL Associates Ltd.

Laboratory testing was also completed on soil samples collected as part of this

investigation. Physical laboratory tests on the clay were performed by Stantec

Laboratories, an accredited soils and materials testing lab. Several soil samples were

also submitted to Paracel Laboratories Ltd., an accredited chemical testing lab, for

chemical analyses.

4 SUBSURFACE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits were classified based on visual

and tactile examination of the materials recovered from the test pits and the results of

the in-situ and laboratory testing. The soil descriptions presented in this report are

based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in

geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil involves judgement and

LRL does not guarantee descriptions as exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is

common in current geotechnical practice.

The subsurface soil conditions encountered at each test pit location are given in the Test

Pit Logs presented in Appendix B. The test pits indicate the subsurface conditions at

the specific test locations only. Boundaries between zones on the test pit logs are often

not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted.

A review of the geological maps for this site suggests that the site is underlain by

erosional terraces generally composed of silt and clay. The drift thickness for this area

would be approximately 15m to 25m. The following is a brief overview of the subsurface

conditions encountered at the test pits dug at this site.

4.1 Fill

Fill material was found directly at the surface in TP-3 and TP-5. The fill can be

described as being a heterogeneous mix of gravel, sand, silt and clay, brown in colour,

in a loose state of packing and moist. The thickness of the fill layer was found to be

approximately 400mm in both test pits.


LRL Associates Ltd.

4.2 Topsoil

It is noted that the site contains a very large stockpile (approximately 3m to 5m high) of

what appears to be topsoil. This was confirmed by digging out a small section of the

stockpile with the backhoe. Considering that no topsoil was found in the test pits

locations, it is assumed that this stockpile contains the native site topsoil.

The material was classified as topsoil based on colour and the presence of organic

materials and is intended as identification for geotechnical purposes only and does not

constitute a statement as to the suitability of this layer for cultivation and sustaining plant

growth.

4.3 Silty Clay

Clay was found in every test pit completed as part of this project. The clay is described as

being silty and is greyish brown in colour with minor red bands. The clay’s consistency is

a hard to very stiff (100kPa <Cu< 300kPa) at the surface becoming stiff (50kPa <Cu<

100kPa, where the lowest value obtained was 70kPa) approximately 2.8m to 3.8m below

ground surface. It is noted that the clay is weathered by frost at the surface for about

0.5m. All test pits were terminated within the clay deposit.

Atterberg limits and water content were performed on clay samples collected from TP-1

(S3) and TP-7 (S3) at an approximate depth of 1.9m and 4.1m bgs respectively. The

results revealed that the clay has a liquid limit ranging from 67.9% to 68.5%, a plastic

limit from 22.8% to 26.1%, a plasticity index from 39.8% to 45.1% and a moisture content

from 39.8% to 49.6%. According to the Unified Soil Classification System, this clay would

be classified as high plasticity clay (CH). The moisture content of the clay was found

above its plastic limit and below its liquid limit and increases with depth. The laboratory

result reports can be found in Appendix C of this report.

4.4 Groundwater

Prior to backfilling the test pits, standpipes were installed in TP-1, TP-3, TP-6 and TP-7 inorder to establish the static water level of the local groundwater. The static water levels


LRL Associates Ltd.

were measured using a water meter on November 7th, 2013. The level varies across thesite and is between 1.1m to 2.2m below ground surface. Due to the soil conditions, thisgroundwater is considered a perched seasonal water table found within the surficialfractured clay deposit and over the more impervious massive clay deposit. It is notedthat only minor groundwater seepages were observed in the open test pits and generallyoccurring at the interface of the fractured and massive clay. The water levelmeasurements are shown on the test pit logs presented in Appendix B.

It should be noted that this groundwater table can easily fluctuate with seasonal weather

conditions (i.e.: rainfall, droughts and spring thawing). In addition, it can be locally

affected by the presence of existing ditches and underground services trenches.

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Foundations

Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site, it is recommended that

foundations for the proposed new building be founded over the native, undisturbed silty

clay deposit or properly prepared and approved structural fill.

Conventional strip and column footings set over the native clay or properly prepared and

approved structural fill may be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of

100kPa for serviceability limit state (SLS) and 150kPa for ultimate limit state (ULS)

factored bearing resistance. The allowable bearing capacity is based on a maximum

width of 1.5m for strip footings and/or on pad footings not exceeding 3.0m on any side.

The bearing capacity is also contingent on minimum founding depth of 0.5m (below the

weathered surficial clay) and a maximum founding depth of 1.5m below the existing

ground surface and a maximum allowable grade raise above the native of 1.2m.


LRL Associates Ltd.

If the above parameters cannot be met for the foundation design of the building, the

bearing capacity, founding depth or footing width will need to be revised. Should grade

raises be needed beyond the limitations given in this report, consideration should be

given to carrying out consolidation analyses on the clay, which may provide additional

allowance for grade raises. Another solution should larger grade raises be needed

would be using light-weight fill. Information on the use of light-weight fill can be provided

if this option is retained.

5.2 Settlement

The estimated total settlement of the foundations, designed using the recommended

serviceability limit state capacity value given herein as well as other recommendations

will be less than 25mm. The differential settlement between adjacent footings is

anticipated to be 20mm or less.

5.3 Use of Structural Fill

Where excavation below the underside of the footing is performed, considerations shall

be given to support the footings on structural fill. The structural fill shall be placed over

undisturbed native soils in layers not exceeding 200mm and compacted to 98% of its

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). In order to allow the spread of load

beneath the footings and to prevent under mining during construction, the structural fill

must extend 1m beyond the outside edges of the footings and then outward and

downward at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical profile (or flatter) over a distance equal to the

depth of the structural fill below the footing. The recommended material to be used as

structural fill to support the footings shall consist of imported granular material meeting

Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications (OPSS) requirements for a Granular B Type

II, or an approved equivalent material.

Prior to placing any structural fill or to pouring the footings, it is required that any

disturbed soils along the base of the footings be removed and that the subgrade soils be

inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer. Furthermore, the structural fill

must be tested to ensure that the specified compaction level was achieved.


LRL Associates Ltd.

5.4 Seismic

Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation and the relatively limited

information gathered from test pits with regards to the deeper soil deposits, the soil at

the site can be classified as a class “E” as per the Site Classification for Seismic Site

Response in the latest version of the Ontario Building Code. It is noted that a greater

seismic site response class may be obtained from carrying out seismic velocity testing

using a multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW).

5.5 Potential for Soil Liquefaction

Clay soils are not considered prone to liquefaction and as such, liquefaction of the

underlying soil is not a concern for this construction.

5.6 Slab-on-grade Construction

Slab-on-grade construction will be acceptable over the native clay or approved structural

fill. Therefore, all organics, fill or otherwise deleterious material shall be removed from

the building’s footprint.

Any underfloor fill needed to raise the general floor grade shall consist of Granular B

Type I material or an approved equivalent, compacted to 95% of its standard proctor

maximum dry density (SPMDD). The final lift shall be compacted to 98% of its SPMDD.

A 200 mm layer of Granular A material shall be placed under the slab and compacted to

at least 98% of the SPMDD.

In order to further minimize and control cracking, the floor slab shall be provided with

wire mesh reinforcement and construction or control joints. The construction or control

joints should be spaced equal distance in both directions and should not exceed 4.5 m.

The wire mesh reinforcement shall be carried through the joints.


LRL Associates Ltd.

5.7 Frost Protection

Exterior footings and any footings located in unheated portions of the building shall be

protected against frost heaving by providing a minimum of 1.5m of earth cover under

snow covered surface or 1.8m under exposed surfaces (i.e. sidewalks, paved areas,

etc.), or its equivalent in insulation protection. LRL shall review the detailed design of

frost protection with the use of equivalent insulation prior to construction if this option is

chosen.

In the event that foundations are to be constructed during winter months, foundation

soils are required to be protected from freezing temperatures using suitable construction

techniques. Therefore, the base of all excavations should be insulated from freezing

temperature immediately upon exposure, until the time that heat can be supplied to the

building interior and footings have sufficient soil cover to prevent freezing of the

subgrade soils.

5.8 Foundation Drainage

Permanent perimeter drainage is not required considering that the building will not

contain a basement. In order to prevent the ponding of water adjacent to the foundation

walls, the roof water shall be controlled by a roof drainage system and the exterior grade

shall be sloped to shed water away from the walls.

5.9 Foundation Walls Backfill

To prevent possible foundation frost jacking, the backfill against foundation walls must

consist of free draining, non-frost susceptible material meeting OPSS Granular B - Type

I gradation requirements or an approved equivalent.

The foundation wall backfill should be compacted to 90% of its SPMDD using light

compaction equipment, where no loads will be set over top. The compaction shall be

increased to 95% under walkways, slabs or paved areas close to the foundation or

retaining walls. Backfilling against foundation walls should be carried out on both sides

of the wall at the same time where applicable.


LRL Associates Ltd.

5.10 Retaining Walls and Shoring

Table 1 below provides the recommended soil parameters for the design of retaining

wall and/or shoring systems in the event it would be required. For excavations near

existing services and structures, the coefficient of static earth pressure (Ko) shall be

used.

Table 1: Material Properties for Shoring and Permanent Wall Design (Static)

Type of MaterialBulk Density

(kg/m3)

Pressure Coefficient

Active (Ka)At Rest

(Ko)Clay 18 0.45 0.80Sand 19 0.33 0.50Till 22 0.27 0.50Granular B Type I 20 0.33 0.50Granular B Type II 23.1 0.31 0.47Granular A 23.5 0.27 0.43

The above values are for a flat surface behind the wall, a straight wall and a wall friction

angle of 0 degrees. The designer should consider any difference between these

coefficients, and make appropriate corrections for a sloped surface behind the wall,

angled wall or wall friction as required. The bearing capacity for the design of a retaining

wall are the same as provided for the building structure provided it is founded over

undisturbed silty clay no deeper than the limitations given in Section 5.1.

Retaining walls should also be designed to resist the earth pressures produces under

seismic conditions. The Canadian building code recommends the use of combined

coefficients of static and seismic earth pressure, referred to as KAE for active conditions

and KPE for passive conditions for routine design purposes.

The total active and passive loads under seismic conditions can be calculated using the

following two equations;

PAE = ½ KAE γ H2 (1-kV)

PPE = ½ KPE γ H2 (1-kV)


LRL Associates Ltd.

Where;

KAE = Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Combined Static and Seismic

KPE = Combined Static and Seismic Passive Earth Pressure Ccoefficient

H = Total Height of the Wall (m)

Kh = Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient

Kv = Vertical Acceleration Coefficient

γ = Bulk Density (kg/m3)

These equations are based on a horizontal slope behind the wall and a vertical back of

the retaining wall and zero wall friction. For this site, the following design parameters

were used to develop the recommended KAE and KPE values.

A = Zonal Acceleration Ratio = 0.2

Kh = Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient = 0.1

KV = Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient = 0.067

The above value of Kh corresponds to ½ of the A value and the value KV of corresponds

to 0.67 of the Kh value. The angle of friction between the soil and the wall has been set

at 0o to provide a conservative estimate.

The following Table 2 provides the parameters for seismic design of retaining structures.


LRL Associates Ltd.

Table 2: Material Properties for Shoring and Permanent Wall Design (Seismic)

Parameter OPSS Granular B Type IOPSS Granular A and

Granular B Type IIBulk Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) 20 23.3Effective Friction Angle (degrees) 30 32Angle of Internal Friction Betweenwall and Backfill (degrees) 0 0

Yielding WallActive Seismic Earth PressureCoefficient (KAE) 0.37 0.33Height of the Application of PAEfrom the base of the wall as aration of its height (H) 0.36 0.37Passive Seismic Earth PressureCoefficient (KPE) 3.06 3.48Height of the Application of PPEfrom the base of the wall as aration of its height (H) 0.30 0.30

5.11 Trees

It should be noted that the silty clay soils underlying the sand at the site may be sensitive

to water depletion by trees of high water demand during periods of dry weather. When

trees draw water from the clay, the clay undergoes shrinkage which can result in

settlement of adjacent structures. Research carried out by the Institute for Research

Construction, formerly the Division of Building Research, of the National Research

Council of Canada, referenced as CBD-62. Trees and Buildings, published in February

1965, provides the following guideline:

“If trees are already growing on the building site, every effort should be made so to

locate the structure such that it conforms to the suggestions in the next paragraph. If this

cannot be done then, with natural reluctance trees that are going to be too close to the

building must be cut down and their root systems removed. It is far better that this should

be done and new trees planted appropriately than that aesthetic claims should over-rule

sound judgment with the possibility of damage to the building and the eventual inevitable

removal of the trees in any case. Care should be taken that the removed trees have not

already desiccated the clay, which may then swell under the changed environment.”

“If trees are to be planted as a part of the landscaping around the building, a good

working rule has been found to be that trees should preferably be planted no nearer a

building on shrinkable clay than the eventual height to which the tree may be expected


LRL Associates Ltd.

to grow. This rule may require modification if the topography around the building varies.

Even in its application, attention must be given to the differing transpiration

characteristics of trees”

6 POTENTIAL OF CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Sulphate Attack on Buried Concrete

Three soil samples collected from TP-1 (S2), TP-5 (S2) and TP-7 (S1) were submitted to

Paracel Laboratories Ltd., an accredited chemical testing laboratory, for analysis on

sulphate content within silty clay deposit. The laboratory analysis revealed a maximum

measured sulphate concentration of 0.0015% (15 µg/g), 0.0013% (13 µg/g) and

0.0014% (14 µg/g) respectively for the three samples.

Based on the CAN/CSA-A23.1 standards (Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete

Construction), a sulphate concentration of 0.1% (1000 µg/g) or less in soil falls within the

negligible category for sulphate attack on buried concrete. As such, buried concrete for

footings and foundation walls will not require any special additive to resist sulphate

attack and the use of normal Portland cement is acceptable. The laboratory Certificates

of Analysis can be found in Appendix D of this report.

6.2 Corrosion on Buried Steel

A soil sample (S-2) collected from TP-5 was submitted to Paracel laboratories Ltd. for

chemical analysis, which included pH, Resistivity, Chloride and Redox Potential. The

purpose of this testing was to assess the potential for corrosive environment on any

buried steel. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis are presented in Appendix D.

The potential for an aggressive corrosive soil environment was established by

comparing the test results for the above measured parameters to the standard provided

by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-105/A21.5-10. Based on the

noted standard, corrosion protection for buried steel with respect to cast iron pipes is

only required where a corrosivity index of 10 or greater is encountered. Based on the

results, the calculated corrosivity index was found to be 2 excluding sulphides (the


LRL Associates Ltd.

maximum value for sulphides is 3.5 which still bring the total below 10). As such, any

buried steel as part of this project would not require any special or specific corrosion

protection measures.

7 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Excavation

It is anticipated that the depth of excavation for the building and underground services

will not extend below 3.5m bgs. The overburden soil encountered at this site consists

primarily of hard to very stiff clay becoming stiff with depth, generally below 2.8m.

According to the Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), O. Reg. 527/00

and its amendments, the surficial overburden soil expected to be excavated at this site

can be classified as Type 2 for fully drained excavations. Therefore, shallow temporary

excavation in the overburden soil classified as Type 2 can be cut vertically for the first

1.2m of the excavation starting at the based followed by a slope of 1 horizontal to 1

vertical to the surface for a fully drained excavation and as per requirements of the

OHSA regulations.

Any excavated material stockpiled near an excavation or trench should be stored at a

distance equal to or greater than the depth of the excavation/trench and construction

equipment traffic should be limited near open excavation.

It the event that the aforementioned slopes are not possible to achieve due to space

restrictions, the excavation shall be shored according to OHSA O. Reg. 527/00 and its

amendments. A geotechnical engineer shall design and approve the shoring and

establish the shoring depth under the excavation profile. Refer to the parameters

provided in Table 1 and Table 2 in Section 5.10 for use in the design of any shoring

structures.

7.2 Groundwater Control

Based on the overburden soil encountered at this site (primarily silty clay), groundwater

seepage or infiltration from the native soils into the excavations during construction


LRL Associates Ltd.

should be minimal. Any groundwater seepage or infiltration entering the excavation

should be removed from the excavation by pumping from sumps within the excavations.

Surface water runoff into the excavation should be minimized and diverted away from

the excavation.

7.1 Pipe Bedding Requirements

It is anticipated that the underground services required as part of this project will be

founded over very stiff clay. Bedding, thickness of cover material and compaction

requirements for sewers and watermains shall conform to the manufacture’s design

requirements and to the requirements and detail installations outlined in the Ontario

Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS), drawings OPSD 802-030 or 802.031 Class B

or Class C for concrete pipes and OPSD 802.01 for flexible pipes as well as any

requirements from the City of Ottawa.

Any sub-excavation of disturbed soil should be completed and replaced with a Granular

B Type II laid in loose lifts no more than 200mm thick and compacted to 98% of SPMDD.

7.2 Trench Backfill

All service trenches should be backfilled using compactable material, free of organics,

debris and large cobbles or boulders. Acceptable native materials (silty clay from the

crust) should be used as backfill between the roadway subgrade level and the depth of

seasonal frost penetrations (i.e. 1.8m below finished grade) in order to reduce the

potential for differential frost heaving between the new excavated trench and the

adjacent section of roadway. Where native backfill is used, it should match the native

materials exposed on the trench walls. Backfill below the zone of seasonal frost

penetration could consist of either acceptable native material or imported granular

material conforming at minimum to OPSS Granular B Type I.

To minimize future settlement of the backfill and achieve an acceptable subgrade for the

roadway, the trench should be compacted in maximum 300mm thick lifts to at least 95

SPMDD. The specified density may be reduced where the trench backfill is not located

within or in close proximity to existing roadways or any other structures.


LRL Associates Ltd.

For trench carried out in already paved areas, transitions should be constructed to

ensure that proper compaction is achieved between any new pavement structure and

the existing pavement structure to minimise potential future differential settlement

between the existing and new pavement structure. The transition should start at the

subgrade level and extend to the underside of the asphaltic concrete level (if any) at a 1

horizontal to 1 vertical slope. This is especially important where trench boxes are used

and where no side slopes is provided to the excavation. Where asphaltic concrete is

present, it should be cut back to a minimum of 150mm from the edge of the excavation

to allow for proper compaction between the new and existing pavement structures.

7.3 Reuse of On-Site Soils

The existing surficial overburden soils consist mostly of silty clay. The clay is considered

to be frost susceptible and should not be used as backfill material directly against

foundation walls or underneath concrete slabs. However, the clay crust (first 3.0m)

could be reused as general backfill material (service trenches, general

landscaping/backfilling), if it can be compacted according to the specifications outlined

herein at the time of construction. Any imported material shall conform to OPSS

Granular B - Type I.

It shall be noted that the adequacy of any material for reuse as backfill will depend on its

water content at the time of its use and on the weather conditions prevailing prior and

during that time. Therefore, all excavated materials to be reused shall be stockpiled in a

manner that will prevent any significant changes in their moisture content, especially

during wet conditions. Any excavated materials proposed for reuse should be stockpiled

in a manner to promote drying and should be inspected and approved for reuse by a

geotechnical engineer.

8 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

8.1 Slope Description

As stated herein, a small creek (Cardinal Creek) flows in a south to the north direction on

the property to the east of the site under investigation. The creek has cut a deep ravine


LRL Associates Ltd.

into the terrain that extends about 8m to 9m below the general grades of the site under

investigation (Elevation of approximately 61m – 62m) based on the results of the

topographic survey completed for the site. The crest of the west slope under

investigation is approximately 13.5m east of the property line as established by the fence

line of the site in question, at the closest point of the meander of the creek.

In general, the crest of the slope is located at elevation ±61m at its closest point to the

proposed development, the toe of the steep section of the slope is at elevation ±55m

and the elevation of the water of the creek is at ±52m elevation. The creek is

approximately 0.3m deep and is approximately 1m to 3 m in width. There is plateau

(floodplain) between the toe of the slope on the top of bank for the creek, which has a

gentle profile of about 6 Horizontal to 1 Vertical; or flatter, over a distance of about 15m.

The steepest portion of the slope fronting the project was taken into consideration in

order to assess the worst case scenario. At this location, the slope has a total height of

approximately 6m and a slope profile of approximately 1.7 horizontal to 1 vertical

(1.7H:1V).

The slope was thoroughly inspected by a qualified member of our geotechnical team.

The review of the creek valley showed some signs of surficial slope failures as well as

what appeared to be signs of deeper failures from scars in the terrain that have since re-

vegetated. There also appears to have been some slope remediation completed at the

site in two sections fronting residential constructions, where the slope has been lined

with rip-rap and rock fill (blasted rock).

Currently, the slope is vegetated primarily with trees, shrubs and wild grasses. The

lower section of the slope, between the bottom of the steep section of the slope and the

creek is covered primarily with topsoil, stones and wild grasses. During the site visit, no

active bank erosion was observed within the creek.

8.2 Assessment

The software program Slide 5.0, by Rocscience, was used to implement the modified

Bishop simplified method of slices. Analysis was performed on the most critical cross


LRL Associates Ltd.

section identified along the property. The results of the modeling are presented in

Appendix E of the report.

The data obtained from the test pits performed near the crest of the slope (TP-4) in

conjunction with data obtained through other projects performed by LRL, as well as

through a variety of published report and research papers regarding soil parameters

established within the Ottawa Valley clays were used in the analysis. The test pit

revealed that the in-situ clay is hard to very stiff (100kPa <Cu< 300kPa) consistency

becoming stiff (60kPa <Cu< 100kPa) at approximately 3.6m. TP-4 was terminated at

4.6m bgs with a stiffness of 70kPa. Furthermore, a manual borehole was completed

within the subject slope approximately 2/3 of the height down the slope to confirm the

material close to the bottom or the slope; which corresponded to approximately 2m above

the toe of the slope. The manual borehole was completed to approximately 1.5m in depth

and yielded very stiff clay of a similar consistency to the clay within the subject property.

The material within the exposed in the creek bed was also observed and yielded very

similar clay to that found in the test pit and manual borehole. This confirms that the

overburden making up the slopes is clay.

Short term analysis was performed using the constant, measured values of the clay

shear strength, while long term analysis was performed using conservative estimated

based on both the measurements taken as well as published values. An effective

cohesion of 12kPa and effective angle of friction 32 degrees were used for the clay crust

down to about 3m. The parameters were then lowered to 11kPa and 30 degrees down

to 5m and the bottom deposits were given 10kPa and 28 degrees for the same

parameters in the long term stability analysis. The unit weights chosen for the analyses

were 18kN/m3, 17kN/m3 and 16kN/m3 respectively. The slope was analyzed under full

saturation. The analysis was completed for both the existing condition (pre-

development) as well as with the addition of the proposed building and 1.2m of fill

material up to the property line (post-development).

The analysis conducted on the slope section revealed the factor of safety against short

term stability is well above 1.5 but was approximately 1.3 under the long term stability

condition. A factor of safety of 1.5 or greater is generally considered to be safe for


LRL Associates Ltd.

development with regard to long-term stability. A factor of safety of 1.5 or greater is

obtained at 11m from the crest of the slope, which would consist of the geotechnical

setback for long term stability analysis.

Furthermore, as part of the requirements of the City of Ottawa, a Toe Erosion Allowance

of 6m and an Erosion Access Allowance of 6m must also be included in the total setback

from the crest of the slope. Consequently, the total setback required for this

development would be 23m measured from the crest of the slope.

In addition to the static analysis, a seismic analysis was completed on this slope for the

proposed development. A horizontal coefficient of acceleration of 0.1 was chosen for the

analysis as given in the City of Ottawa Slope Stability Guidelines dated September 2004.

The analysis was conducted using undrained shear strengths of 150kPa, 90kPa and

75kPa for the three soil layers noted above. The factor of safety yielded by the analysis

was 1.15. A factor of safety of 1.1 is generally considered to be safe for stability during a

seismic event. As such, seismic conditions are not a concern for this development.

Considering that the slope is not a parallel with the property line and meanders with the

creek, it would be prudent to have the top of slope properly located by an Ontario Land

Surveyor in conjunction with the geotechnical engineer in order that extent of the

setback can be properly established on a site plan.

8.3 Recommendations

Based on the slope stability assessment, the following recommendations are given to

maintain the existing slope stability:

No building structures shall be located within the total setback established herein

(23m).

No fill material shall be placed within the geotechnical setbacks given, which

would create a loading condition to the existing slope.

The property owner as well as the City of Ottawa should monitor the activities of

the neighbour to the east in regard to any works completed within or near the


LRL Associates Ltd.

slope, which may be affect the site under investigation and the overall stability of

the slope.

Any proposed surficial drainage from the project shall be diverted away from the

slope.

9 PAVEMENT DESIGN

It is anticipated that the subgrade soils will consist mostly of native silty clay. For

predictable performance of the pavement areas, any organic, soft or deleterious

materials should be removed from the proposed pavement areas to expose native

undisturbed subgrade soil. The exposed subgrade should be inspected and approved

by geotechnical personnel and any evidently loose and unstable areas should be sub-

excavated and replaced with suitable earth borrow approved by the geotechnical

engineer. The subgrade should be shaped and crowned to promote drainage of the

roadway. Following approval of the preparation of the subgrade, the granular subbase

may be placed.

The following are the recommended pavement structures for light and heavy duty

access roads as part of this project.

For light vehicle parking areas and access lanes, the pavement should consist of:

50 millimetres of hot mix asphaltic concrete (HL3) over

150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A base over

300 millimetres of OPSS Granular B Type II subbase

For heavy duty access roads, the pavement should consist of:

40 millimetres of hot mix asphaltic concrete surface layer (HL3) over

40 millimetres of hot mix asphaltic concrete binder layer (HL8) over

150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A base over

350 millimetres of OPSS Granular B, Type II subbase

The base and sub base granular materials shall conform to OPSS Form 1010 material

specifications. The sub base material shall be free draining and not prone to capillary


LRL Associates Ltd.

uprising. They shall be tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer prior to delivery

to the site and shall be compacted to 100% SPMDD.

Asphaltic concrete shall conform to OPSS Form 1150 and be placed and compacted to

at least 97% of the Marshall Density. The mix and its constituents shall be reviewed,

tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site.

9.1 Paved Areas and Subgrade Preparation

The proposed access lanes and parking areas shall be stripped of vegetation, debris

and other obvious objectionable material. Following the backfilling and satisfactory

compaction of any underground service trenches up to the subgrade level, the subgrade

shall be shaped, crowned and proof-rolled using heavy roller with any resulting soft

areas being sub-excavated down to an adequate bearing layer and replaced with

approved backfill. Any subgrade fill needed should be placed in small lifts and

compacted to 95% of SPMDD.

The preparation of the subgrade shall be scheduled and carried out in a manner so that

a protective cover of overlying granular material is placed as quickly as possible in order

to avoid unnecessary circulation by heavy equipment, except on unexcavated or

protected surfaces. Frost protection of the surface shall be implemented if works are

carried out during the winter months.

The performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent on the subsurface

groundwater conditions and maintaining the subgrade and pavement structure in a dry

condition. To intercept excess subsurface water within the pavement structure granular

materials, sub-drains with suitable outlets must be installed below the pavement area’s

subgrade if adequate overland flow drainage is not provided (i.e. ditches). The surface

of the pavement should be properly graded to direct runoff water towards suitable

drainage features. It is recommended that the lateral extent of the subbase and base

layers not be terminated vertically immediately behind the curb/edge of pavement line

but be extended beyond the curb.


LRL Associates Ltd.

10 INSPECTION SERVICES

The engagement of the services of the geotechnical consultant during construction is

recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed

development do not materially differ from those given in the report and that the

construction activities do not adversely affect the intent of the design.

All footing areas and any engineered fill areas for the proposed addition should be

inspected by LRL Associates Ltd. to ensure that a suitable subgrade has been reached

and properly prepared. The placing and compaction of any granular materials beneath

the foundations and slab-on-grade should be inspected to ensure that the materials used

conform to the grading and compaction specifications.

The subgrade for the pavement areas, watermain and sewers must be inspected and

approved by geotechnical personnel. In-situ density testing should be carried out on the

pavement granular materials and pipe bedding and backfill to ensure the materials meet

the specifications from a compaction point of view.

If footings are to be constructed during winter months, the footing subgrade must be

protected from freezing temperatures using suitable construction techniques.

11 REPORT CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

It is stressed that the information presented in this report is provided for the guidance of

the designers and is intended for this project only. The use of this report as a

construction document or its use by a third party other than the client specifically listed in

the report is neither intended nor authorized by LRL Associates Ltd. Contractors bidding

on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation,

satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their

own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their construction techniques,

schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.

The professional services for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the

subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 2013Ottawa, Ontario Appendix A

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX A

TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

(59

.80)

(58

.58)

(59

.85)(6

1.42)

(62

.55)

(62

.24)

(61

.61)

(60

.09)

TOP

OF SLO

PE

ED

GE

OF C

REEK

Prop

erty Line

Legen

d

(99.99)Test Pit Lo

cation

An

dG

rou

nd

Surface Elevatio

n

Ben

chm

ark(San

itary Man

ho

le)

Ed

ge o

f Top

soil Sto

ckpile

DATE

PR

OJE

CT N

O.

130708

NO

VEM

BER

2013

DES

IGN

ED

BY:A

PPR

OVE

D BY:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CLIEN

T

M.L.

M.E.

DR

YTE

CH

INTER

NA

TION

AL INC

.

DR

AW

ING

TITLE

PR

OJEC

T

GE

OTE

CH

NIC

AL IN

VESTIGATIO

N1015 D

AIR

Y DR

IVEO

TTAWA, O

NTAR

IO

LASSOCIATES

ASSOCIÉS

ENGINEERSINGÉNIEURS

L1-2884 Cham

berland StreetRockland, O

ntarioK4K 1M

6

(613)446-7777

(877)632-5664

(613)446-1427

Tel:

Website: w

ww

.LRL.caFax:

BY

No.

RE

VIS

ION

SD

ATE

TES

T PIT LO

CATIO

N PLAN

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Appendix B

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX B

TEST PIT LOGS

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:

Excavation Method: Excavation Contractor:

Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:

Groundsurface Elevation: Top of Riser Elev.:

Excavation Width: Excavation Length:

Page: 1 of 1

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DATA

Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Water Level(Standpipe or

Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-1

November 4, 2013

130708

Drytech International Inc.

Drytech HQ Building

1015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario

M.L.

Backhoe Guy Courchesne Excavation Ltd.

Ground SurfaceCLAYSilty, greyish brown with minor redbands, hard to very stiff becomingstiff around 3.7m below groundsurface, high plasticity.

First 0.6m is weathered by frost.

End of Test Pit

Seepage observed approximately2.4m below ground surface

59.800.00

55.504.30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

>130

>130

>130

>130

80

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

2.20

m (N

ov 7

,201

3)

463000 5037936

Geodetic

59.80 N/A

1.0m 3.0m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-2

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.




End of Test Pit


58.580.00

53.984.60

S-1

S-2

S-3

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

90

80

60

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

462955 5037932

Geodetic

58.58 N/A

1.0m 3.0m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-3

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.


Ground SurfaceFILLMix gravel, sand, silt and clay,brown, loose, moist.

CLAYSilty, greyish brown with minor redbands, hard to very stiff, highplasticity.


End of Test Pit


59.850.00

59.450.40

56.253.60

S-1

S-2

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

>130

130

120

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

2.00

m (N

ov 7

,201

3)

462940 5037882

Geodetic

59.85 N/A

1.0m 3.0m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-4

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.




End of Test Pit


61.610.00

57.014.60

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

>130

110

70

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

463047 5037848

Geodetic

61.61 N/A

1.0m 3.0m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-5

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.


Ground SurfaceFILLMix of gravel, sand, silt and clay,brown, loose, moist.

CLAYSilty, greyish brown with minor redbands, hard to very stiff, highplasticity.


End of Test Pit


61.420.00

61.020.40

58.622.80

S-1

S-2

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

>130

>130

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

462965 5037802

Geodetic

61.42 N/A

1.0m 3.0m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-6

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.




End of Test Pit


62.240.00

58.144.10

S-1

S-2

S-3

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

>130

120

90

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

1.80

m (N

ov 7

,201

3)

463032 5037795

Geodetic

62.24 N/A

1.0m 3.3m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-7

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.




End of Test Pit


62.550.00

58.354.20

S-1

S-2

S-3

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

120

70

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

1.10

m (N

ov 7

,201

3)

463008 5037758

Geodetic

62.55 N/A

1.0m 3.2m

Test Pit Log:

Date:

Project No.:

Client:

Project:

Location:

Field Personnel:


Easting: Northing:

Site Datum:



Page: 1 of 1


Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Soil Description

Elev

./Dep

th(m

)

Sam

ple

Num

ber


Open Excavation)

NOTES:

TP-8

November 4, 2013

130708


Drytech HQ Building


M.L.


Ground SurfaceCLAYSilty, greyish brown with minor redbands, hard to very stiff, highplasticity.


End of Test Pit

60.090.00

58.291.80

S-1

50 150(kPa)

Shear Strength

>130

25 50 75(%)

Liquid Limit

25 50 75(%)

Water Content

463004 5037877

Geodetic

60.09 N/A

1.0m 2.8m

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Appendix C

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST REPORTS – PHYSICAL TESTS

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Appendix D

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS – CHEMICAL TESTS

Order Date: 5-Nov-2013 Report Date: 11-Nov-2013

Fax: (613) 446-1427Phone: (613) 446-7777

Client PO:

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Custody: 13649

Attn: Maxime LerouxRockland, ON K4K1M62884 Chamberland St.

Certificate of Analysis

Paracel ID Client ID

LRL Associates Ltd.

Order #: 1345103

Project: 130708

1345103-01 TP5-S2 (d=2.6m-2.8m)1345103-02 TP7-S1 (d=1.5m-1.7m)1345103-03 TP1-S2 (d=1.4m-1.6m)

Approved By:Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BScLaboratory Director

Page 1 of 7

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work

Certificate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 11-Nov-2013Order Date:5-Nov-2013

Client PO: Project Description: 130708LRL Associates Ltd.

Order #: 1345103

Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 8-Nov-13 8-Nov-13AnionsEPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 6-Nov-13 7-Nov-13pHEPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction 8-Nov-13 8-Nov-13ResistivityGravimetric, calculation 5-Nov-13 5-Nov-13Solids, %

Page 2 of 7




Order #: 1345103

Client ID: TP5-S2 (d=2.6m-2.8m)

TP7-S1 (d=1.5m-1.7m)

TP1-S2 (d=1.4m-1.6m)

-

Sample Date: -04-Nov-1304-Nov-1304-Nov-131345103-01 1345103-02 1345103-03 -Sample ID:

MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil -

Physical Characteristics

% Solids -77.970.874.10.1 % by Wt.

General Inorganics

pH ---7.290.05 pH Units

Resistivity ---29.90.10 Ohm.m

Anions

Chloride ---1115 ug/g dry

Sulphate -1514135 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 7




Order #: 1345103

Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 5 ug/gSulphate ND 5 ug/g

General InorganicsResistivity ND 0.10 Ohm.m

Page 4 of 7




Order #: 1345103

Method Quality Control: Duplicate


Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 103 5 ug/g dry 111 207.4Sulphate 12.2 5 ug/g dry 13.0 206.1

General InorganicsResistivity 29.6 0.10 Ohm.m 29.9 201.0

Physical Characteristics% Solids 93.5 0.1 % by Wt. 92.4 251.2

Page 5 of 7




Order #: 1345103

Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 20.4 11.1 93.5 78-113mg/LSulphate 12.2 1.30 109 78-111mg/L

Page 6 of 7




Order #: 1345103

Qualifier Notes :None

Sample Data RevisionsNone

Work Order Revisions / Comments :

None

Other Report Notes :

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.

ND: Not Detected

Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.

Page 7 of 7

Subcontracted Analysis

2884 Chamberland St.Rockland, ON K4K1M6

Attn: Maxime Leroux

Tel: (613) 446-7777Fax: (613) 446-1427

Paracel Report No.: 1345103Client Project(s): 130708Client PO:

CoC Number: 13649Reference:

Order Date: 05-Nov-13Report Date: 11-Nov-13

Sample(s) from this project were subcontracted for the listed parameters. A copy of the subcontractor’s report is attached

Paracel ID AnalysisClient ID

LRL Associates Ltd.

1345103-01 Redox potential, soilTP5-S2 (d=2.6m-2.8m)

[This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written authority of the Laboratory.]

06-NOV-13

Lab Work Order #: L1388492

Date Received:PARACEL LABORATORIES LTD

300-2319 St. Laurent Blvd.Ottawa ON K1G 4J8

ATTN: Dale RobertsonFINAL 08-NOV-13 09:43 (MT)Report Date:

Version:

Certificate of Analysis

ALS CANADA LTD Part of the ALS Group A Campbell Brothers Limited Company

____________________________________________

Bryan MarkAccount Manager

ADDRESS: 190 Colonnade Road, Unit 7, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5 Canada | Phone: +1 613 225 8279 | Fax: +1 613 225 2801

Client Phone: 613-731-9577

1345103Job Reference: NOT SUBMITTEDProject P.O. #:

C of C Numbers: Legal Site Desc:

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT

L1388492 CONTD....2PAGE

Result D.L. Units Extracted AnalyzedSample Details/Parameters

of1345103

Qualifier* Batch

* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

Version: FINAL 3

L1388492-1 TP5-S2 (D=2.6M-2.8M)CLIENT on 04-NOV-13Sampled By:

SOIL

Redox Potential mV 07-NOV-13 07-NOV-13291 -1000

Matrix:

R2735949

REDOX-POTENTIAL-WT

Reference Information

Redox Potential

L1388492 CONTD....

3PAGE of

1345103

ALS Test Code Test Description

Soil APHA 2580

Method Reference**

** ALS test methods may incorporate modifications from specified reference methods to improve performance.

Matrix

The last two letters of the above test code(s) indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below:

Laboratory Definition Code Laboratory Location

WT ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - WATERLOO, ONTARIO, CANADA

Test Method References:

Chain of Custody Numbers:

GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMSSurrogates are compounds that are similar in behaviour to target analyte(s), but that do not normally occur in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. In reports that display the D.L. column, laboratory objectives for surrogates are listed there.mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram based on dry weight of samplemg/kg wwt - milligrams per kilogram based on wet weight of samplemg/kg lwt - milligrams per kilogram based on lipid-adjusted weight mg/L - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per million.< - Less than.D.L. - The reporting limit.N/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation.

Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory.UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.Analytical results in unsigned test reports with the DRAFT watermark are subject to change, pending final QC review.

Version: FINAL 3

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Appendix E

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX E

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

1.370

1.531

1.370

W

W

1.370

1.531

1.370

Slope Stability Analysis - Existing Condition

10.973

Material PropertiesMaterial: Clay (Top)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Cohesion: 12 kPaFriction Angle: 32 degreesHu value: automatically calculatedMaterial: Clay (Middle)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Cohesion: 11 kPaFriction Angle: 30 degreesHu value: automatically calculatedMaterial: Clay (Bottom)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Cohesion: 10 kPaFriction Angle: 28 degreesHu value: automatically calculated

Safety Factor0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+

6050

4030

2010

0-1

0-2

0-3

0

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

1.370

1.536

1.370

W

W

30.00 kN/m2100.00 kN/m21.370

1.536

1.370

Slope Stability Analysis - With Proposed Building and Grade Raise

10.973

Material PropertiesMaterial: Clay (Top)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Cohesion: 12 kPaFriction Angle: 32 degreesHu value: automatically calculatedMaterial: Clay (Middle)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Cohesion: 11 kPaFriction Angle: 30 degreesHu value: automatically calculatedMaterial: Clay (Bottom)Strength Type: Mohr-CoulombUnsaturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Cohesion: 10 kPaFriction Angle: 28 degreesHu value: automatically calculated

22.920

2 Distributed Loads present:Distributed Load #1 Constant Distribution, Orientation: Normal to boundary, Magnitude: 30 kN/m2Distributed Load #2 Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 100 kN/m2

Safety Factor0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+

7060

5040

3020

100

-10

-20

-30

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

1.1491.149

W

W

30.00 kN/m2100.00 kN/m2

1.1491.149

Seismic Slope Stability Analysis - With Proposed Building and Grade Raise

2 Distributed Loads present:Distributed Load #1 Constant Distribution, Orientation: Normal to boundary, Magnitude: 30 kN/m2Distributed Load #2 Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 100 kN/m2

Material PropertiesMaterial: Clay Top UndrainedStrength Type: UndrainedUnsaturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 18 kN/m3Cohesion Type: ConstantCohesion: 150 kPaMaterial: Clay Middle UndrainedStrength Type: UndrainedUnsaturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 17 kN/m3Cohesion Type: ConstantCohesion: 90 kPaMaterial: Clay Bottom UndrainedStrength Type: UndrainedUnsaturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Saturated Unit Weight: 16 kN/m3Cohesion Type: ConstantCohesion: 75 kPa

Safety Factor0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+

100

8060

4020

0-2

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0.1

Geotechnical Investigation LRL File: 130708Proposed New Commercial Building December 20131015 Dairy Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Appendix F

LRL Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX F

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED IN TEST PIT LOGS

Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Logs

The following explains the data presented in the borehole and test pit logs.

1. Soil Description

The soil descriptions presented in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil involves some judgement and LRL Associates Ltd. does not guarantee descriptions as exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice. Boundaries between zones on the logs are often not distinct but transitional and were interpreted.

a. Proportion

The proportion of each constituent part, as defined by the grain size distribution, is denoted by the following terms:

Term Proportions “trace” 1% to 10% “some” 10% to 20% prefix

(i.e. “sandy” silt) 20% to 35%

“and” (i.e. sand “and” gravel)

35% to 50%

b. Compactness and Consistency

The state of compactness of granular soils is defined on the basis of the Standard Penetration Test. See Section 2c for more details. The consistency of clayey or cohesive soils is based on the shear strength of the soil, as determined by field vane tests and by a visual and tactile assessment of the soil strength.

The state of compactness of granular soils is defined by the following terms:

State of Compactness Granular Soils

Standard Penetration Number “N”

Very loose 0 – 4 Loose 4 – 10

Compact or medium 10 - 30 Dense 30 - 50

Very dense over - 50

The consistency of cohesive soils is defined by the following terms:

Consistency Cohesive Soils

Undrained Shear Strength (Cu)

(kPa) Very soft under 10

Soft 10 - 25 Medium or firm 25 - 50

Stiff 50 - 100 Very stiff 100 - 200

Hard over - 200

2. Sample Data

a. Elevation depth

This is a reference to the geodesic elevation of the soil or to a benchmark of an arbitrary elevation at the location of the borehole or test pit. The depth of geological boundaries is measured from ground surface.

b. Type

Symbol Type Letter Code

Auger AU

Split spoon SS

Shelby tube ST

Rock Core RC

c. Sample Number

Each sample taken from the borehole is numbered in the field as shown in this column.

LETTER CODE (as above) – Sample Number

d. Blows (N) or RQD

This column indicates the Standard Penetration Number (N) as per ASTM D-1586. This is used to determine the state of compactness of the soil sampled. It corresponds to the number of blows

Symbols ad Terms used on Borehole and Test Pit Logs Page 2 of 2

LRL Associates Ltd.

required to drive 300 mm of the split spoon sampler using a 622 kg*m/s2 hammer falling freely from a height of 760 mm. For a 600 mm long split spoon, the blow counts are recorded for every 150 mm. The “N” index is obtained by adding the number of blows from the 2nd and 3rd count. Technical refusal indicates a number of blows greater than 50.

In the case of rock, this column presents the Rock Quality Designation (RQD). The RQD is calculated as the cumulative length of rock pieces recovered having lengths of 10 cm or more divided by the length of coring. The qualitative description of the bedrock based on RQD is given below.

e. Recovery (%)

For soil samples this is the percentage of the recovered sample obtained versus the length sampled. In the case of rock, the percentage is the length of rock core recovered compared to the length of the drill run.

3. General Monitoring Well Data

Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

(%)

Description of Rock Quality

0 –25 very poor 25 – 50 poor 50 – 75 fair 75 – 90 good

90 – 100 excellent

Water Level Date

Monitored

PVC Riser Pipe

PVC Screen

Flush Mount Casing

Silica Sand

Bentonite

End cap

Top of Riser Stick up Well Cap

Grout

Soil Cuttings

Ground Surface

Documents

Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Commercial