GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT - Argue …argueconstruction.ca/.../10/...Geotechnical-Report-Feb-2016PDF-1.pdf · 3 SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Soil Conditions 4

Prepared for: Defence Construction Canada (DCC) Date: February 2016 Report No.: 161-00373-00 WSP Canada Inc. 2611 Queensview Drive, Ottawa, ON K2B 8K2 Canada Phone: 613-829-2800 Fax: 613-829-8299 www.wspgroup.com

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT DH 1404-05 ACCOMODATE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, DWYER HILL TRAINING CENTRE RICHMOND, ONTARIO

Geotechnical Investigation– Dwyer Hill Training Centre Report No.: 161-00373-00

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Context 1

1.2 Project and Site Descriptions 1

1.3 Objectives and Limitations 1

2 SITE INVESTIGATION 2

2.1 Scope of work 2

2.2 Investigation procedures 2

2.2.1 Desk Study 2 2.2.2 Field Investigation 2 2.2.3 Laboratory Testing 3

3 SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4

3.1 Soil Conditions 4

3.1.1 Pavement Structure 4 3.1.2 Fill 4 3.1.3 Glacial till 5 3.1.4 Auger Refusal/Bedrock 5

3.2 Groundwater Conditions 6

3.3 Summary 6

4 RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4.1 General 7

4.2 Seismic Considerations 7

4.2.1 Liquefaction Potential 7 4.2.2 Seismic Site Classification 7

4.3 Frost Protection 7

4.4 Foundations 7

4.5 Slab on Grade 8

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures 8

4.7 Foundation Wall Backfill 9


4.8 Permanent Groundwater Control 10

4.9 Backfilling and Compaction 10

4.10 Site Services 10

4.11 Corrosion and Cement Type 11

4.12 Pavements 11

4.12.1 Pavement Structures 11 4.12.2 Frost Tapers 12 4.12.3 Connections to existing pavements 12

4.13 Construction Consideration 12

4.13.1 Construction Dewatering 12 4.13.2 Temporary Excavations 13 4.13.3 Subgrade Preparation 13 4.13.4 Winter Construction 13

5 GEOTECHNICAL PROJECT TEAM 14

A P P E N D I C E S Appendix A Drawings Appendix B Borehole Logs and Core Photographs Appendix C Corrosivity Testing Results Appendix D Explanation of Terms used in Report Appendix E Limitations of This Report

1


1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTEXT

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the Defense Construction Canada (DCC) to conduct a geotechnical investigation as part the design and construction of a new building at the Dwyer Hill Training Centre (DHTC) near Richmond, Ontario. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this investigation are outlined in WSP’s Proposal No. P15-11112-95 dated December 4, 2015 and subsequent project correspondence. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface information at the site by means of exploratory boreholes. This report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of the project. A topographic survey of the site has also been competed by WSP as part of the overall project and has been submitted separately.

1.2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS The project site is located on the grounds of the Dwyer Hill Training Centre, located near Richmond, Ontario as shown in Drawing No.1. Based on the information provide in the Statement of Work (SOW) provide by DCC, it is understood that a new building is being proposed to house specialized equipment. This new building will be a one-storey above ground building with an approximate footprint of 9.8 metres (m) by 24.4 m (32 feet (ft) by 80 ft). It is assumed that this new building will be a slab-on-grade construction. The existing site consists of two single storey buildings and storage containers with associated asphalt paved parking areas and gravel surfaced areas between the storage containers. The topography of the land is relatively flat with the ground sloping to the north and west. The ground surface elevation at the southeast corner of the site is about approximately elevation 112.2 m. The ground slopes downward to the north to approximately elevation 110.3 m and to the west to approximately elevation 110.6 m.

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS The current report was prepared at the request and for the sole use of DCC according to the specific terms of the mandate given to WSP. The use of this report by a third party, as well as any decision based upon this report, is under this party’s sole responsibility. WSP may not be held accountable for any possible damages resulting from third party decisions based on this report. Furthermore, any opinions regarding conformity with laws and regulations expressed in this report are technical in nature; the report is not and shall not, in any case, be considered as a legal opinion. Information in this report is only valid for the borehole locations as described. Reference should be made to the Limitations of this Report, attached in Appendix E, which follows the text but forms an integral part of this document.

2


2 SITE INVESTIGATION 2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for this assignment included:

A desk study and review of existing geotechnical information in the general area;

Laying out the boreholes and obtaining utility locates at the project site;

Drilling of three exploratory boreholes within the project area;

In-situ soil sampling and testing, including Standard Penetration Testing (SPT);

Obtaining soil samples and rock core for additional review and laboratory testing;

Laboratory testing;

Geotechnical analysis; and

Preparation of this report which presents the results of the investigation and provides geotechnical recommendations related to the design of the foundations, site services, building construction and pavements.

2.2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES The geotechnical investigation was carried out in January 2016.

2.2.1 DESK STUDY Surficial geology maps indicate that the area is underlain by glacial till consisting of silty sand and gravel. Bedrock geology maps indicate the bedrock in the general area includes dolomite and limestone of the Oxford formation.

2.2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was carried out on January 13 and 14, 2016 and included the drilling of three boreholes (BH16-1 to BH16-3) within the project area as shown on Drawing No. 2.

The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig supplied and operated by George Downing Estate Drilling Limited (Downing) of Hawkesbury, Ontario. The boreholes were advanced using hollow-stem augers to depths ranging from 2.8 m to 4.7 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH16-2, after encountering auger refusal, was advanced to a depth of 5.9 m below the existing ground surface using “NQ” sized coring equipment. Soil samples and rock core retrieved during drilling were logged and visually classified in the field by a member of WSP’s geotechnical staff. In-situ tests including Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) were carried out at regular intervals.

Water level observations were made during drilling and in the open boreholes at the completion of the drilling operations. A piezometer was installed in borehole BH16-2 to allow for subsequent measurement of stabilized groundwater levels and long-term groundwater monitoring at the site. Boreholes BH16-1 and BH16-3 were backfilled, sealed just below the ground surface with bentonite and then the surface was patched with asphaltic concrete, where encountered.

The borehole locations are shown in Appendix A. Borehole logs are included in Appendix B of this report.

3


2.2.3 LABORATORY TESTING Upon completion of drilling and in-situ testing, soil samples and rock core were returned to WSP’s laboratory for further examination, classification and testing. A laboratory testing program, carried out on selected representative soil samples, included the determination of natural water content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits (Plasticity) and Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS).

The results of natural water content tests are included on the relevant borehole logs in Appendix B. The results grain size distribution, Atterberg limits and UCS testing are summarized on the individual borehole logs and presented in Appendix A.

4


3 SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The subsurface soil profile at the site generally consists of an asphaltic pavement structure (where encountered) overlying fill and glacial till which is in turn underlain be bedrock. Auger refusal was encountered at depths ranging from 2.8 m to 4.7 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole 16-2 was extended past the depth of auger refusal by the use of “NQ” sized coring equipment. In borehole BH16-2, dolomite and limestone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 2.8 m below the existing ground surface.

Descriptions of individual geological units are presented below.

3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS

3.1.1 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE The existing pavement structure in the boreholes 16-1 and 16-2 within paved areas consisted of a layer of asphaltic concrete ranging between 60 millimeters (mm) and 115 mm in depth underlain by a granular road base, crushed sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt, that extended to a depth of 500 mm below the existing road surface. At borehole 16-3, this granular road base was also encountered at the existing ground surface and extended to 400 mm below the existing ground surface.

Grain size curves for two selected samples of the granular road base are presented in Appendix A. A summary of these grain size distributions is also presented in the table below.

Table 1 – Results of Grain Size Analyses for Granular Road Base Borehole

No. Sample No. Grain Size Distribution

% Gravel % Sand % Fines BH16-1 SS-1 37 44 19 BH16-2 SS-1 36 43 21

The water content within the granular road base ranged between 7 percent and 8 percent.

3.1.2 FILL Fill was encountered below the pavement structure in boreholes BH16-1 and BH16-2 and below the granular road base in borehole 16-3. This fill generally consists of gravelly silty sand. The fill was encountered to depths ranging from 1.5 m to 2.1 m below the existing ground surface.

Grain size curves for two selected samples of the fill are presented in Appendix A. A summary of these grain size distributions is also presented in the table below.

5


Table 2 – Results of Grain Size Analyses for Fill Borehole

No. Sample No.

Grain Size Distribution % Gravel % Sand % Fines

BH16-1 SS-2 29 38 33 BH16-3 SS-2 43 35 22

The water content within the fill ranged between 8 percent and 13 percent.

3.1.3 GLACIAL TILL At all of the borehole locations, the fill is underlain by glacial till. The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of silty sand and sandy silt with a trace of clay. The glacial till was fully penetrated in borehole 16-2 and the thickness of the glacial till in this borehole was 1.3 m. In the remaining boreholes, the glacial till was not fully penetrated but was proven for depths which vary from 1.5 m to 2.6 m. Standard penetration test ‘N’ values for this material ranging from 9 blows to greater than 50 blow per 305 millimetres of penetration indicate a loose to very dense state of packing, although the higher ‘N’ values could reflect the presence of cobbles and boulders, rather than the state of packing of the soil matrix.

Grain size curves for three selected samples of the glacial till are presented in Appendix A. A summary of these grain size distributions is also presented in the table below. It should be noted that these grain size distribution tests were carried out on samples obtained from the split spoon sampler, which does not recover coarse gravel, cobble and boulder sized particles. Because of this the grain size distributions shown in Appendix A and the table below may be finer overall than some portions of the materials in the field.

Table 3 – Results of Grain Size Analyses for Glacial Till Borehole

No. Sample No.

Grain Size Distribution % Gravel % Sand % Fines

BH16-1 SS-6 22 49 29 BH16-2 SS-3 12 39 49 BH16-3 SS-4 15 43 42

The results of Atterberg limit testing carried out on two selected samples of the glacial till gave plasticity index values of 0 percent and 4 percent and liquid limit values of 14 percent and 18 percent. This indicates low plasticity fines. The measured water contents of samples within the glacial till ranged from 8 percent to 13 percent.

3.1.4 AUGER REFUSAL/BEDROCK Auger refusal was encountered in all three boreholes at depths ranging from 2.8 m to 4.7 m below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal may indicate the bedrock surface, however, it could also represent cobbles and/or boulders within the glacial till. Borehole BH16-2 was extended beyond the refusal depth using “NQ” sized diamond coring equipment. In this borehole, coring confirmed the presence of bedrock at and below the auger refusal depth.

The rock encountered in the borehole BH16-2 consisted of fresh dolomite overlying fresh to slightly weathered dolomitic limestone. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the dolomite bedrock was 84% indicating a rock quality of “good”. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the dolomitic limestone bedrock was 73% indicating a rock quality of “fair”. Two samples of intact rock (obtained through coring) were tested in uniaxial compression and the result is summarized in the table below.

6


Table 4 – Results of Intact Rock Strength Borehole

No. Depth

(m) Bedrock

Description Unit Weight

(kN/m3) UCS

(MPa) BH16-2 3.1 Dolomite 26.8 94.0 BH16-2 4.9 Dolomitic Limestone 27.3 87.0

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS A piezometer was installed in borehole BH16-2 during the field investigation. The groundwater level within the piezometer was measured 8 days after completion of drilling (in January 2016) and found to be at 2.46 m below the existing road surface.

It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations as well as fluctuations in response to major weather events.

3.3 SUMMARY A summary of the soil conditions encountered at the various boreholes is presented in the table below.

Table 5 – Simplified Stratigraphy

Borehole Simplified Stratigraphy (in metres)

Notes Asphalt Road

Base Fill Glacial Till Bedrock

BH16-1 0 - 115 mm 0.12 – 0.5 0.5 – 2.1 2.1 -4.7 -- Auger Refusal at 4.7 m BH16-2 0 - 60 mm 0.06 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.8 2.8 – 5.9 GWL @ 2.46 m BH16-3 - 0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 1.5 1.5 – 3.0 -- Auger Refusal at 3.0 m

7


4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL

This section of the report provides engineering guidelines related to the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the available information described herein and project requirements. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the factual information for construction, and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety, and equipment capabilities. Reference should be made to the Limitations of this Report, attached in Appendix E, which follows the text but forms an integral part of this document.

The general subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes include an asphaltic concrete pavement structure overlying a layer of gravelly sand fill. The depth of the fill varied from 1.5 m to 2.1 m below the existing ground surface. Glacial till was encountered below the fill. Auger refusal was encountered in all three boreholes to depths varying from 2.8 m to 4.7 m. Dolomite and limestone bedrock were proven (cored) in one borehole below auger refusal.

4.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.2.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL A preliminary assessment for seismic liquefaction has been carried out for this site based on the subsurface conditions and the results of the SPT testing. Seismic liquefaction is the sudden loss in stiffness and strength of soil due to the loading effects of an earthquake. Liquefaction can cause significant settlements and structural failure. The assessment indicates that the soils at the site are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction.

4.2.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION In accordance with Table 4.1.8.4.A of the 2012 Ontario Building Code, the seismic site response for foundations placed on 3 m or more of either engineered fill or native glacial till would have a site classification of Class D. Foundations placed near bedrock would have a site classification of Class C provided that there is less than 3 metres of overburden materials between the underside of the foundation and the underlying bedrock surface. It is possible the site classification could be upgraded to Site Class A or Site Class B for foundations on bedrock. However, this would require a site-specific measurement of shear wave velocities.

4.3 FROST PROTECTION The depth of frost penetration for the site may be assumed to be 1.8 m. All foundation elements should therefore have a permanent soil cover of at least 1.8 m (or its thermal equivalent if artificial insulation is used).

The soils within the frost depth are the granular road base, fill and the underlying glacial till. The road base and granular fill are considered to have a low to moderate susceptibility to frost heave. The underlying glacial till is considered to have a moderate susceptibility to frost heave.

4.4 FOUNDATIONS It is understood that the proposed building will include a single-storey slab-on-grade construction without a basement. Based on the results of the subsurface investigation, the proposed building could be supported on shallow spread footing foundations below frost depth penetration. At this depth, it is

8


anticipated that the underside of the footing level will be within either native glacial till or existing granular fill. For footing widths between 0.6 m and 1.5 m, the following bearing resistances may be assumed provided:

The unfactored ultimate geotechnical bearing resistance can be taken as 600 kPa. A resistance factor of 0.5 should be applied to this value, yielding a factored bearing resistance of 300 kPa at ULS (Ultimate Limit States).

The geotechnical resistance at the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) can be taken as 250 kPa.

Provided that the foundation subgrade is properly prepared, and not unduly disturbed by construction activities, total and differential settlements associated with the above SLS resistance values are expected to be less than 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively.

All bearing surfaces should be checked, evaluated and approved at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar projects prior to placement of any concrete, back fill, etc.

Additional guidance related to bearing resistances can be provided based on preliminary designs. In particular, bearing resistances should be reviewed if the foundations are lower than previously indicated or if the foundation loads are too large for the assumed shallow foundation sizes.

4.5 SLAB ON GRADE For predictable performance of the floor slab, any existing topsoil should be removed from within the proposed building area and/or the existing fill material be recompacted to 98 percent of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Provision should be made for at least 150 millimetres of Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular A to form the base for the floor slab. Any engineered fill required to raise the grade to the underside of the Granular A should consist of OPSS Granular B Type I or II. The underslab fill should be placed in maximum 300-millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the material’s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

4.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES The lateral earth pressure acting on below-grade walls, retaining walls, etc. may be calculated using the following expression:

P = K(γh+q) Where:

P = lateral earth pressure (kPa) acting at depth h K = earth pressure coefficient; for unrestrained walls and structures where some movement

is acceptable (such as retaining walls) use a coefficient of active earth pressure (Ka) equal to 0.3, for restrained walls (such as basement walls) use the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0) equal to 0.5

γ = the density of the backfill; use 21.5 kN/m3 for compacted granular backfill h = the depth to the point of interest (m) q = the magnitude of any design surcharge at the ground surface;

The above values assume free-draining granular backfill will be used. If this is not the case then the above values may need to be adjusted based on the soil type used, and water pressures should be considered in the calculation of lateral pressures. WSP can provide additional guidance based on actual building plans if required.

The passive resistance offered by the foundation wall backfill soils could also be considered in evaluating the lateral resistance applied to the foundations. The magnitude of that lateral resistance will depend on the backfill materials and backfill conditions adjacent to the foundation walls. If the

9


backfill materials consist of compacted sand or sand and gravel (OPSS Granular B Type I) as discussed herein, then the passive resistance acting on the foundation wall may be taken as:

σh(z) = Kp (γ z+q) where: σh(z) = lateral earth resistance applied to the foundation wall at depth z, kilopascals Kp = passive earth pressure coefficient, use 3.0 γ = unit weight of retained soil, use 21.5 kN/m3 z = depth below top of wall, metres

q = the magnitude of any design surcharge at the ground surface;

This resistance is provided in unfactored format. Factoring of the calculated resistance value will be required if the design is being carried out using Limit States Design.

Movement of the backfill and wall is required to mobilize the passive resistance. As a preliminary guideline, about 75 millimetres of movement would be required.

Earth pressures will be higher under seismic loading conditions. In order to account for seismic earth pressures the total earth pressure during a seismic event (including both the seismic and static components) may be assumed to be:

σh(z) = Ka γ z + (KAE – Ka) γ (H-z) Where:

σh(z) = the total earth pressure at depth z (kPa); Ka = the active earth pressure coefficient (0.3); γ = the unit weight of soil (21.5 kN/m3 for granular fill or 19 kN/m3 for native soils); KAE = the combined active earth pressure and seismic earth pressure coefficient (use 0.8); H = the total height of the wall (m) z = the depth below the top of the wall (m)

The above earth pressure values (both static and seismic) are unfactored values.

4.7 FOUNDATION WALL BACKFILL Frost susceptible soil should not be used as backfill against exterior or unheated foundation elements (e.g., footing, foundation walls, pile caps, etc.). To avoid problems with frost adhesion and heaving, these foundation elements should be backfilled with one or more of the following:

Non-frost-susceptible sand and/or gravel which meets that gradation requirements for OPSS Granular A or Granular B;

19 millimetre clear crushed stone having a unit weight not exceeding 21.5 kN/m3, which is separated from other soils with a Class II non-woven geotextile having an FOS not exceeding 100 microns to prevent loss of adjacent sand, or silty soils into the clear stone. It should be noted that the use of clear stone as foundation backfill may lead to unfavourable growing conditions for plant matter placed in overlying topsoil.

In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing will be in contact with the buildings, differential frost heaving could occur between the granular fill (if sand or crushed stone is used) and other areas. To reduce this differential heaving, the backfill adjacent to the wall should be placed to form a frost taper. The frost taper should be brought up to pavement subgrade level from 1.5 metres below finished exterior grade at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter, away from the wall. The fill should be placed in maximum 300-millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

10


4.8 PERMANENT GROUNDWATER CONTROL The groundwater level at the site was found to be at about elevation 108.4 m (2.5 m below the existing ground surface). If basements, sumps or other open below grade structures are planned below this elevation, they could intercept the groundwater table and should be provided with adequate drainage. Once the basement, sump and other below grade elevations are determined, the need for permanent groundwater control should be reviewed during detailed design. Basement drainage, however would typically include sub-drains below the basement floor and perimeter drains around the exterior of the basement.

Based on the water staining on the fractures observed on the rock core retrieved during the current investigation significant amounts of water maybe present below the groundwater elevation.

4.9 BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION Backfill for foundation excavations and any below grade structures should comprise free draining OPPS Granular A or Granular B materials. Backfill should be placed in shallow lifts, not exceeding 200 mm loose thickness, and compacted to 98% SPMDD where it is supporting any structures or services, or 95% in other areas.

The suitability of imported materials should be confirmed prior to placement from both a geotechnical and environmental perspective. The existing soils at the site generally do not meet the requirements for OPSS Granular A or Granular B. However, portions of the existing soils at the site are adequate for use as general earth fill, but may require moisture conditioning (either wetting or drying) prior to placement and compaction.

To avoid damaging or laterally displacing the structures, care should be exercised when compacting fill adjacent to new structures. Heavy equipment should be kept a minimum of 1 m away from the structure during backfilling. The 1 m width adjacent to the wall should be compacted using hand-operated equipment unless otherwise authorized.

4.10 SITE SERVICES Excavations up to approximately 2.8 m below the existing ground surface would be primarily within the existing granular fill and underlying glacial till, which may contain cobbles and boulders. Excavations deeper than this may extend into a variety of materials ranging glacial till, cobbles and boulders and bedrock.

Details of the proposed site services are not available at this time; however it is assumed that they will include localized trenches throughout the site. Trenches within overburden materials can be temporarily supported using sloped excavations (see Section 4.13.2) or trench boxes. Bedrock removal may be required for some site services for this project. Mechanical methods of rock removal (such as hoe ramming), can likely be carried out for depths of about one metre, however, this work may be slow and tedious.

Bedding for site services should be in accordance with the relevant OPSD standard drawing and would typically consist of Granular A compacted to 95% SPMDD. Where wet or disturbed conditions are encountered in the base of the trench it may be necessary to over-excavate and replace unsuitable soils with compacted granular fill to provide a stable sub-grade for the bedding. The use of clear stone as a bedding and cover material is not recommended as the finer particles of the native soils and backfill may migrate into the voids of the clear stone, resulting in loss of pipe support.

Cover material above the spring line should consist of Granular A or Granular B material with a maximum particle size of 25 mm. Cover material should be compacted to a minimum of 95% SPMDD.

Backfill may consist of additional granular fill, or the stiff weathered silty clay and should be compacted to 95% SPMDD (98% if below structures). Where backfill is below paved areas (such as access lanes

11


and parking lots) and is within the frost depth, the backfill profile (above the minimum cover required) in the trench should be made to match the native soils on either side as much as is practical in order to minimize the potential for differential frost heave.

Any service trenches which extend below the water table should have clay cut-offs installed across the trench at regular intervals (typically every 100 m) to prevent the trench acting as a drain and lowering the groundwater table in the general area. These cut-offs should extend the full width of the trench and must completely penetrate the bedding, cover and any other granular materials in the trench.

The above are general guidelines for typical site services. All service installations should be completed in accordance with the relevant OPSS’s and OPSD’s for the particular application and size. WSP can provide additional review during detailed design based on the actual services proposed if required.

4.11 CORROSION AND CEMENT TYPE Two samples were submitted to Exova Environmental Ontario for testing related to soil corrosivity and potential exposure of concrete elements to sulphate attack. The results of these tests are included in Appendix C and summarized in the table below.

Table 6 – Results of Soil Corrosivity Testing

Borehole/ Sample No. Soil Type Chloride

(%) Electrical

Conductivity (mS/cm)

Resistivity

(ohm-cm) pH Sulphate

(%)

BH16-1 / SS-4 Glacial Till 0.013 0.38 2,630 8.1 <0.01 BH16-2 / SS-2 Existing Fill <0.002 0.27 4,000 7.7 0.02

The soil resistivity values measured in the existing granular fill and native glacial till soils suggest a moderately corrosive environment for buried steel elements. These values must be taken into consideration during designed below-grade steel elements, such as piling and underground services.

The test results indicate a low soluble sulphate content and sulphate resistant Portland cement is not required.

4.12 PAVEMENTS

4.12.1 PAVEMENT STRUCTURES Detailed traffic loads have not been provided at this time, however based on the subsoil conditions encountered, conventional asphaltic (flexible) pavement designs are likely to be appropriate for normal paved parking areas and driveways. Based on the results of this investigation and experience, the following asphaltic pavement designs are recommended for various traffic loadings:

Table 7 - Recommended Pavement Structure Thickness

Pavement Layer

Light Duty Traffic (Cars and Light Trucks)

Heavy Truck Loading (Delivery Trucks, Fire Routes,

Access Roads, etc.)

Asphaltic Concrete 30 mm SP12.5 Surface Course

50 mm SP19.0 Binder Course

50 mm SP12.5 Surface Course

70 mm SP19.0 Binder Course OPSS Granular A Base

150 mm 150 mm

Pulverized Pavement 250 mm 250 mm

12


Traffic data has not been provided at this stage, however a Traffic Category of Level B is assumed to be adequate for a low-volume road. The asphaltic cement should be PG 58-34.

A functional design life of eight to ten years has been used to establish the flexible pavement recommendations. This represents the number of years to the first rehabilitation, assuming regular maintenance is carried out. If required, a more refined pavement structure design can be performed based on specific traffic data and design life requirements provided by the client.

The long term performance of the pavement is highly dependent upon the subgrade support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved. In addition, the need for adequate drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The finished pavement surface and underlying subgrade should be free of depressions and should be sloped to provide effective surface drainage toward catch basins. Surface water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of pavement areas. Subdrains can also be placed at catch basins and along curb lines to further improve sub-surface drainage.

As part of the subgrade preparation, proposed parking areas and access roadways should be stripped of topsoil and other obvious objectionable material. Fill required to raise the grades to design elevations should conform to backfill requirements outlined in previous sections of this report. The subgrade should be properly shaped, crowned then proof-rolled in the full time presence of a representative of this office. Soft or “spongy” subgrade areas should be sub-excavated and properly replaced with suitable approved backfill compacted to 98% SPMDD. Base and sub-base layers should be compacted to 100% of SPMDD.

The most severe loading conditions on light-duty pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently, special provisions such as restricted access lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.

If the new facility requires the use of concrete aprons or paving, additional recommendations can be provided.

4.12.2 FROST TAPERS To maintain frost heave compatibility between the new and existing roadway, frost tapers should be provided at the end of the new roadway in general accordance with OPSD 803.030 or 803.031. The frost tapers should be 3H:1V longitudinally within the granular subbase either up or down to match existing based on the assumption that some differential frost movement can be accommodated by routine maintenance and re-grading of the gravel surface.

4.12.3 CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING PAVEMENTS At the project limits, the new pavement structure should be continued to the end of rounding. From that point, the subbase thickness can be tapered to match the side road/ entrance pavement structure by sloping the subgrade up at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical to match the side road/entrance subgrade level. All tie-ins should include frost tapers between the existing pavement structures and the new pavement.

Longitudinal connections with the existing pavement structure should be milled back a distance of 300 mm and the depth of milling should match the new asphaltic concrete surface course. A tack coat should be provided between the new surface course placed over the milled surface. The lower binder course of the new construction should be butt jointed to the existing asphaltic concrete

4.13 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION

4.13.1 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING The groundwater level at the site was found to be at approximately 2.5 m below the existing surface elevation (Elevation 108.4 m). For excavations above the water table and slightly below (less than 0.5

13


m) the water table, it is likely that seepage into the excavations can be managed using properly filtered sumps, ditches, etc. For deeper excavations, additional or more complex dewatering may be required. WSP can provide additional guidance based on the size and depth of the excavation, if required during detailed design.

The need for Ministry of Environment (MOE) Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is not anticipated at this time provided excavations remain at or above the groundwater table and dewatering operations are kept to less than 50,000 litres/day. This should be reviewed during detailed design based on the actual excavation details.

4.13.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS All excavations should be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Part III of Ontario Regulation 213/91 deals with excavations.

The soils within the expected excavation include fill and native glacial till. For preliminary planning purposes the existing fill and glacial till can be classified as a Type 3 Soil above the groundwater table (or depth of watering) and Type 4 soils below the groundwater table (or depth of watering). These classifications must be reviewed and confirmed by a qualified person during excavation. Excavations within Type 3 soil require side slopes with a minimum gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical and excavations within Type 4 soil require side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.

If limited space is available then a temporary shoring system may be required. Once the location of the building and the floor elevation are determined the need for vertical shoring should be reviewed. The type of shoring to be used depends on the permissible movement of the shoring. The design of any the shoring system must be carried out by a professional engineer and take into consideration the effect of the excavation upon the neighbouring buildings and structures. The contractor is typically responsible for the detailed design of temporary shoring.

If required, WSP can provide additional guidance based on preliminary excavation plans, depths, etc. during the detailed design phase of the project.

4.13.3 SUBGRADE PREPARATION The geotechnical bearing resistances provided in Section 4.4 assume that the foundation soils will not be disturbed by construction activities. Proper de-watering and protection of the exposed subgrade will be important to the construction of the foundations. All excavated surfaces should be kept free of frost, water, etc. during the course of construction. All excavated surfaces should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar structures.

The foundations soils at the site are expected to be sensitive to disturbance from ponded water and construction traffic if the subgrade for the foundations and basement floor slab is exposed for a prolonged duration and/or exposed to construction traffic then placement of a mud slab directly on the subgrade may be required to protect the subgrade from these elements.

4.13.4 WINTER CONSTRUCTION In the event that construction is required during freezing temperatures, the frost susceptible subgrade below the footings should be protected immediately from freezing using straw, propane heaters, polystyrene insulation, insulated tarpaulins, or other suitable means that prevent the underlying soil from freezing, which could cause frost heave.

14


5 GEOTECHNICAL PROJECT TEAM WSP Canada Inc.

Project Manager Bruce Goddard, P.Eng.

Project Director Chris Hendry P. Eng., M. Eng.

Site Investigation Derek Robertson

Geotechnical Laboratory Testing W.A.McLaughlin, Geo. Tech., C. Tech

Contractors

Downing Estate Drilling Report prepared by: Reviewed by: Bruce Goddard P. Eng. Chris Hendry P. Eng., M. Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

DRAWINGS

Client: Title:Project#: DWG #:

Drawn: Approved:

Date: Scale:

Size: Rev:January 2016 N. T. S.

Letter 0

Defence Construction Canada Site Location Plan161-00373-00 1

Project: Geotechnical InvestigationDwyer Hill Training Centre, Richmond, ONBDG CH

N

Project Area

200 m 400 m0 m

Client: Title:Project#: DWG #:

Drawn: Approved:

Date: Scale:

Size: Rev:

Defence Construction Canada Borehole Location Plan161-00373-00 2

Project: Geotechnical InvestigationDwyer Hill Training Centre, Richmond, ONBDG CH

January 2016 N. T. S.Letter 0

N

BH 16-1

BH 16-2

BH 16-3

50 m0 m 25 m

BOREHOLE LOGS AND CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

37

29

22

0.1

0.5

2.1

4.7

110.7

110.4

108.7

106.1

25

9

21

23

60

33

>50

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

44

38

49

ASPHALT - 115 mmCRUSHED SAND and GRAVEL,some silt, trace clay, brown, moist,compact (Road Base)GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, brown,moist, loose to compact (Fill)

GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, grey,moist, compact to very dense(Glacial Till)

END OF BOREHOLE

1) Auger refusal was encountered at4.72 m below the existing groundsurface.2) Borehole dry upon completion ofaugering.

(19)

(33)

(29)

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

NU

MB

ER

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%

LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%)

SAMPLES

3

25 50 75 100 125

Strain at Failure

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

GR110.8

PLASTICLIMIT

25 50 75

wP

DEPTH

SA

SOIL PROFILE

110

109

108

107

LOG OF BOREHOLE 16-1Project: Specialized Equipment Accommodation, DHTC1404-05

Client: Defense Construction Canada

Project Location: Dwyer Hill Training Centre, Richmond, ON

Datum: Geodetic

BH Location: See Borehole Location Plan N 4997994 E 425582

Project No.: 161-00373-00

Date Started: 1/13/2016

Supervisor: D. Robertson

Reviewer: B. Goddard

DRILLING DATA

Rig Type:Truckmount CME 75

Method: Hollow Stem Auger

Borehole Diameter: 203 mm

Core Diameter: -

Sheet No. 1 of 1

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

Shallow/ Single Installation Deep/Dual Installation

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED (KN

/m3 )

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G -

OT

TA

WA

GIN

T 1

61-0

0373

-00

DC

C D

WY

ER

HIL

L.G

PJ

SP

L.G

DT

1/

25/1

6

UCS = 94.0MPaUnit Weight =26.8 kN/m3

UCS = 87.0MPaUnit Weight =27.3 kN/m3

36

12

0.1

0.5

1.5

2.8

4.4

5.9

110.8

110.5

109.4

108.1

106.5

105.0

27

12

9

50/50mm

SS

SS

SS

SS

CORE

CORE

1

2

3

4

5

6

43

39

ASPHALT - 60 mmSILTY SAND and CRUSHEDGRAVEL, brown, moist, compact(Road Base)GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, traceorganics, brown, moist, compact (Fill)

SILTY SAND, some gravel, traceclay, grey, loose to very dense(Glacial Till)

DOLOMITE, fresh, thin to mediumbedded, light grey, some calciteveins and vugsCore: RC-5: 2.79 m to 4.37 m- TCR: 97%- SCR: 94%- RQD: 84%

DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE, slightlyweathered to fresh, thinly bedded,closely jointed, dark greyCore: RC-6: 4.37 m to 5.84 m- TCR: 100%- SCR: 93%- RQD: 73%

END OF BOREHOLE

1) Auger refusal was encountered at2.79 m below the existing groundsurface. Switched to NQ coring.2) Borehole dry upon completion ofaugering.3) 31 mm standpipe piezometerinstalled at 5.89 m below theexisting ground surface.4) Date Groundwater Depth--------------------------------------------------01/23/2015 2.46 m

(21)

(49)

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

NU

MB

ER


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%


SAMPLES

3

25 50 75 100 125

Strain at Failure

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

GR110.9

PLASTICLIMIT

25 50 75

wP

DEPTH

SA

SOIL PROFILE

110

109

108

107

106




Datum: Geodetic


Project No.: 161-00373-00




DRILLING DATA




Core Diameter: 63 mm

Sheet No. 1 of 1

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT


ELEV




wL

0.0

UNCONFINED (KN

/m3 )


PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G -

OT

TA

WA

GIN

T 1

61-0

0373

-00

DC

C D

WY

ER

HIL

L.G

PJ

SP

L.G

DT

1/

25/1

6

Bentonite Seal

Cuttings

Bentonite Seal

Sand

Screen and sand

W. L. 108.4 mJan 22, 2016

43

15

0.4

1.5

3.0

110.9

109.8

108.3

>50

28

18

15

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

35

43

SILTY SAND and CRUSHEDGRAVEL, brown, moist, very dense(Road Base)

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, brown,moist, compact (Fill)

SILTY SAND, some gravel, brown,moist, compact (Glacial Till)S-3: trace organics

END OF BOREHOLE

1) Auger refusal was encountered at3.02 m below the existing groundsurface.2) Borehole dry upon completion ofaugering.

(22)

(42)

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

NU

MB

ER


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%


SAMPLES

3

25 50 75 100 125

Strain at Failure

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

GR111.3

PLASTICLIMIT

25 50 75

wP

DEPTH

SA

SOIL PROFILE

111

110

109




Datum: Geodetic


Project No.: 161-00373-00




DRILLING DATA




Core Diameter: -

Sheet No. 1 of 1

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT


ELEV




wL

0.0

UNCONFINED (KN

/m3 )


PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G -

OT

TA

WA

GIN

T 1

61-0

0373

-00

DC

C D

WY

ER

HIL

L.G

PJ

SP

L.G

DT

1/

25/1

6

Client: Title:Project#: DWG #:Drawn: Approved:Date: Scale:Size: Rev:Letter 0

Core Photograph

Project: Geotechnical InvestigationDwyer Hill Training Centre, Richmond, ON

January 2016 N. T. S.

Defence Construction Canada161-00373-00 B-1

BDG CH

RUN RC-5: 2.79 m - 4.37 m

Borehole BH16-2

Client: Title:Project#: DWG #:Drawn: Approved:Date: Scale:Size: Rev:

January 2016 N. T. S.Letter 0

Defence Construction Canada Core Photograph161-00373-00 B-2 Project: Geotechnical Investigation

Dwyer Hill Training Centre, Richmond, ONBDG CH

Borehole BH16-2

RUN RC-6 : 4.37 m - 5.84 m

CORROSIVITY TESTING RESULTS

Appendix D

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN REPORT

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN REPORT

N-VALUE: THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) N-VALUE IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED TO CAUSE A STANDARD 51mm O.D SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER TO PENETRATE 0.3m INTO UNDISTURBED GROUND IN A BOREHOLE WHEN DRIVEN BY A HAMMER WITH A MASS OF 63.5 kg, FALLING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 0.76m. FOR PENETRATIONS OF LESS THAN 0.3m N-VALUES ARE INDICATED AS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR THE PENETRATION ACHIEVED. AVERAGE N-VALUE IS DENOTED THUS N̄. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST: CONTINUOUS PENETRATION OF A CONICAL STEEL POINT (51mm O.D. 60˚ CONE ANGLE) DRIVEN BY 475J IMPACT ENERGY ON ‘A’ SIZE DRILL RODS. THE RESISTANCE TO CONE PENETRATION IS MEASURED AS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR EACH 0.3m ADVANCE OF THE CONICAL POINT INTO THE UNDISTURBED GROUND. SOILS ARE DESCRIBED BY THEIR COMPOSITION AND CONSISTENCY OR DENSENESS.

CONSISTENCY: COHESIVE SOILS ARE DESCRIBED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (cu) AS FOLLOWS:

Cu (kPa) 0 – 12 12 – 25 25 – 50 50 – 100 100 – 200 >200

VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD DENSENESS: COHESIONLESS SOILS ARE DESCRIBED ON THE BASIS OF DENSENESS AS INDICATED BY SPT N VALUES AS FOLLOWS:

N (BLOWS/0.3m) 0 – 5 5 – 10 10 – 30 30 – 50 >50 VERY LOOSE LOOSE COMPACT DENSE VERY DENSE

ROCKS ARE DESCRIBED BY THEIR COMPOSION AND STRUCUTRAL FEATURES AND/OR STRENGTH.

RECOVERY: SUM OF ALL RECOVERED ROCK CORE PIECES FROM A CORING RUN EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE CORING RUN.

MODIFIED RECOVERY: SUM OF THOSE INTACT CORE PIECES, 100mm+ IN LENGTH EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF THE LENGTH OF THE CORING RUN.

THE ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD), FOR MODIFIED RECOVERY IS:

RQD (%) 0 – 25 25 – 50 50 – 75 75 – 90 90 – 100 VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

JOINT AND BEDDING:

SPACING 50mm 50 – 300mm 0.3m – 1m 1m – 3m >3m JOINTING VERY CLOSE CLOSE MOD. CLOSE WIDE VERY WIDE BEDDING VERY THIN THIN MEDIUM THICK VERY THICK

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

FIELD SAMPLING MECHANICALL PROPERTIES OF SOIL

SS SPLIT SPOON TP THINWALL PISTON mv kPa -1 COEFFICIENT OF VOLUME CHANGE WS WASH SAMPLE OS OSTERBERG SAMPLE cc 1 COMPRESSION INDEX ST SLOTTED TUBE SAMPLE RC ROCK CORE cs 1 SWELLING INDEX BS BLOCK SAMPLE PH TW ADVANCED HYDRAULICALLY ca 1 RATE OF SECONDARY CONSOLIDATION CS CHUNK SAMPLE PM TW ADVANCED MANUALLY cv m2/s COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION TW THINWALL OPEN FS FOIL SAMPLE H m DRAINAGE PATH Tv 1 TIME FACTOR

STRESS AND STRAIN U % DEGREE OF CONSOLIDATION

uw kPa PORE WATER PRESSURE ’vo kPa EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ru 1 PORE PRESSURE RATIO ’p kPa PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE kPa TOTAL NORMAL STRESS f kPa SHEAR STRENGTH ’ kPa EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS c’ kPa EFFECTIVE COHESION INTERCEPT kPa SHEAR STRESS Ф’ -o EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION l, 2, 3 kPa PRINCIPAL STRESSES cu kPa APPARENT COHESION INTERCEPT % LINEAR STRAIN Фu -o APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 1, 2, 3 % PRINCIPAL STRAINS R kPa RESIDUAL SHEAR STRENGTH E kPa MODULUS OF LINEAR DEFORMATION r kPa REMOULDED SHEAR STRENGTH G kPa MODULUS OF SHEAR DEFORMATION St 1 SENSITIVITY = cu / r 1 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL

P s kg/m3 DENSITY OF SOLID PARTICLES e 1,% VOID RATIO emin 1,% VOID RATIO IN DENSEST STATE

s kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF SOLID PARTICLES n 1,% POROSITY ID 1 DENSITY INDEX = e,max – e emax - emin

Pw kg/m3 DENSITY OF WATER w 1,% WATER CONTENT D mm GRAIN DIAMETER w kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER sr % DEGREE OF SATURATION Dn mm N PERCENT – DIAMETER P kg/m3 DENSITY OF SOIL wL % LIQUID LIMIT Cu 1 UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL wP % PLASTIC LIMIT h m HYDRAULIC HEAD OR POTENTIAL Pd kg/m3 DENSITY OF DRY SOIL ws % SHRINKAGE LIMIT q m3/s RATE OF DISCHARGE d kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL IP

% PLASTICITY INDEX = (WL – WL) v m/s DISCHARGE VELOCITY Psat kg/m3 DENSITY OF SATURATED SOIL IL 1 LIQUIDITY INDEX = (W – WP)/ lP i 1 HYDAULIC GRADIENT sat kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF SATURATED SOIL IC 1 CONSISTENCY INDEX = (WL – W) / 1P k m/s HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY P’ kg/m3 DENSITY OF SUBMERED SOIL e,max 1,% VOID RATIO IN LOOSEST STATE j kN/m3 SEEPAGE FORCE

’ kN/m3 UNIT WEIGHT OF SUBMERGED SOIL

Appendix E

LIMITATION OF THIS REPORT

LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This report is intended solely for the Client named. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to WSP Canada Incorporated (WSP) at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by WSP, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to the fitness of the property for a particular purpose. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety.

The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the test hole locations. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those encountered at the test hole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site investigation. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the test hole locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text and then only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report.

The comments made in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are intended only for the guidance of the designer. The number of test holes may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. For example, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary markedly and unpredictably. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT - Argue …argueconstruction.ca/.../10/...Geotechnical-Report-Feb-2016PDF-1.pdf · 3 SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Soil Conditions 4