Goldie Mill Ruins Condition Assessment...Goldie Mill Ruins Condition Assessment 75 Cardigan St. Street Guelph, Ontario Prepared by: 176 Speedvale Avenue West Guelph, ON TE-31946-17

Goldie Mill Ruins Condition Assessment

75 Cardigan St. Street Guelph, Ontario

Prepared by:

176 Speedvale Avenue West Guelph, ON

TE-31946-17

July 19, 2018

Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment

Project No. TE-31946-18 Goldie Mills Ruins

July 19, 2018 Guelph, Ontario

ii

Executive Summary Tacoma Engineers was retained by the City of Guelph to provide a condition assessment of the Goldie Mill

Ruins and the 90’ tall brick chimney. A site review was carried out by Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., and Michael

Zwart, E.I.T., on June 21st, 2018, and a second site visit was carried out by Michael Zwart, E.I.T., on July

4th, 2018, to determine the condition of the mill ruins. The purpose of the condition assessment was to

determine the necessary repairs required in order to open the mill ruins to the public.

The building was originally constructed as a three-storey masonry and wood-framed structure. Exterior

walls are constructed with mass masonry, and the floors and roof were constructed with wood framing. The

floors and roof are not present in the current ruins.

The mill ruins are in poor condition, with some safety hazards that are of immediate concern. Several loose

stones were noted on the west elevation above the Royal Recreation Trail. It was noted that stones have

fallen from the ruins in the past seven years. It is recommended that access to the area within 5’-0” from

the base of all elevations is immediately restricted.

Work that must be completed prior to opening the mill ruins to the public includes securing loose stones,

securing all lintels with helical ties, and installing a new archway stone above the upper window on the

south side of the interior wall. An order-of-magnitude budget for this work is $60,000 - $80,000.

Repairs that should be addressed in the next 2 years include repointing and some localized rebuilding on

all elevations, installing new wall coping where it does not exist, caulking the concrete coping, and

replacing the concrete slab on grade in the south room of the ruins. An order-of-magnitude budget for this

work is $500,000 - $600,000.

The 90’ brick chimney was reviewed by drone footage. Footage for the south elevation and the top of the

chimney was available for review. The top of the chimney was in poor condition at the time of the drone

footage. The City of Guelph has indicated that the top of the chimney was partially repaired since the drone

footage was recorded. These repairs must be completed.




iii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... IV

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

2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 1

3. BUILDING HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... 1

4. SCOPE AND METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 2

5. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 2

6. GENERAL STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 3

6.1. MILL RUINS TYPICAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 3 6.1.1. Typical Mortar Loss............................................................................................................................... 3 6.1.2. Typical Wall Coping .............................................................................................................................. 6 6.1.3. Typical Lintels ....................................................................................................................................... 7 6.1.4. Typical Missing Wall Coping................................................................................................................. 8

6.2. LOCALIZED CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2.1. Elevation 8 Interior 3rd Storey Lintel ..................................................................................................... 8 6.2.2. Concrete Slab on Grade ........................................................................................................................ 9 6.2.3. Concrete Retaining Wall ........................................................................................................................ 9

6.3. BRICK CHIMNEY ............................................................................................................................................ 10

7. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 11

8. BUDGET COSTING .................................................................................................................................... 12

9. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A: MATERIAL CONDITION DEFINITIONS ................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX B: RESTORATION DRAWINGS ....................................................................................................... 17




iv

List of Photographs

Photograph 1a, 1b: Typical Mortar Loss Level 1 (ML1) and Level 2 (ML2) 4 Photograph 2a, 2b: Typical Mortar Loss Level 3 (ML3) and Level 4 (ML4) 4 Photograph 3: Unsupported Stone 5 Photograph 4: Elevation 5 Mortar Loss 6 Photograph 5: Typical Concrete Wall Coping 7 Photograph 6a, 6b: Typical Window Openings 7 Photograph 7: No Coping on Wall 8 Photograph 8a, 8b: Interior Lintel Has Fallen 9 Photograph 9: Concrete Retaining Wall 10 Photograph 10: Top of Chimney 11

List of Tables

Table 1: Budgetary Costs for Repair Work 12




1

1. Introduction Tacoma Engineers has been retained by the City of Guelph to carry out a structural condition assessment

of a masonry ruin located at 75 Cardigan Street in Guelph, also known as Goldie Mills Ruins.

Following initial discussions in early 2018, Tacoma Engineers was retained by the City of Guelph on April

14th, 2018. The undersigned attended the site on June 21st, 2018, and July 4th, 2018.

This report includes a summary of the following items for the building:

• major structural systems;

• existing structural conditions and areas of potential concern;

• conceptual repair options for any areas that may require remedial work; and

• order of magnitude cost estimates.

2. Background The City of Guelph owns the building in question, and Tacoma Engineers is being retained as a Consultant

directly by the Owner.

This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner, and is intended to form part of the preparation work by

the city as it considers opening the ruins to public access. This report is not being prepared as a response to

an Order, recommendations, or request by any regulatory body.

The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide a summary of the current structural condition of the

building and outline the necessary repairs to allow public access to the ruins.

This report is based on a visual inspection only and does not include any destructive testing. Where no

concerns were noted the structure is assumed to be performing adequately. The structure is assumed to have

been constructed in accordance with best building practices common at the time of construction. No further

structural analysis or building code analysis has been carried out as part of this report unless specifically

noted.

Previous work has been completed by Tacoma Engineers on this building in 2014, limited to minor masonry

repairs and maintenance related the storage bunker.

No sub-consultants have been retained to participate in this assessment.

3. Building History The Goldie Mill Ruins and chimney is located on a historic manufacturing site in Guelph, Ontario. The mill

was originally a saw mill and was first constructed in 1827 by David Gilkinson, a cousin of the founder of

Guelph. Two fires in 1850 and 1864 required rebuilding of the mill. The second rebuilding was conducted

by James Goldie, who became one of the leading flour manufacturers in Ontario. A third fire in 1953

completely destroyed the building and it has been maintained as a ruins since that time. The mill ruins were

designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1983 and was designated as a National Historic

Site in 2007.1

1 “Goldie Mill”, Retrieved on July 16, 2018, www.historicplaces.ca




2

4. Scope and Methods The following documents were provided to the undersigned prior to the preparation of this report:

• Drone footage of the mill ruins and the brick chimney

• Elevation pictures taken c. 2011

The assessment of the building is based on a visual assessment from lift for the exterior of the mill ruins

and from grade for the interior of the mill ruins. The review of the brick chimney was by drone footage

only. Lift access to the interior of the ruins was not practical, and as such the effectiveness of a lift is limited.

It was determined that a visual assessment would provide an adequate level of detail for the purposes of

this report.

A site visit was carried out by Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., and Michael Zwart, E.I.T., on June 21st, 2018. A

visual review of the exterior was completed on this date, and photographs were taken of all noted exterior

deficiencies. A second site visit was carried out by Michael Zwart, E.I.T., on July 4th, 2018. A visual review

of the interior was completed on this date, and photographs were taken of all noted interior deficiencies.

5. Definitions The following is a summary of definitions of terms used in this report describing the condition of the

structure as well as recommended remedial actions. Detailed material condition definitions are included in

Appendix A of this report.

• Condition States1:

1. Excellent – Element(s) in “new” condition. No visible deterioration type defects present

and remedial action is not required.

2. Good – Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of

defects would not normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not

affected.

3. Fair – Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger

a “preventative maintenance” type of remedial action where it is economical to do so.

4. Poor – Element(s) where sever or very sever defects are visible. These types of defects

would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the

overall performance of that element.

• Immediate remedial action1: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety

hazards (falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial

recommendations will need to be implemented immediately and may include restricting access,

temporary shoring/supports or removing the hazard.

• Priority remedial action1: these are items that do no present an immediate hazard but still require

action in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further

degradation of the structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further

investigations, etc. and are broken down into timelines as follows:

1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on

within the next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).

1 Adapted from “Structural Condition Assessment”, 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural

Engineering Institute




3

2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted

on within the next 24 months.

3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on

within the next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further

review/investigation.

• Routine maintenance: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled

maintenance program.

In addition to the definitions listed above, it should be noted that the building in question is of interest from

the perspective of heritage. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

provide direction when a structural system is identified as a character-defining element of an historic place.

They also provide direction on maintaining, repairing, and replacing structural components or systems1.

Refer to the General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration to further inform the

development of more detailed remedial actions.

6. General Structural Conditions The building was originally constructed as a three-storey masonry and wood-framed structure. Exterior

walls are constructed with mass masonry, and the floors and roof were constructed with wood framing. The

floors and roof are not present in the current ruins.

Due to the nature of the deficiencies in the mill ruins, section 6.1 of this report has been arranged by

deficiency type. Where localized conditions exist, these have been referenced by wall elevation in sections

6.2. Refer to Appendix B: Restoration Drawings for photographs of all elevations and the typical conditions.

Drawing R1 defines the elevation locations. The elevation pictures were taken c. 2011.

The chimney is a free-standing multi-wythe brick structure. The chimney is 90’ tall. Review of the chimney

was limited to the south elevation and the top. The visual review was conducted through drone footage.

Section 6.3 discusses the chimney conditions.

6.1. Mill Ruins Typical Conditions Several typical conditions were found throughout the ruins. These include mortar loss on the elevations and

door and window openings, concrete coping on top of the walls, portions of walls without coping, and

Portland based parging repairs.

6.1.1. Typical Mortar Loss

Conditions

Mortar loss was observed on all elevations. Mortar loss was categorized into 4 levels of severity as outlined

below. See Photograph 1 and 2 for typical mortar loss.

• ML1: minor erosion, scaling

• ML2: 5-10% loss of mortar

• ML3: 10-20% loss of mortar

• ML4: more than 20% loss of mortar

1 “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2nd Edition, 2010,

www.historicplaces.ca

http://www.historicplaces.ca/




4

Photograph 1a, 1b: Typical Mortar Loss Level 1 (ML1) and Level 2 (ML2)

Photograph 2a, 2b: Typical Mortar Loss Level 3 (ML3) and Level 4 (ML4)




5

Elevation 2 faces the Guelph Youth Music Centre. The Royal Recreation Trail passes between the Guelph

Youth Music Centre and the mill ruins. The unsupported stone in the upper right corner of Photograph 3 is

located at the north side of elevation 2. This stone and several others like it nearby are at risk of falling.

Birds were noted to be nesting in the wall cavities in at least two locations on Elevation 2.

Photograph 3: Unsupported Stone

The majority of elevation 5 has ML3 or ML4 mortar loss (Refer to drawing R5). Fractures in the stones

were also noted in some locations as shown in Photograph 4.




6

Photograph 4: Elevation 5 Mortar Loss

Recommended Actions

Refer to Appendix B: Restoration Drawings for the location of mortar loss on all elevations.

The following immediate remedial action is recommended:

• Secure all loose stones found in ML4 areas.

• Remove loose mortar to mitigate risk of falling material.

The following medium-term remedial actions are recommended:

• Rebuild localized ML4 areas as required.

• Repoint all ML3 and ML4 areas.

The following long-term remedial action is recommended for:

• Repoint all ML1 and ML2 areas.

6.1.2. Typical Wall Coping

Conditions

The majority of the mill ruin walls have been capped with a concrete coping. The joints and cracks in the

coping was caulked as shown in Photograph 5. In many locations the caulking has failed and is allowing

small amounts of water to enter the inner portion of the walls.




7

Photograph 5: Typical Concrete Wall Coping

Recommended Actions

The following medium-term remedial action is recommended for the wall coping:

• Repair all caulked joints and new cracks.

6.1.3. Typical Lintels

Conditions

The window and door openings in the mill ruins have an increased rate of deterioration. This is due to

higher concentrations of water in these areas. Photograph 6a shows the deterioration in a typical lintel and

Photograph 6b shows loose mortar above the arch stone on Elevation 2b (Refer to drawing R2b).

Photograph 6a, 6b: Typical Window Openings

Recommended Actions

The following immediate remedial action is recommended for all lintels:

• Restrict access to the area within 5’-0” from the base of elevations 2, 4, and 5. Refer to drawings R1

elevation labeling.




8

• Remove loose mortar and masonry to mitigate risk of falling material.

• Secure all lintels with helical ties.

6.1.4. Typical Missing Wall Coping

Conditions

The top of the ruin walls typically have concrete coping to protect the walls from moisture ingress. On

locations where the top of the wall is not horizontal, the concrete coping was not installed. The tops of the

walls exposed to the elements leads to increased rates of deterioration. Refer to Photograph 7 for a typical

location of missing coping.

Photograph 7: No Coping on Wall

Recommended Actions

The following medium-term remedial action is recommended for all locations were coping does not exist:

• Install new concrete coping and caulk joints to existing coping.

6.2. Localized Conditions This section of the report outlines conditions that are not typical throughout the ruin.

6.2.1. Elevation 8 Interior 3rd Storey Lintel

Conditions

The arch stone on the 3rd storey lintel on elevation 8 has dislodged and fallen to the ground. Photograph 8a

was taken c. 2011. Photograph 8b was taken on July 4th, 2018. The shattered remains of the stone arch were

found on the ground below the window. The visual review conducted indicated that several other lintels

were experiencing similar conditions, though no lateral movement could be confirmed.




9

Photograph 8a, 8b: Interior Lintel Has Fallen

Recommended Actions

The following immediate remedial action is recommended for all lintels:

• Install new archway stone.

6.2.2. Concrete Slab on Grade

Conditions

The southern portion of the interior of the mill ruins contains a concrete slab. This slab contains cracks,

voids below the slab, slab heaving, and grass and small trees growing in it. This slab is in poor condition

and is considered to have failed.

Recommended Actions

The following medium-term remedial action is recommended for the slab on grade:

• Remove the slab on grade.

• Remediate any existing subgrade issues.

• Install a new concrete slab on grade.

6.2.3. Concrete Retaining Wall

Conditions

A visual review was conducted of the concrete retaining wall on Elevation 7. The retaining wall was likely

constructed to retain localized deterioration of the stone wall. The concrete wall appears to have a consistent

gap between the original wall and the retaining wall as can be seen in Photograph 9. The wall shows signs

of localized spalling, staining in one location, and small grasses and weeds are growing out of the top of

the wall. The wall is in fair condition.




10

Photograph 9: Concrete Retaining Wall

Recommended Actions

The following routine review item is recommended for the concrete retaining wall:

• Monitor the concrete retaining wall for movement.

6.3. Brick Chimney Conditions

The chimney is 90’ tall and is constructed with multi-wythe brick. The condition of the chimney was

reviewed by drone with a video camera. The footage was limited to the south elevation and the top of the

chimney. The south elevation appears to be in good condition closer to the ground and transitions to fair

condition at higher elevations. The top of the chimney was in poor condition at the time of the drone footage

as can be seen in Photograph 10. PJ Materials Consultants Limited issued a report to the City of Guelph in

September 2015 (attached). This report outlines requires repairs for the top of the brick chimney. The City

of Guelph has indicated that the top of the chimney was partially repaired since the drone footage was

recorded. These repairs must be completed.




11

Photograph 10: Top of Chimney

Recommended Actions

The following immediate remedial action is recommended for the top of the brick chimney:

• Repair the top of the chimney as per the recommendations found in PJ Materials Consultants Limited

report (attached)

7. Summary of Recommendations The following provides a summary of the recommendations for the existing structure.

Items requiring immediate remedial action:

1. Secure all loose stones found in ML4 areas.

2. Rebuild localized ML4 areas as required.

3. Remove loose mortar and masonry to mitigate risk of falling material.

4. Restrict access to the area within 5’-0” from the base of elevations 2, 4, and 5. Refer to drawings R1

elevation labeling.

5. Secure all lintels with helical ties.

6. Install new archway stone.

7. Repair the top of the chimney as per the recommendations found in PJ Materials Consultants Limited

report (attached).

Items requiring medium-term remedial action:

1. Repoint all ML3 areas.

2. Repair all caulked joints and new cracks.

3. Install new concrete coping and caulk joints to existing coping.

4. Remove the slab on grade.

5. Remediate any existing subgrade issues.

6. Install a new concrete slab on grade.

Items requiring long-term remedial action:

1. Repoint all ML1 and ML2 areas.

Items requiring routine review:




12

1. Monitor the concrete retaining wall for movement.

8. Budget Costing The recommended repairs outline in section 7 of this report have costs associated with them. Table 1

outlines the budgetary estimates of these costs.

Table 1: Budgetary Costs for Repair Work

Safety Concerns

Required Repairs Unit Cost Subtotal

[ft2 or lin. ft] [per ft2 or lin. ft]

Rebuilding Loose Wall - ML4 4000 $ 40.00 $ 160,000.00

Stabilize Stone Lintels 35 $ 200.00 $ 7,000.00

Fencing* 140 $ 14.00 $ 2,000.00

Subtotal $ 169,000.00

Other Repairs

Required Repairs Unit Cost Subtotal

[ft2 or lin. ft] [per ft2 or lin. ft] [$]

Repointing and rebuilding - ML1 1600 $ 20.00 $ 32,000.00



Slab replacement 3400 $ 30.00 $ 102,000.00

Wall Coping 40 $ 200.00 $ 8,000.00

Caulking 100 $ 50.00 $ 5,000.00

Subtotal $ 417,000.00

Total

$ 586,000.00

*Fencing rental is on a yearly basis




13

9. Conclusions In general, the mill ruin is in poor condition. There are loose stones on the ruins that overlook the path

between the mill ruins and the Guelph Youth Music Centre. It is recommended that access to the area within

5’-0” from the base of all elevations is immediately restricted. There are a number of safety concerns that

must be addressed prior to opening the ruins to the public. These concerns include securing loose stones,

securing all lintels with helical ties, and installing a new archway stone on Elevation 8.

The 90’ brick chimney was reviewed by drone footage. Footage for the south elevation and the top of the

chimney was available for reviewed. The top of the chimney was in poor condition at the time of the drone

footage as can be seen in Photograph 10. PJ Materials Consultants Limited issued a report to the City of

Guelph in September 2015. This report outlines requires repairs for the top of the brick chimney. The City

of Guelph has indicated that the top of the chimney was partially repaired since the drone footage was

recorded. These repairs must be completed.

Please contact the undersigned with any further questions or comments.

Per: __________________________

Michael Zwart, E.I.T.,

Structural Designer

Tacoma Engineers Inc.




14

Appendix A: Material Condition Definitions

Condition States1:

1. Excellent – Element(s) in “new” condition. No visible deterioration type defects present and remedial

action is not required.

2. Good – Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of defects would not

normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not affected.

3. Fair – Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger a “preventative

maintenance” type of remedial action where it is economical to do so.

4. Poor – Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects would

normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the overall performance

of that element.

Steel Corrosion1:

1. Light – Loose rust formation and pitting in the paint surface. No noticeable section loss.

2. Medium – Loose rust formation with scales or flakes forming. Up to 10% section loss.

3. Severe – Stratified rust with pitting of metal surface. Between 10% and 20% section loss.

4. Very Severe – Extensive rusting with local perforation or rusting through, in excess of 20% section

loss.

Timber Checks, Splits and Shakes1:

1. Light – Extend less than 5% into the member.

2. Medium – Extend between 5% and 10% into the member.

3. Severe – Extend between 10% and 20% into the member.

4. Very Severe – Extend more than 20% into the member.

Timber Cracking, Splintering and Crushing1:

1. Light – Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.

2. Medium – Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.

3. Severe – Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.

4. Very Severe – Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.

Timber Rot/Decay1:

1. Light – Slight change in colour. The wood sounds solid and cannot be penetrated by a sharp object.

Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.

2. Medium – Surface is discoloured with black and brown streaks. The wood sounds solid and offers

moderate resistance to penetration by sharp object. Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.

3. Severe – Surface is fibrous, checked or crumbly and fungal fruiting bodies are growing on it. The wood

sounds hollow when tapped and offers little resistance to penetration by sharp object. Significant

damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.

4. Very Severe – The surface can be crumbled and disintegrated with ease. Extensive damage with section

loss in excess of 20%.

1 Adapted from “Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), 2000 (Rev. 2008)” by the Ministry of

Transportation Ontario (MTO)




15

Masonry Cracking1:

1. Hairline Cracks – Less than 0.1 mm wide.

2. Narrow Cracks – Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.

3. Medium Cracks – Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.

4. Wide Cracks – Greater than 1.0 mm wide.

Masonry Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration1:

1. Light – Hairline cracking and minor loss of stone surface with loss of section up to 50 mm.

2. Medium – Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.

3. Severe – Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.

4. Very Severe – Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.

Concrete Scaling1:

1. Light - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of up to 5 mm without exposure of coarse aggregate.

2. Medium - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 6 to 10 mm with exposure of some coarse aggregates.

3. Severe - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 11 mm to 20 mm with aggregate particles standing out

from the concrete and a few completely lost.

4. Very severe - Loss of surface mortar and aggregate particles to a depth greater than 20 mm.

Concrete Spalling1:

1. Light - Spalled area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction or less than 25 mm in depth.

2. Medium - Spalled area measuring between 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction or between 25 mm and

50 mm in depth.

3. Severe - Spalled area measuring between 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction or between 50 mm and

100 mm in depth.

4. Very Severe - Spalled area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction or greater than 100 mm in

depth.

Concrete Delamination1:

1. Light - Delaminated area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction.

2. Medium - Delaminated area measuring 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction.

3. Severe - Delaminated area measuring 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction.

4. Very Severe - Delaminated area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction.

Concrete Cracking1:

1. Hairline Cracks – Less than 0.1 mm wide.

2. Narrow Cracks – Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.

3. Medium Cracks – Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.

4. Wide Cracks – Greater than 1.0 mm wide.

Corrosion of Reinforcement1:

1. Light - Light rust stain on the concrete surface

2. Medium - Exposed reinforcement with uniform light rust. Loss of reinforcing steel section less than

10%

3. Severe - Exposed reinforcement with heavy rusting and localized pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel

section between 10% and 20%

1 Adapted from “Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), 2000 (Rev. 2008)” by the Ministry of

Transportation Ontario (MTO)




16

4. Very severe - Exposed reinforcement with very heavy rusting and pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel

section over 20%.

Immediate remedial action1: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety hazards

(falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial recommendations will need to

be implemented immediately and may include restricting access, temporary shoring/supports or removing

the hazard.

Priority remedial action1: these are items that do no present an immediate hazard but still require action

in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further degradation of the

structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further investigations, etc. and are broken

down into timelines as follows:

1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on within the

next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).

2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted on within

the next 24 months.

3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on within the

next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further review/investigation.

Routine maintenance1: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled maintenance

program.

1 Adapted from “Structural Condition Assessment”, 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural

Engineering Institute




17

Appendix B: Restoration Drawings

CITY OF GUELPH1 CARDEN ST., GUELPH

N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18

GOLDIE MILLS RUINSCONDITION ASSESSMENT

75 CARDICAN ST., GUELPH

DRAWING TITLE

R1

R8

R6

R7

R9

R10R11

R12

R13

R3

R5

R2a

R2b

R4a

R4b

PHOTOGRAPH 10


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



ELEVATION 2a CONDITION

R2a

UNSUPPORTEDSTONE

LOOSE EDGEPHOTOGRAPH 3

LOOSESTONE

NOTE: IMAGE DISTORTED FOR CLARITY

ML3

ML2

ML4

ML2

ML2

ML3

ML3

ML1

ML1

ML2

ML2

ML3

ML3

ML2

ML3

ML2

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 5

PHOTOGRAPH 2b

PHOTOGRAPH 2a


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



ELEVATION 2b CONDITION

R2b

ML3

REPAIR PARGING WITHPORTLAND CEMENT

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 6b


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



ELEVATION 3 CONDITION

R3

ML2

ML2

ML1

ML2

ML2

CRACK IN STONE LINTEL

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



ELEVATION 4a CONDITION

R4a

ML3

ML3

PORTLAND PARGINGTRAPPING MOISTURE

ML4

ML2

ML3

ML3

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 1b


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



ELEVATION 4b CONDITION

R4b

ML3

ML2ML2

ML3

ML3

ML2

ML3

ML2

ML3

ML4

LOOSE EDGE

ML2

ML2

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 5a


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R5

ML4ML3

ML4

ML4

ML3

ML3

ML3

ML2

ML2

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 4

PHOTOGRAPH 7


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



DRAWING TITLE

R6

LOOSE MAT'LABOVE LINTELS

UNSUPPORTED STONES

PORTAND BASED REPAIR

ML3ML3

ML2

ML3

ML1

ML4

ML2

ML3

PORTLAND PARGING

ML3

ML3

ML3ML1

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



DRAWING TITLE

R7

PLANT GROWINGON LEDGE. TYPICAL

THIS ELEVATION

PARGED WINDOWSILL AND LINTEL

CONCRETE FOUNDATIONWALL NOT CONNECTEDTO RUBBLESTONE WALL

PHOTOGRAPH 9

PLANT GROWINGON LEDGE. TYPICAL

THIS ELEVATION

ML1

ML1ML1ML1

ML2

ML4

ML3

ML3

ML2

PORTLAND BASEDPARGING

PORTLANDBASED REPAIRS



ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

PHOTOGRAPH 1a


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



DRAWING TITLE

R8

NO WALL CAPPING NO WALL CAPPING

CRACK IN WALL CRACK IN WALL

COMPLETE MORTARLOSS IN DOORWAY

STONE FAILURE CAN CRACKS INSTONE. LOOSE BELOW LINTEL LOOSE PARGING

LINTEL HAS FALLENPHOTOGRAPH 8

ML3

ML2

ML3

ML4

ML4

ML4

ML2

ML3

ML4

ML2

ML3

ML2

ML4

ML2

ML4

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

ML3


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R9

ML4

ML1

DETERIORATION ON LEDGE

ML3

ML4

ML3

ML2

ML2 ML3

ML3

ML2

ML4 ML4

ML2

ML3

ML2

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4

ML3 ML3ML2


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R10

ML3

ML3

ML4

ML4

ML4

ML4

ML3

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R11

ML3

ML4

ML3

ML4

ML3

ML2

ML4ML3

ML3

ML2

ML4

ML3

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R12

ML3

ML3

STONES NOTSUPPORTED

ML4

ML3

ML3

ML4

ML2

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18




R13

ML4

ML2

ML3

REPAIR PARGINGAPPEARS LOOSE

ML3

ML3

ML3ML3

ML4

ML2

ML2

ML2

ML2

CRACK IN WALL

ML1

ML2

ML3

ML4


N.T.S.

JULY 2018

MZ

TE-31946-18



CONCRETE SLAB CONDITION

R14

CRACKS IN SLAB

SLAB HEAVING

VOIDS UNDERSLAB

REMAINS OFFALLEN STONEARCH




Appendix C: PJ Materials Consultants Limited Inspection Report for Goldie’s Mill Chimney

Documents

Goldie Mill Ruins Condition Assessment...Goldie Mill Ruins Condition Assessment 75 Cardigan St. Street Guelph, Ontario Prepared by: 176 Speedvale Avenue West Guelph, ON TE-31946-17