Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Ajax, Ontario€¦ · · 2017-04-25This report deals with geotechnical issues only. The geo-environmental ... Atterberg limit test. s

GeoPro Consulting Limited (905) 237-8336 [email protected]

Units 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6

T: (905) 237-8336 E: [email protected]

Units 25-27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

Lakeview Boulevard Improvements

Town of Ajax, Ontario

Prepared For:

Dionne Bacchus & Associates Consulting Engineers Ltd.

GeoPro Project No.: 16-1296-01 Revised

Report Date: November 3, 2016

GeoPro Project: 16-1296-01 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation – Lakeview Boulevard Improvements Town of Ajax, Ontario

Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca i [email protected]

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Soil Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Groundwater Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 5

4.1 Site and Project Description ......................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Pavement Design .......................................................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Existing Pavement Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6

4.2.2 Lakeview Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation ............................................................................ 6

4.2.3 North Driveway Pavement Reconstruction ................................................................................. 8

4.2.4 Pavement Recommendations and Construction Features .......................................................... 9

4.2.4.1 Pavement Material Types ..................................................................................................... 9

4.2.4.2 Asphalt Cement Grade ......................................................................................................... 9

4.2.4.3 Tack Coat .............................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.4.4 Compaction .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.4.5 Pavement Tapers .................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.4.6 Stripping, Sub-excavation and Grading .............................................................................. 10

4.2.4.7 Construction ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.4.8 Drainage.............................................................................................................................. 10

4.2.5 Reuse and Disposal of Existing Pavement Materials ................................................................. 11

4.3 Underground Site Services (Storm Sewer) ................................................................................. 11

4.3.1 Trenching Excavation ................................................................................................................. 11

4.3.2 Bedding ...................................................................................................................................... 13

http://www.geoproconsulting.ca/

mailto:[email protected]


Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca ii [email protected]

4.3.3 Backfilling of Trenches ............................................................................................................... 13

5 CLOSURE ..............................................................................................................................................15

Drawings No.

Borehole Location Plan 1

Enclosures No.

Notes on Sample Description 1A

Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes 1B

Borehole Logs 2 to 7

Figures No.

Grain Size Distribution 1 to 2

Atterberg Limits Test Results 3

Limitations to the Report




Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 1 [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

GeoPro Consulting Limited (GeoPro) was retained by Dionne Bacchus & Associates Consulting

Engineers Ltd. (the Client) to conduct a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Class EA

Study of the proposed Lakeview Boulevard Improvements, in the Town of Ajax, Ontario.

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to obtain information on the existing

subsurface conditions by means of a limited number of boreholes, in-situ tests and laboratory

tests of soil samples to provide required geotechnical design information. Based on GeoPro’s

interpretation of the data obtained, geotechnical comments and recommendations related to the

road pavement design, drainage and storm sewer installation are provided.

The report is prepared with the condition that the design will be in accordance with all applicable

standards and codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and good engineering practice.

Further, the recommendations and opinions in this report are applicable only to the proposed

project as described above. Ongoing liaison and communication with GeoPro during the design

stage and construction phase of the project is strongly recommended to confirm that the

recommendations in this report are applicable and/or correctly interpreted and implemented.

Also, any queries concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project shall be directed

to GeoPro for further elaboration and/or clarification.

This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented in our approved proposal

prepared based on our understanding of the project. If there are any changes in the design

features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the

geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the

design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the

recommendations of this report can be relied upon.

This report deals with geotechnical issues only. The geo-environmental (chemical) aspects of the

subsurface conditions, including the consequences of possible surface and/or subsurface

contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the

introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources, were not investigated and were

beyond the scope of this assignment.

The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical

consultants in Ontario. Laboratory testing for most part follows ASTM or CSA Standards or

modifications of these standards that have become standard practice in Ontario.

This report has been prepared for the Client only. Third party use of this report without GeoPro’s

consent is prohibited. The limitations to the report presented in this report form an integral part

of the report and they must be considered in conjunction with this report.





2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

The field work for the geotechnical investigation was carried out on May 3, 2016, during which

time six (6) boreholes (Boreholes BH1 to BH6) were advanced at the locations shown on Borehole

Location Plan, Drawing 1. The boreholes were drilled to a depth of about 5 m below the existing

ground surface.

The boreholes were advanced using continuous flight auger equipment supplied by a drilling

specialist subcontracted to GeoPro. Samples were retrieved with a 51 mm (2 inch) O.D. split-

barrel (split spoon) sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm (30

inches) in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method.

The field work for this investigation was monitored by a member of our engineering staff who also

determined the approximate borehole locations in the field, logged the boreholes and cared for

the recovered samples.

All soil samples obtained during this investigation were brought to our laboratory for further

examination and geotechnical classification testing (including water content, grain size

distribution, and Atterberg limit tests, when applicable) on selected soil samples. The results of

grain size distribution and Atterberg limit tests of the selected soil samples are shown in Figures

1 to 3.

Groundwater condition observations were made in the open boreholes during drilling and upon

completion of drilling. All boreholes were backfilled and sealed upon completion of drilling except

for borehole BH4. One monitoring well (51 mm in diameter) was installed in Borehole BH4 for

groundwater level monitoring.

It should be noted that the elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not available at

the time of preparing the report. The borehole locations plotted on Borehole Location Plan,

Drawing 1 were based on the measurement of the site features and should be considered to be

approximate.

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The borehole locations are shown on Borehole Location Plan Drawing 1. Notes on sample

descriptions are presented in Enclosure No. 1A. Explanation of terms used in the record of

boreholes is presented in Enclosure No. 1B. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (BH1 to

BH6) are presented in the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive). Detailed

descriptions of the major soil strata encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site are provided

in the following.





3.1 Soil Conditions

Asphalt Pavement

All boreholes were advanced through the existing pavement. The existing pavement structure

encountered from Boreholes BH1 to BH6 is summarized as follows:

LOCATION THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

Road Section

Borehole Number

Asphalt (mm)

Granular Base/Subbase

(mm) Subgrade Type

Lakeview Boulevard

BH1 to BH2 and BH4 to BH6

110 - 135 335 - 960 Sandy silt fill,

clayey silt fill or gravelly sand fill

North Driveway

BH3 90 250 Clayey silt fill

* The thickness of 960 mm of granular base/subbase in BH4 was not used to calculate the existing pavement structure average thickness on Lakeview Boulevard.

Sieve analyses were completed on three samples of the recovered granular base/subbase

materials, and the results were compared to OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular A and Granular B Type I

specifications. The grain size distribution curves for three samples are presented in Figure 1, with

a summary of the results provided in the table below.

SAMPLE OPSS.MUNI 1010 GRANULAR A OPSS.MUNI 1010 GRANULAR B TYPE I

BH3 AS1 Does not meet OPSS.MUNI 1010 due to excessive percentages passing most sieves

Does not meet OPSS.MUNI 1010 due to excessive fines (9.7% passing 0.075 mm sieve)


Does not meet OPSS.MUNI 1010 due to excessive fines (11.3% passing 0.075 mm sieve)


Meets OPSS.MUNI 1010 requirements

Fill Materials

Fill Materials consisting of clayey silt, sandy silt and gravelly sand were encountered below the

granular base/subbase materials in all boreholes and extended to depths ranging from about 0.9

m to 2.9 m below the existing ground surface. For cohesive fill materials, SPT N values ranging

from 3 to 12 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a soft to stiff consistency. For cohesionless

fill materials, SPT N values ranging from 2 to 8 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a very

loose to loose relative density. The in-situ moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged

from approximately 13% to 23%.





Clayey Silt to Silty Clay

Clayey Silt to Silty Clay deposits were encountered below the fill materials in boreholes BH3 and

BH5, and extended to depths ranging from about 2.1 m to 3.4 m below the existing ground

surface. SPT N values ranging from 9 to 14 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a stiff

consistency. The natural moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged from

approximately 19% to 27%.

Clayey Silt Till

Clayey Silt Till deposit was encountered below the fill materials in borehole BH2 and extended to

the depth of about 2.9 m below the existing ground surface. A SPT N value of 18 blows per 300

mm penetration indicated a very stiff consistency. The natural moisture content measured in the

soil sample was approximately 21%.

Sandy Silt

Sandy Silt deposit was encountered below the fill materials and clayey silt till deposit or within

the sandy silt till deposit in Boreholes BH2 to BH4, and extended to depths ranging from about

4.0 m to 5.0 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH4 was terminated in this deposit.

SPT N values ranging from 16 to 52 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a compact to very

dense relative density. The natural moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged from

approximately 19% to 22%.

Sandy Silt Till to Sand and Silt Till

Sandy Silt Till to Sand and Silt Till deposits were encountered below the fill materials, clayey silt

or sandy silt deposits in all boreholes with the exception of borehole BH4, and extended to the

depth of about 5.0 m below the existing ground surface. All boreholes with the exception of BH4

were terminated in these deposits. SPT N values ranging from 12 to 54 blows per 300 mm

penetration indicated a compact to very dense relative density. The natural moisture content

measured in the soil samples ranged from approximately 9% to 20%.

3.2 Groundwater Conditions

The groundwater condition observations made in the boreholes during and immediately upon

completion of drilling are shown in the borehole logs and are also summarized in the following

table. Borehole BH6 was open and dry upon completion of drilling.





BH No. BH Depths

(m)

Depth of Water Encountered

during Drilling (mBGS)

Cave-in Depth upon Completion

of Drilling (mBGS)

Water Level upon Completion of

Drilling (mBGS)

BH1 5.0 4.6 4.3 3.4

BH2 5.0 0.8 3.7 2.4

BH3 5.0 4.6 Open 3.4

BH4 5.0 0.5 1.8 0.3

BH5 5.0 1.2 0.6 -

The monitoring well construction details and groundwater levels are shown in the following table.

Monitoring Well ID

Screen Interval (mBGS)

Water Level (mBGS) Date of Monitoring

May 9, 2016 May 31, 2016

BH4 3.1 – 4.6 2.75 0.60

It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in

response to weather events.

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report contains the findings of GeoPro’s preliminary geotechnical investigation together with

the preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations and comments to facilitate the

planning and preliminary designs of the project. These preliminary recommendations and

comments are based on factual information and are intended only for use by the design

engineers. The number of boreholes are not be sufficient for the detailed design and are not

sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. The

anticipated construction conditions are also discussed, but only to the extent that they may

influence the preliminary design decisions.

The preliminary project design drawings were not available at the time of preparing this report.

Once the preliminary design drawings and site plan are available, this report should be reviewed

by GeoPro and further recommendations be provided as appropriate.

4.1 Site and Project Description

It is understood that relocation of Lakeview Boulevard to provide additional space along the

waterfront and for traffic calming has been considered by the Town of Ajax. The Concept Plan

showed the removal of the existing alignment of Lakeview Boulevard and the use of the North

Driveway as the new alignment of Lakeview Boulevard. It is noted that historically, the North





Driveway was part of the alignment of Lakeview Boulevard, however, the land is currently owned

by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and it is not dedicated as public right of way.

4.2 Pavement Design

Traffic data, including the percentage of commercial traffic, was not available at the time of

preparing the report. Our pavement design is based on the consideration of typical municipal

pavements of this type. It should be noted that the final road grade will not be able to be raised

due to severe negative flooding impacts in this area.

4.2.1 Existing Pavement Conditions

Based on our site investigation, the existing pavement of Lakeview Boulevard consisted of asphalt

concrete with an average thickness of about 125 mm (ranging from about 110 mm to 135 mm)

overlying granular base and subbase materials with an average thickness of about 360 mm. The

existing pavement of the North Driveway consisted of asphalt concrete with a thickness of about

90 mm overlying granular base and subbase materials with a thickness of about 250 mm.

In general, the existing pavement on Lakeview Boulevard was observed to be mainly in fair

condition with some localized poor areas. The most significant distresses are frequent low to high

severity edge cracking associated with low severity alligator cracking (especially on the south side

edge of the roadway) and intermittent low to medium severity longitudinal and transverse

cracking. The existing pavement on the North Driveway was observed to be mainly in poor

condition. The most significant distresses are frequent low to medium severity alligator cracking,

intermittent low to medium severity longitudinal and transverse cracking, edge cracking, low

severity patching, segregation and pavement distortion.

The existing roadways have generally been constructed to a municipal rural cross-section (open

ditches). The overall surface drainage is generally considered to be fair. Observations along the

length of the roadways indicate that the pavement surface water generally follows along the

existing pavement grades and is being directed into ditches. However, drainage is impaired by

surface distresses and distortions, with unsealed cracks allowing surface water to infiltrate into

the underlying pavement and subgrade. At some locations, the ditches were observed to be

shallow to non-existent and were not free-flowing (overgrown with vegetation).

4.2.2 Lakeview Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation

Based on the results of the pavement condition survey, the borehole information, laboratory

testing, pavement structural capacity analysis and the assumed traffic, the existing roadway of

Lakeview Boulevard from Poplar Avenue to Maple Avenue, except for the North Driveway, is

generally considered to be adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic for the remaining

design life of the pavement. Pavement rehabilitation options are provided as follows:





Option 1: Mill and Overlay

After removing the section of Lakeview Boulevard intersecting the North Driveway, for the

remaining sections of pavement within the project limits, subject to the design requirements for

the proposed improvements, a conventional mill and hot-mix asphalt overlay with full depth crack

repairs and localized structural improvements may be considered to address the primary

distresses and to restore the functional serviceability or extend the design life of the pavement.

The mill and overlay should be carried out as follows,

Remove the existing asphaltic concrete by milling to a depth of about 50 mm; and

Place 50 mm of OPSS.MUNI 1150 HL 3 hot-mix asphalt surface course. The surface of the

completed pavement should also be provided with a grade of 2 percent.

Following the completion of milling, the exposed pavement surface should be inspected and any

additional repairs (full-depth repairs to high severity alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking and

soft localized areas, for instance) should be completed prior to overlay placement. The milled

surface should be properly cleaned (power broomed and/or washed, as necessary) and tack

coated using SS-1 emulsified asphalt prior to placement of any new hot-mix asphalt.

This mill and overlay option should be adequate to restore the pavement ride quality, address the

existing distresses and extend the design life. However, some reflective cracking should be

expected to occur within the first two to three years that will require crack sealing to prevent the

ingress of moisture into the pavement.

Option 2: Full-depth Hot-Mix Asphalt Resurfacing

Alternatively, a full-depth hot-mix asphalt resurfacing may be considered to rehabilitate the

pavement to restore or improve the ride quality and extend the pavement service life for the

anticipated future traffic. The full-depth resurfacing should be carried out as follows:

Remove the existing asphalt concrete completely (approximate average thickness of

125 mm) by milling and disposal off-site (the existing asphalt concrete can be reused in

recycled hot-mix asphalt mixtures);

Regrade and re-compact the existing granular material to 100 percent of SPMDD; the

granular base course should be properly prepared, shaped and graded to provide with a

continuous centre-to-edge cross-fall of 2 percent. The prepared granular material surface

should be carefully proof rolled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer, and any soft

or wet areas or other obviously deleterious materials excavated and properly replaced

with Granular A material; and

Place a minimum of two lifts of hot-mix asphalt (one 75 mm lift of OPSS 1150 HL 8 binder

course and one 50 mm lift of OPSS 1150 HL 3 surface course). The surface of the

completed pavement should be provided with a grade of 2 percent.





4.2.3 North Driveway Pavement Reconstruction

The field evaluation indicates that the existing asphalt concrete wearing surface is nearing the end

of its functional service life. Based on the visual condition survey, the existing pavement generally

appears to be structurally inadequate for the current and/or anticipated future traffic. Therefore,

in order to improve the roadway structural capacity and drainage, full-depth reconstruction is

recommended. The recommended pavement structure for the North Driveway is shown in the

following table.

Material Thickness of Pavement

(mm)

Hot-Mix Asphalt (OPSS 1150)

HL 3 Surface Course 40

HL 8 Binder Course 80

Granular Material (OPSS.MUNI 1010)

Granular A Base 150

Granular B Type I Subbase 300

Total Thickness 520

The construction sequence should be carried out as follows:

Remove the existing asphalt, granular base/subbase, topsoil and any other obviously

deleterious materials;

Excavate subgrade to the depth required to accommodate the new pavement structure

(a minimum depth of 520 mm below the existing asphalt concrete pavement surface); the

prepared subgrade should be carefully proof-rolled in the presence of the geotechnical

engineer from GeoPro, any soft or wet areas or other obviously deleterious materials

must be excavated and properly replaced with OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular B Type I

material; backfilling of sub-excavated areas and fine grading may be carried out using

OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular B Type I. All backfill materials should be placed in uniform lifts

not exceeding 200 mm loose thickness and compacted to at least 98 percent Standard

Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). The finished subgrade should be provided with

a grade of 3 percent towards the positive drainages;

Depending on the subgrade and moisture conditions at the time of construction, it may

be necessary to install one layer of geogrid (Geoterrefix TBX 2500 or equivalent) on the

exposed subgrade;

Place 250 mm of OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular B Type I subbase followed by 150 mm of

OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular A. The granular base and subbase should be placed in loose

lifts not exceeding 200 mm thickness and compacted to 100 percent of SPMDD, noting

that excessive rolling using heavy rollers and/or dynamic compaction can lead to subgrade

softening; and





Place a minimum of two lifts of hot-mix asphalt (one 80 mm lift of OPSS 1150 HL 8 binder

course and one 40 mm lift of OPSS 1150 HL 3 surface course). The surface of the

completed pavement should be provided with a grade of 2 percent.

4.2.4 Pavement Recommendations and Construction Features

4.2.4.1 Pavement Material Types

The following hot-mix asphalt mix types should be considered:

HL 3 Surface Course; and

HL 8 Binder Course

These hot-mix asphalt mixes should be designed and produced in conformance with OPSS 1150

requirements.

Granular A and Granular B Type I material should be used as base course and subbase course

respectively. Both the Granular A and the Granular B Type I material should meet

OPSS.MUNI 1010 specifications.

4.2.4.2 Asphalt Cement Grade

Performance graded asphalt cement PG 58-28 conforming to OPSS.MUNI 1101 requirements is

recommended for the HMA binder and surface courses.

4.2.4.3 Tack Coat

A tack coat (SS1) should be applied to all construction joints prior to placing hot-mix asphalt in

order to create an adhesive bond. Prior to placing hot-mix asphalt, a SS1 tack coat must also be

applied to all existing or milled surfaces and between all new lifts.

4.2.4.4 Compaction

All granular base and subbase materials should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm

loose thickness and compacted to 100 percent of the material’s SPMDD at ±2 percent of the

materials Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). Hot-mix asphalt should be placed and compacted

in accordance with OPSS 310 specifications.

4.2.4.5 Pavement Tapers

At the limits of construction, appropriate tapering of the pavement thickness to match the existing

pavement structure should be implemented in accordance with OPSS and the applicable local

municipality.





4.2.4.6 Stripping, Sub-excavation and Grading

The site should be stripped of all topsoil and any organic or other unsuitable soils to the full depth

of the pavement areas.

Following stripping, the site should be graded to the subgrade level and approved. The subgrade

should then be proof-rolled by a heavily loaded truck in the presence of the geotechnical engineer

from GeoPro. Any soft spots exposed during the proof-roll should be completely removed and

replaced by selected fill materials similar to the existing subgrade soil and approved by the

geotechnical engineer. The subgrade should then be compacted from the surface to at least 98%

of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). If the moisture content of the local

material cannot be maintained at ±2% of the optimum moisture content, imported select material

may need to be used.

The final subgrade should be cambered or shaped properly to facilitate rapid drainage and to

prevent the formation of local depressions in which water could accumulate. Proper cambering

that allows water to escape towards the sides (where it can be removed by means of subdrains

or ditches) should be considered for the project. Otherwise, any water trapped in the granular

base and subbase materials may cause problems due to softened subgrade, differential frost

heave, etc.

Any fill materials required for re-grading the site or backfill should be free of topsoil, organic or

any other unsuitable matter and must be approved by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro.

The fill should be placed in thin layers and compacted to at least 95 percent of its SPMDD. The

compaction should be increased to 98 percent of the SPMDD within the top 1.0 m of the subgrade,

or as per local municipal standards. The compaction of the new fill should be checked by frequent

field density tests, which should satisfy the engineers and/or local municipal standards.

4.2.4.7 Construction

Once the subgrade has been inspected, proof-rolled and approved, the granular base and subbase

course materials should be placed in layers not exceeding 300 mm (uncompacted loose lift

thickness) and should be compacted to at least 98% of their respective SPMDD. The grading of

the material should conform to current OPS Specifications.

The placing, spreading and rolling of the asphalt should be in accordance with OPS specifications,

or as required by the local authorities. Frequent field density tests should be carried out on both

the asphalt and granular base and subbase materials to ensure that the required degree of

compaction is achieved.

4.2.4.8 Drainage

Control of surface water is an important factor in achieving a good pavement service life.

Therefore, we recommend that provisions be made to drain the new pavement subgrade and its

granular layers. It is understood that the proposed improvements are anticipated to consist of a





typical urban section (concrete curb/gutter and catchbasins). To provide positive drainage across

the pavement platform, the surface of the pavement should be sloped at a grade of two percent,

and the pavement subgrade should be sloped at a grade of three percent towards the subdrains.

Subdrains should be designed and constructed in accordance with OPSS 405 and OPSD 216.021,

and the subdrain pipe should be connected to a positive outlet.

4.2.5 Reuse and Disposal of Existing Pavement Materials

It should be noted that the gradation analyses of selected samples of the existing base and

subbase granular materials indicate that the majority of the materials do not meet the OPSS.MUNI

1010 specifications for Granular A and Granular B Type I. As such, the existing granular materials

could not be reused for the granular base and subbase course of the reconstructed pavement.

If deemed practical during construction, the existing asphalt may be pulverized and reused as

granular base and subbase materials, provided it can be processed to meet the OPSS Granular A

and B Type I gradation specifications. It should be noted that the process of pulverizing asphalt

typically generates fines, and as such, the pulverized materials should only be utilized in the lower

lift of the subbase. The existing asphalt could also be salvaged and utilized as Recycled Asphalt

Pavement (RAP) in the production of the binder course of the new hot-mix asphalt.

4.3 Underground Site Services (Storm Sewer)

The invert depths of the proposed site services were not available at the time of preparing this

report. We have assumed that the majority of storm sewer installation will require excavations

up to 2.5 m below the existing ground surface. The native soils are considered to be suitable for

supporting the pipes, provided that the integrity of the base of the trench can be maintained

during construction. The suitability of the existing fill materials to support the pipes, if

encountered at the base of the trenches, should be further assessed during construction. This

assessment will require inspection during construction by qualified geotechnical personnel from

GeoPro to determine the suitability of the fill materials for supporting the pipes. Once the actual

service invert depths are finalized, the following comments and recommendations should be

reviewed and revised as necessary.

4.3.1 Trenching Excavation

Based on the results of this investigation, excavations (assumed up to 2.5 m below existing ground

surface) for the site servicing will be sub-excavated through fill materials, clayey silt (till), sandy

silt to sand and silt (till) deposits. The site servicing pipes are anticipated to be generally below or

at the measured groundwater tables, based on the water encountered in the boreholes while

drilling and the ground water level measurements from the monitoring well installed in Borehole

BH4.

Groundwater control during excavation within the clayey silt and glacial till deposits can be

handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within





the excavations. Perched groundwater should be expected in the fill materials and sandy/silty

deposits above the groundwater table at various depths. Groundwater control during excavation

within the fill materials and sandy/silty deposits above the groundwater table at the site can be

handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within

the excavations. However, more significant groundwater seepage should be expected from the

water bearing cohesionless sandy/silty deposits encountered at the site below the prevailing

groundwater table at the time of construction. Depending upon the actual thickness and extent

of the sandy/silty deposits and the finalized design pipe invert depths, some form of positive

groundwater control or depressurization should be required to maintain the stability of the base

and side slopes of the trench excavations, in addition to pumping from sumps. The groundwater

level should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base prior to excavating for the site

services. It should be noted that any construction dewatering or water taking in Ontario is

governed by Ontario Regulation 387/04 - Water Taking and Transfer, made under the Ontario

Water Resources Act (OWRA), and/or Ontario Regulation 63/16 – Registrations under Part II.2 of

the Act – Water Taking, made under Environmental Protection Act. Based on the regulations,

water taking of more than 400,000 L/day is subject to a Permit to Take Water (PTTW), while water

taking of 50,000 L/day to 400,000 L/day is to be registered through the Environmental Activity

and Sector Registry (EASR).

It is anticipated that the trench excavations will consist of conventional temporary open cuts with

side slopes not steeper than 1H:1V. However, depending upon the construction procedures

adopted by the contractor, groundwater seepage conditions and weather conditions at the time

of construction, some local flattening of the slopes may be required, especially in looser/softer

zones (i.e. in fills or wet sandy/silty deposits) or where localized seepage is encountered. Care

should be taken to direct surface runoff away from the open excavations and all excavations

should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations

for Construction Projects. According to the Act, the existing fill materials and native soils would

be classified as Type 3 soils above the groundwater tables. However, should excavations extend

into the wet sandy/silty soils below ground water levels, the soils would be classified as Type 4,

and unless supported by shoring or other approved retaining method, the excavations will require

minimum side slopes of 3H:1V. In addition, care must be taken during excavation to ensure that

adequate support is provided for any existing structures and underground services located

adjacent to the excavations.

Where the excavation side slopes must be steepened to limit the extent of the excavation, some

form of temporary trench support, such as a trench box system, will be required. Where

cohesionless fill materials and native sandy/silty soils are present in close proximity to the

proposed excavation above the invert elevations, some loss of ground should be expected for the

sections of nearly vertical excavation where a trench box is used. It is anticipated that the

unsupported cohesionless soils on the trench sides will relax, filling the void between the trench

walls and trench box. This may lead to loss of ground. In order to minimize this effect, the gap

between the trench walls and trench box should be minimized during the excavation and trench

box installation. It must be emphasized that a trench liner box provides protection for





construction personnel but does not provide any lateral support for the adjacent excavation walls,

underground services or existing structures. In addition, steepened excavations should be left

open for as short a duration as possible and completely backfilled at the end of each working day.

The excavated material should be placed well back from the edge of the excavation, and

stockpiling of materials adjacent to the excavation should be prohibited to minimize surcharge

loading near the excavation crest.

4.3.2 Bedding

The bedding for the sewer should be compatible with the type and class of pipe, the surrounding

subsoil and anticipated loading conditions and should be designed in accordance with the

standards of the local municipality. Where granular bedding is deemed to be acceptable, it should

consist of at least 150 mm of OPSS Granular A or 19 mm crusher run limestone material. The

thickness of the bedding may, however, have to be increased (i.e. 300 mm to 450 mm) depending

on the pipe diameter or in accordance with local standards or if wet or weak subgrade conditions

are encountered, especially when the soils at the trench base level consist of wet sandy/silty

deposits.

To avoid the loss of soil fines from the subgrade, clear stone bedding material should not be used

in any case for pipe bedding or to stabilize the bases.

4.3.3 Backfilling of Trenches

The materials excavated from the site will be variable, ranging from clayey (cohesive) subsoils to

sandy/silty (cohesionless) subsoils. The majority of the fills and native subsoils above the

groundwater tables are generally near their estimated optimum water content for compaction.

The excavated materials at suitable water content may be reused as trench backfill provided they

are free of significant amounts of topsoil, organics or other deleterious material, and are placed

and compacted as outlined below. The soils below the groundwater tables are generally wetter

than their estimated optimum water content, and aeration should be required prior to placing

the soils for backfill materials. It should be noted that due to the fine-grained silty nature of the

majority of the native subsoils, some difficulty would be expected in achieving adequate

compaction during wet weather. All topsoil and organic materials should be wasted or used for

landscaping purposes. All oversized cobbles and boulders (i.e. greater than 150 mm in size) should

be removed from the backfill.

The silt and sandy silt materials encountered are highly frost susceptible and should not be used

as backfill material within the frost depth (1.2 m below the finished grade).

All trench backfill, from the top of the cover material to 1 m below subgrade elevation, should be

placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of Standard

Proctor Maximum Dry Density. From 1 m below subgrade to subgrade elevation, the materials





should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent

of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

Alternatively, if placement water contents at the time of construction are too high, or if there is a

shortage of suitable in-situ material, then an approved imported sandy material which meets the

requirements for the OPSS Select Subgrade Material (SSM) could be used. It should be placed in

loose lift thicknesses and uniformly compacted as indicated above. Backfilling operations during

cold weather should avoid inclusions of frozen lumps of material, snow and ice.

Normal post-construction settlement of the compacted trench backfill should be anticipated, with

the majority of such settlement taking place within about 6 months following the completion of

trench backfilling operations. This settlement will be reflected at the ground surface and in

pavement reconstruction areas and may be compensated for, where necessary, by placing

additional granular material prior to asphalt paving. However, since it is anticipated that the

asphalt binder course will be placed shortly following the completion of trench backfilling

operations, any settlement that may be reflected by subsidence of the surface of the binder

asphalt should be compensated for by placing an additional thickness of binder asphalt or by

padding. In any event, it is recommended that the surface course asphalt should not be placed

over the binder course asphalt for at least 12 months. Post-construction settlement of the

restored ground surface in off-road trench areas is also expected and should be topped-up and

re-landscaped, as required.





5 CLOSURE

We trust that this report provides sufficient preliminary geotechnical engineering information to

facilitate the planning and preliminary design of this project. If you have any questions regarding

the contents of this report or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact

this office.

Yours very truly

GEOPRO CONSULTING LIMITED

DRAFT

Dylan Q. Xiao, M.A.Sc., E.I.T. Geotechnical Group

DRAFT

Jessica Yao, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

DRAFT

David B. Liu, P.Eng., Principal,



DRAWINGS

Client: Project No.:16-1296

Title: Borehole Location Plan

Project:

Drawing No.:1

Drawn: AC Approved: DL

Scale:

Date: April 2016

Original Letter Rev:DL

Size:

As shownGeotechnical Investigation for

Lakeview Boulevard Improvements,from Poplar Avenue to Maple Avenue, Ajax, Ontario

Dionne Bacchus & Associates

Borehole LocationBH1

Lakeview Blvd

Maple Ave

Poplar Ave

BH1

BH2

BH3

BH4 BH5 BH6

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure 1A: Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. Each soil stratum is described according to the Modified Unified Soil Classification System. The compactness

condition of cohesionless soils (SPT) and the consistency of cohesive soils (undrained shear strength) are defined

according to Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. Different soil classification systems may be

used by others. Please note that a description of the soil stratums is based on visual and tactile examination of

the samples augmented with field and laboratory test results, such as a grain size analysis and/or Atterberg

Limits testing. Visual classification is not sufficiently accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise

differentiation between size classification systems.

2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the

boring process. The reader is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree

of compaction. The borehole description may therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill

materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood, large concrete pieces or subsurface

basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since boreholes

cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary

information. Despite the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the

exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This

organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or significant ongoing and future settlements.

Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the results are given on the

borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor

does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed

study is recommended for sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be

contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land

fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for contaminants that may be

considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In

most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally

not detected in a conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.

3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated

with glaciation. Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and

as such may contain pockets and/or seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains

cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders

during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated that normal sampling

equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical

variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential

when dealing with sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.

Enclosure 1B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes

Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube Sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). PM – Samples advanced by manual pressure WR – Samples advanced by weight of sampler and rod WH – Samples advanced by static weight of hammer Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). Piezo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT): An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 degree conical tip and a projected end area of 10 cm² pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurement of tip resistance (Qt), porewater pressure (PWP) and friction along a sleeve are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals.

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm – 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm-0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm)

Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description

a) Cohesive Soils(*)

Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test

with porewater pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) γ Unit weight

8

14

28

25

19

0.1

0.3

0.5

1.4

5.0

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

ASPHALT CONCRETE: (135 mm)GRANULAR BASE: (185 mm)

GRANULAR SUBBASE: (210 mm)

FILL: sandy silt, some clay, traceorganics, trace rootlets, dark brownto brown, moist to wet, loose

SANDY SILT TILL: some clay,trace to some gravel, brown, moistto wet, compact

---Layers of sand and silt

END OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Water encountered at a depth of4.6 m below the ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) Water was at a depth of about3.4 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) Borehole caved at a depth ofabout 4.3 mBGS upon completionof drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation for Lakeview Boulevard Improvements

CLIENT: Dionne Bacchus & Associates

PROJECT LOCATION: Ajax, Ontario

DATUM: N/A

BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan

GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 2

1

2

3

4

5

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH1

1st 2nd 4th3rd

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA

Method: Continuous Flight Auger - Auto Hammer

Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

6

8

18

38

17

0.1

0.4

0.6

2.1

2.9

4.0

5.0

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6



FILL: clayey silt, trace to somesand, trace to some organics, tracegravel, trace rootlets, dark brown,moist to wet, firm

CLAYEY SILT TILL: some sand,trace gravel, brown, moist to wet,very stiff

SANDY SILT: trace to some clay,trace gravel, brown, wet, dense

SANDY SILT TILL: trace to someclay, trace gravel, brown to grey,moist, compact

END OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Water encountered at a depth of0.8 m below the ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) Water was at a depth of about2.4 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) Borehole caved at a depth ofabout 3.7 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: N/A


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 3

1

2

3

4

5


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH2

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

9

14

21

33

52

0.1

0.3

1.1

2.1

4.0

4.7

5.0

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

ASPHALT CONCRETE: (90 mm)GRANULAR BASE/SUBBASE:(250 mm)FILL: clayey silt, trace to somesand, some organics, trace gravel,dark brown, moist, stiff

CLAYEY SILT: trace sand, traceorganics, trace rootlets, dark brownto brown, wet to moist, stiff

SANDY SILT TILL: trace to someclay, trace to some gravel, brown,wet to moist, compact to dense

SANDY SILT: trace clay, tracegravel, brown to grey, wet, verydense

SANDY SILT TILL: trace to someclay, trace to some gravel, grey,moist, very denseEND OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Water encountered at a depth of4.6 m below the ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) Water was at a depth of about3.4 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) Borehole was open uponcompletion of drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: N/A


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 4

1

2

3

4

5


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH3

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

4

2

3

16

33

0.1

0.3

1.1

1.4

2.5

2.9

5.0

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6



FILL: clayey silt, trace to somesand, some organics, trace rootlets,dark brown, wet, softFILL: sandy silt, trace to some clay,trace to some gravel, trace rootlets,trace organics, dark brown, moist towet, very loose

FILL: clayey silt, some gravel, tracesand, trace organics, dark brown,wet, soft

SANDY SILT: trace clay, somegravel, brown to grey, wet to moist,compact to dense

END OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Water encountered at a depth ofabout 0.5 m below the existingground surface (mBGS) duringdrilling.2) Water was at a depth of about0.3 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) Borehole caved at a depth ofabout 1.8 mBGS upon completionof drilling.4) 51 mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate W. L. Depth (mBGS)2016/05/09 2.752016/05/31 0.60

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: N/A


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 5

1

2

3

4

5


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH4

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

Concrete

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Natural Pack

W. L. 0.6 mBGS

W. L. 2.8 mBGS

5

12

12

54

0.1

0.3

0.5

1.4

2.1

3.4

5.0

AS

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6



FILL: gravelly sand, trace to somesilt, brown, wet

FILL: clayey silt, trace to somesand, trace organics, brown, moist,firm

CLAYEY SILT TO SILTY CLAY:trace sand, trace gravel, brown,moist, stiff

SANDY SILT TILL: trace clay,trace gravel, brown to grey, moist towet, compact to very dense

---layers of silty sand

END OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Water encountered at a depth of1.2 m below the ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) Borehole caved at a depth of 0.6mBGS upon completion of drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

BLO

WS

0

.3 m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: N/A


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 6

1

2

3

4

5


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH5

1st 2nd 4th3rdGROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3)

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

12

15

25

39

30

0.1

0.5

0.9

5.0

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

ASPHALT CONCRETE: (125 mm)GRANULAR BASE/SUBBASE:(335 mm)

FILL: clayey silt, trace to somesand, trace gravel, brown, moist,stiff

SANDY SILT TILL TO SAND ANDSILT TILL: trace to some clay,trace to some gravel, brown to grey,wet to moist, compact to dense

END OF THE BOREHOLE Notes:1) Borehole was open and dry uponcompletion of drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: N/A


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1296-01

ENCL NO.: 7

1

2

3

4

5


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.PLASTIC

LIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH6

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155 mm

Date: May/03/2016

FIGURES

Project No.

DBA Town Ajax Class EA Lakeview BLVDProject Name

16-1296

Figure 1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

PARTICLE SIZE, mm

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

BH3 AS1 BH5 AS1 BH5 AS2Granular A Granular B Type 1

CLAY SILTVERY

FINE

SAND

FINE

SANDMEDIUM

SAND

COARSE

SAND

FINE

GRAVELGRAVEL

FINES (SILT & CLAY) FINE SAND MEDIUM SANDCOARSE

SANDFINE GRAVEL

COARSE

GRAVEL

SAND

COARSEMEDIUMFINE

SILTCLAY

COARSEMEDIUM

CO

BB

LE

SFINE

CO

BB

LE

S

GRAVEL

U.S.BUREAU

UNIFIED

M.I.T.

16-1296

Town of Ajax, Class EA Lakeview Boulevard

Project No.

Project Name

Figure 2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

GRAIN SIZE, mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

BH1 SS3 BH6 SS4

CLAY SILTVERY

FINE

SAND

FINE

SANDMEDIUM

SAND

COARSE

SAND

FINE

GRAVELGRAVEL

FINES (SILT & CLAY) FINE SAND MEDIUM SANDCOARSE

SANDFINE GRAVEL

COARSE

GRAVEL

SAND

COARSEMEDIUMFINE

SILTCLAY

COARSEMEDIUM

CO

BB

LE

SFINE

CO

BB

LE

S

GRAVEL

U.S.BUREAU

UNIFIED

M.I.T.

Project: Client:

Sample ID:

16-1296 Town of Ajax

1296SA20160503

Figure 3

Plastic Limit

Liquid Limit

Plastic Index

BH5 SS4

18.7

46.4

27.7

ATTERBURG LIMIT

MTO LS-703/704

Lakeview BoulevardProject/Location:

Atterburg Limit, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex %

Liquid Limit %

Atterburg Limit

BH5 SS4

CL

ML or OL

CH

OH or MH

CL-ML

ML

Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6 Tel: 905 237 8336 Fax: 905 248 3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca

LIMITATIONS TO THE REPORT

This report is intended solely for the Client named. The report is prepared based on the work has been undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in Ontario.

The comments and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the limited number of the test hole and test pit locations. The boundaries between the various strata as shown on the borehole logs are based on non-continuous sampling and represent an inferred transition between the various strata and their lateral continuation rather than a precise plane of geological change. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes and test pits may differ significantly from those encountered at the test hole and test pit locations. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the test hole and test pit locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc.

The report reflects our best judgment based on the information available to GeoPro Consulting Limited at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GeoPro Consulting Limited, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to any other purposes. No portion of this report shall be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project designed and constructed completely in accordance with the details stated in this report.

Should any comments and recommendations provided in this report be made on any construction related issues, they are intended only for the guidance of the designers. The number of test holes and test pits may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction activities, methods and costs. Such as, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary significantly and unpredictably; the amount of the cobbles and boulders may vary significantly than what described in the report; unexpected water bearing zones/layers with various thickness and extent may be encountered in the fill and native soils. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and make their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work and determine the proper construction methods.

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. GeoPro Consulting Limited 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.

tel:905.856.0065


Documents

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Ajax, Ontario€¦ · · 2017-04-25This report deals with geotechnical issues only. The geo-environmental ... Atterberg limit test. s