Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - oakville.ca planning/da-132605-geotech.pdf · 4.8.3 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement ... 5. Construction Considerations ... • Unit weight measurements

Draft for Review This document is in draft form. A final version of this document may differ from this draft. As such, the contents of this draft document shall not be relied upon. GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from decisions made based on this draft document.

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Halton Region Consolidated Courthouse Development William Halton Parkway, Oakville, Ontario

Infrastructure Ontario

GHD | 111 Brunel Road Suite 200 Mississauga Ontario L4Z 1X3 Canada

11155902| Report No 4 | April 18 2018

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation | 11155902 (4) | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Method of Investigation ................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Safety Planning and Utility Clearances .............................................................................. 2

2.2 Boreholes Advancement and Field Testing ....................................................................... 2

2.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 4

2.4 Organic Content and Soil Corrosivity Testing .................................................................... 4

3. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.2.1 Topsoil .............................................................................................................. 5 3.2.2 Fill ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.3 Native Silty Clay................................................................................................ 6 3.2.4 Shale Bedrock .................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................... 8

3.3.1 Grain Size Distribution ...................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Atterberg Limits................................................................................................. 8 3.3.3 Unit Weight ....................................................................................................... 9 3.3.4 Standard Proctor............................................................................................. 10 3.3.5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength on Bedrock Cores ........................................ 10 3.3.6 Organic Content.............................................................................................. 11

3.4 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................. 11

4. Engineering Discussion and Assessment .................................................................................. 12

4.1 General Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................... 12

4.2 Site Preparation and Grading .......................................................................................... 13

4.3 Foundations – Conventional Spread Footings................................................................. 14

4.4 Underground Parking Garage Slab ................................................................................. 14

4.5 Foundation Wall Drainage ............................................................................................... 15

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressure ..................................................................................................... 15

4.7 Seismic Site Classification ............................................................................................... 16

4.8 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................. 17

4.8.1 Permeable Pavers .......................................................................................... 17 4.8.2 Flexible (Asphalt) Pavement ........................................................................... 17 4.8.3 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement ............................................................................ 17

5. Construction Considerations ...................................................................................................... 18

5.1 Excavation and Temporary Shoring ................................................................................ 18

5.2 Temporary Ground Water Control ................................................................................... 20

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation | 11155902 (4) | Page ii

5.3 Site Servicing ................................................................................................................... 20

5.4 Soil Corrosivity Potential .................................................................................................. 20

5.5 Construction Monitoring ................................................................................................... 22

6. Limitations of the Investigation ................................................................................................... 22

Figure Index Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Layout / Investigative Locations Plan

Appendix Index Appendix A Borehole Logs

Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C Photographs of Extracted Bedrock Core Samples

Appendix D Organic Content and Corrosivity Test Results

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation | 11155902 (4) | Page 1

1. Introduction

GHD Limited (GHD) has been retained by Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation (“IO”) to carry out a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed development on the property located north of William Halton Parkway, opposite to the recently constructed Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital (OTMH), in Oakville, Ontario (hereafter referred to as the Site). A Site Location Map is provided on Figure 1.

The proposed development is to include construction of the new Halton Region Consolidated Courthouse (HRCC). The land area for the HRCC is anticipated to be six to eight acres (2.43 to 3.24 hectares) in size and the structure will have a gross floor area of approximately 420,000 to 430,000 square feet. The current conceptual design for the proposed development may consist of six to eight storey building with two levels of underground parking including internal driveways/ parking and site services. The Site is currently vacant. A layout plan showing the approximate Site boundaries is provided on Figure 2.

The GHD proposed scope of work included geotechnical and hydrogeological as well as a geophysical survey. This report comprises the geotechnical investigation completed at the Site. The findings of the hydrogeological study and geophysical survey will be presented under separate covers.

The preliminary geotechnical investigation for this Site included advancing a total of nineteen (19) geotechnical exploratory boreholes. The boreholes locations are presented on Figure 2. In general, the objectives of the geotechnical investigation are as follows:

• Determine the subsurface soil and groundwater at the borehole locations.

• Carry out laboratory testing on selected soil and bedrock samples to assess geotechnical properties.

• Provide professional opinions and recommendations regarding the design and construction of building foundations, site servicing and pavements, and to assess the anticipated construction conditions pertaining to excavation, backfilling, and groundwater control.

The geotechnical investigation was carried out in accordance with our work plan dated November 29, 2017, in response to a Request for Services issued by IO.

This report summarizes the activities and findings of the current preliminary geotechnical investigation.

2. Method of Investigation

The drilling program associated with the present preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted during the period between January 15 and February 2, 2018, and consisted of advancing a total of nineteen (19) exploratory geotechnical boreholes (denoted as BH15-18, MW16-18, BH17-18, BH18-18, MW19-18, BH21-18 to BH25-18, MW28-18, BH29-18, MW30-18, and BH31-18 to BH36-18). These geotechnical boreholes extended to depths varying between 3.1 and 11.4 metres


below ground surface (mBGS). The majority of the boreholes were terminated at shallower depths than proposed due to refusal on inferred shale bedrock which was confirmed by augering through the shale and coring at three locations. The approximate locations of the boreholes/monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2.

The field investigation protocols and methodologies are presented below.

2.1 Safety Planning and Utility Clearances

Upon project initiation, a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) was prepared for implementation during the field investigation program. The HASP presented the visually observed Site conditions and identified potential physical hazards to field personnel. Required personal protective equipment was also listed in the HASP. The HASP was reviewed by GHD’s field personnel prior to undertaking field activities and a copy of the HASP was maintained at the Site for the duration of the investigative work. Health and Safety requirements in the HASP were implemented during the field investigation program.

Prior to initiating the subsurface investigation activities, all applicable utility companies (gas, hydro, bell, network cables, pipeline and municipal sewers, etc.) were contacted. In addition, a private utility locator (MARK IT Locates Inc.) was utilized to demarcate the location of the privately owned utilities within the area of the boreholes.

2.2 Boreholes Advancement and Field Testing

The drilling work was carried out utilizing a track mounted power drilling rig, supplied and operated by Profile Drilling Inc.; a drilling contractor specialized in geotechnical/environmental drilling. The drilling work was conducted under the full-time supervision of a GHD experienced technical personnel.

The boreholes were advanced using a combination of solid and hollow stem augering techniques. Soil samples were generally collected every 0.75 m depth intervals to 3.0 m below ground surface and at 1.5 m intervals thereafter; to the termination depth/bedrock surface of the drilled boreholes. All sampling was conducted using a 50 mm outside diameter split spoon sampler in general accordance with the specifications of the Standard Penetration Test Method (ASTM D1586). In addition, the relative density or consistency of the subsurface soil layers were measured using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method, by counting the number of blows (‘N’) required to drive a conventional split barrel soil sampler 300 mm depth. Soil samples were retrieved from each borehole location to verify strata boundaries and soil properties. Upon auger refusal, rock coring was subsequently carried out in three (3) borehole locations (BH22-18, BH34-18, and BH36-18), using diamond-drilling methods to determine the bedrock quality. Rock coring was advanced using a HQ sized core barrel to approximate depths between 5.6 and 7.2 m into the bedrock. Rock cores were placed in core boxes and were visually examined and logged.

Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes as drilling proceeded and upon completion of drilling. In addition, monitoring wells were installed in four (4) completed boreholes (denoted as MW16-18, MW19-18, MW28-18, and MW30-18). The monitoring wells were constructed of 50 mm diameter schedule 40 PVC screen and riser with a silica sand pack, and bentonite seal. The screen


length used for the monitoring wells were either 1.5 or 3.05 metres and silica sand pack was placed at the tip of the monitoring well and extended at least 0.6 m above the screen. Details of monitoring well construction are presented on the attached borehole logs (Appendix A).

The supervising technician logged the borings and examined the soil and bedrock core samples as they were obtained. The soil and bedrock core samples were transported to the GHD laboratory where they were reviewed by a senior geotechnical engineer. The detailed results of the individual boreholes are recorded on the accompanying borehole logs presented in Appendix A. Photographs of the extracted bedrock cores are provided in Appendix C.

Upon completion of drilling activities, the ground elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed by GHD using a geodetic benchmark 0F

1 (BM) and the UTM Coordinate System (UTM-17 NAD83). A summary of the survey information is presented in the table below.

Borehole Identification

Location – UTM Coordinate System Total Depth

(mBGS)

Ground Elevation (mAMSL) Northing Easting

BH15-18 4811701.77 599513.18 6.15 162.03 MW16-18 4811746.09 599548.48 3.94 162.34 BH17-18 4811790.32 599577.70 3.90 161.37 BH18-18 4811850.27 599624.47 3.13 160.45 MW19-18 4811902.27 599669.23 4.42 162.01 BH21-18 4811658.89 599565.62 4.62 162.19 BH22-18 4811698.04 599603.69 11.43 162.18 BH23-18 4811743.56 599632.28 3.99 161.69 BH24-18 4811804.22 599682.10 3.15 160.18 BH25-18 4811855.63 599717.46 3.18 160.06 MW28-18 4811609.47 599624.60 5.54 162.67 BH29-18 4811653.41 599656.77 5.54 161.82 MW30-18 4811697.75 599691.33 4.27 161.02 BH31-18 4811755.40 599739.33 4.65 161.02 BH32-18 4811813.41 599774.44 3.13 159.60 BH33-18 4811717.57 599588.60 3.89 162.20 BH34-18 4811632.98 599587.24 9.91 162.55 BH35-18 4811645.46 599612.94 4.06 162.32 BH36-18 4811623.07 599644.42 11.13 162.39 Notes: mBGS: metres below ground surface mAMSL: metres Above Mean Sea Level

1 Town of Oakville Benchmark (BM) # 263, BM (Tablet) located at 1020 Dundas Street West – Petro Canada Service

Station, Northing (UTM-17): 4813153, Easting(UTM-17): 601522, Elevation 158.46 m.


2.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Soil samples collected from the boreholes were reviewed and select samples submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing. This testing included the following:

• Moisture content on all recovered samples.

• Grain size distribution analysis (sieve/hydrometer) on thirteen (13) select soil samples.

• Atterberg Limits on thirteen (13) select soil samples.

• Unit weight measurements on ten (10) select bulk soil samples.

• Standard Proctor test on four (4) select soil samples.

• Unconfined Compressive Strength test on five (5) select bedrock core samples.

All geotechnical laboratory testing was completed in accordance with the latest editions of the following ASTM standards:

ASTM D6913 Standard Test Method for Particle Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils using Sieve Analysis

ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils‖ (Hydrometer Analysis)

ASTM D4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils

ASTM D2937 Density of Soil in Place

ASTM D698 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort

ASTM D7012 Standard Test Method for Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens – Method C

Geotechnical laboratory test results are discussed in Section 3.3. The results of moisture content determination tests, grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits are provided on the borehole logs in Appendix A. The gradation curves, plasticity charts, unit weight test results, standard proctor test results, and unconfined compressive strength test results are provided in Appendix B.

2.4 Organic Content and Soil Corrosivity Testing

Organic matter content tests were carried out on four (4) soil samples extracted from the drilled boreholes. The certificates of analysis associated with the organic content test results are provided in Appendix D and the results are discussed in Section 3.3.6.

Corrosivity testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM and CSA Standards on eight (8) selected soil samples extracted from the drilled boreholes to assess the corrosion potential against ductile iron pipes and sulphate attack on concrete. The certificates of analysis associated with the corrosivity test results are provided in Appendix D and results are discussed in Section 5.4.


3. Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Regional Geology

According to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines - Quaternary Geology of Ontario Map 2556 and Bedrock Geology of Ontario Map 2544, the subject Site is situated in an area of sedimentary rock covered by an overburden of glacial deposits which predominantly consists of heterogeneous mixture of silt and clay with some sand and gravel particles. The overburden deposit is underlain by Queenston and Georgian Bay Formations which consists of shale with limestone, siltstone, and sandstone interbeds.

3.2 Stratigraphy

The subsurface conditions encountered at the Site during this investigation are summarized below and are also presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A. It should be noted that the subsurface conditions are confirmed at the borehole locations only, and may vary at other locations. The boundaries between the various strata, as shown on the borehole logs, are based on samples collected from the split spoon sampler. The conditions observed in the boreholes advanced for this investigation at the Site are generally consistent with available geological mapping for the area.

The general stratigraphy at the Site consists of surficial layer of topsoil and fill underlain by native silty clay deposits followed by shale bedrock. A brief description of each stratum encountered is summarized below.

3.2.1 Topsoil

A surficial layer of topsoil was encountered in all boreholes except borehole BH32-18 with a thickness ranging from approximately 100 to 350 millimetres (mm). Classification of this material was based on visual and textural evidence. It should be noted that where topsoil exists across the Site, the thickness of the topsoil may be significantly thicker especially in areas of vegetation and trees.

3.2.2 Fill

Earth fill was encountered beneath the topsoil in all boreholes and at the surface of borehole BH32-18, and extended to a depth varying from 0.8 to 1.5 mBGS. The fill composition is in general heterogeneous, consisting generally of silty clay to clayey silt with some gravel. Rootlets and organics were frequently observed within the fill.

The fill layer exhibited SPT ‘N’ values between 4 and 27 blows per 300 mm of penetration, indicating a variable degree of compaction. The high SPT ‘N’ values within the fill layer are likely due to the presence of cobbles or frozen ground. The water content obtained from the extracted fill samples varied between 13 and 37 percent by weight. The high moisture content is likely due to the presence of organics within the fill layer.

An organic content test was performed on four samples obtained from the fill layer. The measured organic content ranged between 5.1 and 8.8 percent. These values are considered to be relatively


high and will impact the reuse of this material as engineered fill or backfill in settlement sensitive areas. The organic content test results are presented in Section 3.3.6, and are provided in Appendix D. Also, standard proctor test was completed on four samples of the fill layer to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for compaction. The test results are presented in Section 3.3.4 and are provided in Appendix B.

It is possible that the thickness and quality of the fill (presence of deleterious materials or organics) can vary across the Site.

3.2.3 Native Silty Clay

A silty clay deposit was encountered beneath the fill layer at a depth of 0.8 to 1.5 mBGS in all boreholes and extended to depths varying between 2.3 and 4.6 mBGS. At this depth, the boreholes were terminated upon auger refusal on probable bedrock. This deposit is generally reddish brown, and contains occasional silty sand with gravel lenses and layers (BH22-18). Based on the gradation analysis and atterberg limits testing results, the deposit was classified as silty clay till with sand. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the deposit, which contains gravel to clay size particles, the deposit is characteristic of till.

SPT ‘N’ values within the silty clay stratum varied between 11 blows per 300 mm of penetration and greater than 50 blows per 100 mm of penetration (refusal), indicating a stiff to hard consistency, but generally very stiff to hard. The elevated SPT ‘N’ values (refusal) may likely be attributed to the presence of shale fragments or bedrock. The moisture content of the samples extracted from the borings varied between 9 and 22 percent by weight.

Gradation analysis (sieve and hydrometer testing) was completed on selected samples of the silty clay deposit and Atterberg limits tests were also performed on the same soil samples selected for grain size analysis. Also, unit weight test was conducted on selected samples of this deposit. The results are presented in the borehole logs and are tabulated in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3. The gradation analysis curves, plasticity charts and unit weight results are presented in Appendix B.

3.2.4 Shale Bedrock

Bedrock was encountered in all boreholes at depths varying between 2.3 and 4.6 mBGS. The shale bedrock was cored in three boreholes (BH22-18, BH34-18, and BH36-18) to verify the presence of bedrock and assess the bedrock quality. The boreholes within the completely weathered zones were advanced by auguring and SPT sampling until refusal was obtained. From the recovered rock cores, the bedrock was visually identified as the Queenston Formation. The shale was generally observed to be reddish brown in color, thinly laminated, completely weathered at its surface and became gradually fresh/sound with depth. This formation consists generally of a very weak to moderately strong shale interbedded with light grey color strong to very strong limestone and siltstone layer.

Due to the method of investigation and the presence of highly weathered shale at the bedrock surface, the top of the bedrock profile cannot be accurately determined. The estimated depths to the top of the completely weathered shale bedrock surface from augering and coring is summarized in the following table:



Number

Estimated Depth/Elevations of Shale Bedrock Surface (mBGS/mAMSL)

BH15-18 3.0 / 159.03(1)

MW16-19 3.0 / 159.34(1)

BH17-18 3.0 / 158.37(1)

BH18-18 2.3 / 158.15(1)

MW19-18 3.8 / 158.20(1)

BH21-18 3.8 / 158.39(1)

BH22-18 3.4 / 158.78

BH23-18 3.8 / 157.89(1)

BH24-18 2.3 / 157.88(1)

BH25-18 2.3 / 157.76(1)

MW28-18 3.8 / 158.87(1)

BH29-18 4.6 / 157.22(1)

MW30-18 3.0 / 158.02(1)

BH31-18 3.8 / 157.22(1)

BH32-18 2.3 / 157.3(1)

BH33-18 3.3 / 158.90(1)

BH34-18 3.8 / 158.75

BH35-18 3.9 / 158.42(1)

BH36-18 3.8 / 158.59

Notes: mBGS: metres below ground surface mAMSL: metres Above Mean Sea Level (1) Borehole terminated upon refusal. Rock coring was not carried out at this location

The Total Core Recovery (TCR) achieved with the HQ size core bit ranged from approximately 83 to 100%. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranged from 53 to 100% with the lower values of RQD observed near the surface of the rock and percentages generally increased with depth. The RQD values are a general indicator of rock mass quality; however, in horizontally laminated sedimentary rock formation such as the Queenston Formation, the RQD values may likely underestimate the quality of the rock. Photographs of the Rock Core samples are presented in Appendix C.

Five (5) rock core samples were sent to GHD’s laboratory for uniaxial unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing. The UCS testing results are tabulated in Section 3.3.5 and are presented in Appendix B.


3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

3.3.1 Grain Size Distribution

Grain size analyses consisting of sieve and hydrometer testing were carried out on ten (10) select soil samples extracted from the boreholes. The obtained results are reported in the respective borehole logs and are tabulated in the following table. The gradation analysis curves are presented in Appendix B.


Sample Number

Depth (mBGS)

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

Fines Silt & Clay (%)

BH18-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 10 28 50 12 62

BH21-18 SS2 0.8-1.4 2 27 43 28 71

BH21-18 SS4 2.3-2.9 2 26 41 31 72

BH22-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 2 17 50 31 81

BH22-18 SS4 2.3-2.9 28 36 23 13 36

BH24-18 SS2 0.8-1.4 2 19 54 25 79

MW28-18 SS5 3.1-3.7 1 29 42 28 70

BH29-18 SS2 0.8-1.4 4 21 46 29 75

BH29-18 SS5 3.1-3.7 4 23 36 37 73

MW30-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 3 21 45 31 76

BH32-18 SS2 0.8-1.4 5 17 47 31 78

BH34-18 SS5 3.1-3.7 3 25 47 25 72

BH36-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 3 19 52 26 78

3.3.2 Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limits test was conducted on the same samples (fine grain) selected for grain size analysis. The obtained results are reported in the respective borehole logs and are tabulated in the following table. The test results are presented in the plasticity chart in Appendix B.


Sample Number

Depth (mBGS) W LL PL PI Soil Description and Classification

BH18-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 13 25 16 9 Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)

BH21-18 SS-2 0.8-1.4 15 27 17 10 Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)


BH22-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 - 29 17 12 Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)



MW28-18 SS5 3.1-3.7 10 26 15 11 Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)




Sample Number

Depth (mBGS) W LL PL PI Soil Description and Classification


MW30-18 SS3 1.5-2.1 13 32 19 13 Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)




Notes: W: Natural water content in percent LL: Liquid limit PL: Plastic limit PI: Plasticity index

Based on the gradation and Atterberg test results, the tested soil samples of the native deposit can be classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) as Silty Clay (CL) with low plasticity.

3.3.3 Unit Weight

Unit weight measurements were carried out on ten (10) selected intact split spoon samples obtained from the boreholes in accordance with ASTM Standard for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens. The results are summarized below and are also provided in Appendix B.

Borehole Identification / Sample Number Moisture Content (%) Bulk Unit Weight

(kN/m3) Soil Type

BH18-18 / SS3 10.5 19.5 Silty Clay with Sand

MW28-18 / SS5 10.5 19.5 Silty Clay with Sand









It was noted that the natural unit weight of the tested soil samples ranged between 18.7 and 22.2 kN/m3 (with an average value of 20.4 kN/m3). It has been noted that because of the high percentage of sand within the native deposit and the method of soil sampling and testing, the lower values of soil unit weight may not be representative.


3.3.4 Standard Proctor

Four (4) Standard Proctor compaction tests were conducted on bulk samples collected from the surficial fill layer at the Site to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill materials for compaction. The purpose of the testing was to assess the material behavior and compactability during construction. The results are summarized below and are also provided in Appendix B.


Number

Depth (mBGS)

Natural Moisture Content

(%)

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)

Optimum Moisture Content

(%) BH18-18 0-0.6 34 1715 12.6 BH33-18 0-0.6 30 1915 16.9 BH17-18 0-0.6 13 1892 11.4

BH36-18 0-0.6 26 1642 14.8

The tested samples maximum dry density ranged between 1,642 and 1,915 kg/m3 and the optimum moisture contents varied between 11.4 and 16.9 percent by weight. The measured in-situ moisture content of the tested samples varied between 13 and 30 percent indicating the fill material are within or higher than +/- 2 percent of the laboratory optimum for compaction. The high moisture content is likely due to the presence of organics within the fill layer. If the excavated fill materials are to be used as engineered fill or backfill, then the existing earth fill materials found to contain significant amounts of organics should be removed and not used for backfilling.

3.3.5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength on Bedrock Cores

Five (5) rock core samples were sent to GHD laboratory for uniaxial unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing. The results of these tests are summarized below and are also presented in Appendix B.

Borehole & Sample ID Rock Type Sample Depth (mBGS)

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (MPa) BH22-18 Shale 8.4 43.4 BH22-18 Shale 11.0 45.6 BH34-18 Shale 7.2 35.6 BH36-18 Shale 8.2 61.7 BH36-18 Shale 10.8 47.8

Notes: mBGS: Metres below ground surface MPa: Megapascal

Based on results of the unconfined compressive strength test, the tested shale rock may be generally classified as moderately strong to strong in accordance with ISRM (International Society of Rock Mechanics) guidelines. The high UCS values for the shale are likely due to the additional strength from the limestone interbeds/lamination.


3.3.6 Organic Content

The organic matter content test was carried out on four (4) shallow samples extracted from the existing fill materials at the Site. The results of these tests are summarized in the table below.

Borehole Number BH18-18 BH17-18 BH33-18 BH36-18

Sample Depth (mBGS) 0.0 – 0.6 0.0 – 0.6 0.0-0.6 0.0-0.6 Organic Matter by loss on

ignition (%) 8.81 6.91 5.11 6.55

The organic content of the tested soil samples from the fill layer ranged between 5.1 and 8.8 percent by weight. These values are considered to be relatively high and will impact the reuse of this material as engineered fill or backfill in settlement sensitive areas. The earth fill materials found to contain significant amounts of organics should be removed and should not be used for backfilling or as engineered fill.

The certificates of analysis associated with the soil samples organic content test results are provided in Appendix D.

3.4 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes as drilling progressed. Groundwater was observed shortly after drilling of boreholes BH15-18, BH21-18, BH23-18, and BH29-18 at approximate depths varying between 1.9 and 4.7 mBGS. As part of this geotechnical investigation, four (4) completed boreholes were instrumented as monitoring wells (MW16-18, MW19-18, nested MW28-18/shallow and deep, and MW30-18) and groundwater depths/elevations were measured on three occasions. The monitoring wells were screened within the overburden and shale bedrock. A summary of the groundwater level measurements within the monitoring wells is provided in the table below. The groundwater level measurements are also recorded on the accompanying borehole logs presented in Appendix A.

Borehole No. Installation Date Groundwater Level Depth (mBGS)1/Elevation (mAMSL)2

February 7, 2018 February 20, 2018 February 27, 2018

MW16-18 January 30, 2018 1.4/160.94 1.0/161.34 1.05/161.29

MW19-18 January 29, 2018 3.13/158.88 2.00/164.01 1.57/160.44

MW28-18D3 January 17, 2018 2.85/159.82 2.83/159.84 2.58/160.09

MW28-18S4 January 17, 2018 2.65/160.02 2.09/160.58 1.79/160.88

MW30-18 January 18, 2018 3.79/157.23 3.71/157.31 3.06/157.96

Notes: 1 metres Below Ground Surface (mBGS) 2 metres Above Mean Sea Level (mAMSL) 3 Deep Monitoring Well (D) 4 Shallow Monitoring Well (S)


The measured groundwater levels within the newly installed monitoring wells (MW16-18, MW19-18, MW28-18D, MW28-18S, and MW30-18) may not be reflective to the stabilized groundwater table due to the short time period of observations and the anticipated low permeability of the site soils (fine grained/silty clay). For more details regarding the groundwater level and the hydrogeological study, please refer to the Hydrogeological Assessment Report prepared by GHD for this project.

In the long term, seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater level should be expected. Perched water table condition could develop in the fill after heavy precipitation and/or during spring thaw.

4. Engineering Discussion and Assessment

4.1 General Geotechnical Evaluation

GHD understands that the current conceptual design for the proposed development at the Site may consist of constructing a six to eight storey building with two levels of underground parking including internal driveways/surface parking and site services. Further details of the proposed development activities at the Site are unknown to GHD and specific information with regard to founding depths below the ground surface, and footing/slab loading conditions were not available at the time of preparation of this report.

The subsurface conditions at the site are considered suitable for the geotechnical design and construction of the proposed building and ancillary structures. As described above, it is understood that the current conceptual design for the building includes two levels of underground parking/basement. This would result in the foundation subgrade being approximately 6.0 m below existing grade. Based on the three deep boreholes drilled within the proposed building area (BH22-18, BH34-18 and BH36-18), the building foundations will be placed within the competent shale bedrock. Conventional spread and strip footing foundation systems placed on competent/sound bedrock can be used for the support of the proposed building. If the underground parking extends a significant depth into the sound bedrock, then the foundation walls for the basement could be potentially subjected to rock squeeze. Rock swell tests and in-situ stress measurements were beyond the scope of this investigation. It is therefore recommended that a gap between the rock and foundation walls be maintained or a compressible material (i.e. polyurethane foam) be used between the foundation walls and the rock in order to limit the transfer of loads associated with rock deformation to the foundation walls. Alternatively, the foundation walls should be designed to resist the rock squeeze forces.

The amount of seepage into excavations will depend on the depth of excavation relative to the groundwater level at the time of construction. The measured groundwater levels within the installed monitoring wells were found to range from approximately 1.0 to 3.0 mBGS. Based on the presence of low permeability silty clay till below the fill, no major groundwater control requirements are expected for the construction of underground basement and the foundations for the building. Higher seepage rate emanating from the sand and gravel pockets/layers within the till deposit should be expected during excavation especially at the interface between the overburden and bedrock. In general, the seepage rate in the area of the proposed structures is expected to be slow, and it should be possible to control the seepage by conventional construction dewatering techniques, i.e.


gravity drainage and pumping from open sumps or, if necessary pumping from deep sumps with proper filter. Positive construction dewatering system such as well points or other methods may be required prior to any excavation if higher rates of seepage are encountered. Please refer to the Hydrogeological Assessment Report prepared by GHD for this project.

The possible presence of cobbles and boulders at this Site and their impact on the excavation should be clearly stated in the contract documents.

Footings subject to frost action should have a minimum soil cover of at least 1.2 m according to OPSD 3090.101, or be protected using equivalent insulation.

The following sections provide additional comments and recommendations on the above topics as well as other geotechnical related design and construction issues.

4.2 Site Preparation and Grading

Site preparation and grading works may be required to level the site and achieve subgrade design elevations, as well as to provide positive drainage for surface runoff. To reduce accumulation of surface runoff and softening of the subgrade, site grades should be designed to minimize ponding of water on the surface and to provide positive drainage away from the proposed foundations and roadway areas as quickly as possible, both during and following construction.

Based on the soil conditions and test results obtained in the boreholes, the Site is generally underlain by fill materials extending to 0.8 to 1.5 mBGS underlain by native soils and shale bedrock. The fill materials were observed to be variable in relative density and contained rootlets and organic inclusions.

The surficial vegetative cover/topsoil and the earth fill materials found to contain significant amounts of organics should be removed from the Site prior to site grading activities and should not be used as backfill. Also, care will be required during excavation to separate any fill materials that appears to contain significant organics from the clean earth fill.

The subgrade soils exposed after the removal of the topsoil and unsuitable earth fill will consist of clean earth fill and competent native soils. Prior to the placement of engineered fill to achieve subgrade design elevations or final subsurface grades, the exposed subgrade soils should be visually inspected, compacted if required, and proof rolled using large axially loaded equipment. Any soft, organic, or unacceptable areas should be removed as directed by the Engineer and replaced with suitable fill materials compacted to a minimum of 98 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Clean earth fill used to raise the Site grades should be placed in thin layers (200 mm thick or less) and compacted by a heavy sheep-foot type roller to 98 percent SPMDD.

It is noted that the topsoil layer encountered in the borings can vary in thickness from location to location and should be confirmed by excavating shallow test pits to confirm stripping requirements.

Based on the standard proctor test results, the measured in-situ moisture content of the existing fill varied between 13 and 30 percent indicating the fill material are within or higher than +/- 2 percent of the laboratory optimum for compaction. The high moisture content is likely due to the presence of


organics within the fill layer. It recommended that the upper portion of the existing fill that found to contain significant amounts of organics should be removed and the underlying clean earth fill can be used as a backfill material.

The native silty clay till encountered at the Site are generally considered suitable for reuse as backfill to raise site grades where required, as backfill against foundation walls, or as trench backfill during installation of buried services, provided the material is within the optimum moisture content. The very stiff to hard till soil appear to exhibit moisture contents which are considered to be near the lower end of compactable range for such soils. As well, these clay till soils will require heavy compactor which will be difficult to operate in narrow confined areas behind the foundation wall, and therefore, may not be suitable for re-use for this project. It is believed that the bedrock generated material at the Site may not be used as backfill, because of the difficulties associated with breaking the rock down, moisture conditioning and compaction. It should be anticipated that reworking of the soils will be necessary to facilitate compaction through slight wetting, breaking or drying, and use of sheep’s-foot roller compactors. Control of moisture content during placement and compaction will also be essential for maintaining adequate compaction.

All backfill operations and materials should be inspected and tested by qualified geotechnical personnel to confirm that proper material is utilized and that adequate compaction is attained.

4.3 Foundations – Conventional Spread Footings

The common practice for the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) design of most structure and building foundations is to limit the total and differential foundation settlements to 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively. However, other serviceability criteria for the buildings may be determined by the structural engineer considering tolerable settlement that would not restrict the use or operation of the facilities.

It is understood that the current conceptual design for the building includes two levels of underground parking/basement. This would result in the foundation subgrade being about 6.0 m below existing grade. Based on the three deep boreholes drilled within the proposed building area (BH22-18, BH34-18, and BH36-18), the building foundations will be placed within the competent shale bedrock. For the purpose of preliminary design, the proposed building can be supported on conventional spread footings founded within the sound bedrock, and can be designed for a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 5.0 MPa. The bedrock is considered a non-yielding material, and as such (SLS) resistances do not apply. The SLS resistance for 25 mm of settlement is greater than the factored axial geotechnical resistance at ULS.

4.4 Underground Parking Garage Slab

The lowest basement slab for the two levels of underground basement is expected to be founded approximately 6.0 metres below grade. The founding subgrade at this depth comprises of competent/sound bedrock below groundwater table. A qualified geotechnical engineer should review the condition of the subgrade beneath the proposed underground slab at the time of construction.


The floor slab should be placed on a 200 mm thick layer of well-graded granular base material consisting of 19 mm clear stone or crusher run limestone (or equivalent). For the structural design of the concrete slab-on-grade, a combined modulus of subgrade / granular base reaction coefficient (k) of 60 MPa/m can be used.

Due to the anticipated relatively shallow groundwater table at this Site, a subfloor drainage system and waterproofing membrane will be required beneath the slab. Recommendations for subfloor drainage can be provided on review of building plans. The purpose of the subfloor drainage system is primarily to prevent a build-up of hydrostatic pressure below the floor slab so that the slab does not need to be designed to resist hydrostatic load. The drainage system must be designed to collect and dispose of groundwater at a rate sufficient to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressure. The purpose of placing a waterproofing membrane below the slab is to minimize potential for seepage of groundwater through the slab and keep the underground basement dry. If a permanent subfloor drainage system is provided, then the slab does not need to be designed to resist hydrostatic pressure.

As an alternative to a permanent subfloor drainage system, the basement can be supported on raft (mat) foundation (structural slab) and designed as a water tight tank. This will eliminate the need to install and maintain the subfloor drains, but is otherwise likely to be more costly. In this case, the basement slabs will have to be designed to resist hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

4.5 Foundation Wall Drainage

A perimeter wall drainage system will need to be installed for the proposed building, where a basement is to be constructed (below grade space), to collect groundwater from within the surficial earth fill and native soil layers. A perimeter drainage system consisting of Terrafix Terradrain™ 200, Mirafi Miradrain™ 5000, and/or similar products is recommended. A waterproofing membrane such as Mirafi Miradri™ and/or similar product compatible with the drainage system is also recommended. The perimeter drainage system should be provided with a collector pipe at the base of the foundation wall that drains to a sump pit and discharges to a positive outlet such as the municipal storm sewer. If a perimeter drainage system is provided, then the basement walls will not need to be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures.

The grade surrounding the foundation walls should be sloped (minimum of 3%) to minimize ponding of water on the ground surface and to provide positive drainage away from the foundation wall.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressure

Structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures such as foundation walls, shoring systems, and other similar structures must be designed to resist a pressure that can be calculated based on the following equation:

P=K[γ(h-hw) + γ ‘ hw + q] + γwhw

where: P = the horizontal pressure at depth, h (m) K = the earth pressure coefficient,


γ = the bulk unit weight of soil, ( kN/m3) γ ‘ = the submerged unit weight of soil, ( kN/m3 ) hw = the depth below the groundwater level (m) γw = unit weight of water, 9.81 ( kN/m3) h = the depth to point of interest, (m) q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

Where the perimeter drainage system or dewatering system eliminates hydrostatic pressures on the wall, the above expression can be simplified as follows:

P = K(γh+ q)

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site, the following design parameters may be used at this Site:

Soil Type

Bulk Unit Weight

Effective Angle of Internal Friction (º)

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure

γ (kN/m3) φ' Ka Ko Kp

Earth Fill 18 25˚ 0.40 0.58 2.46

Native Silty Clay 20 30˚ 0.33 0.50 3.00

Bedrock 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A

The bulk unit weight provided in the table above for the native deposit was estimated from the unit weight test results provided in Section 3.3.3. The results could be used for earth pressure calculation at this Site.

If movement sensitive services exist close to the shoring, the lateral pressure should be computed using the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0.

The design of the temporary earth support system is typically the responsibility of the Contractor.

4.7 Seismic Site Classification

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (2012 OBC) requires the assignment of a Seismic Site Class for calculations of earthquake design forces and the structural design based on a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. According to the 2012 OBC, the Seismic Site Class is a function of soil profile, and is based on the average properties of the subsoil strata to a depth of 30 m below the ground surface. The 2012 OBC provides the following three methods to obtain the average properties for the top 30 m of the subsoil strata:

• Average shear wave velocity.

• Average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values (uncorrected for overburden).

• Average undrained shear strength.


For design purposes, based on the criteria listed in Table 4.1.8.4.A. of the OBC and the results obtained from standard penetration resistance of the underlying soils, anticipated depth of bedrock and our knowledge of the regional geology, a Seismic Site Class ‘B’ may be used for the design of proposed building assuming that the proposed structures will be founded directly on bedrock. If the foundations for the proposed structures will not be founded on bedrock then Seismic Site Class ‘C’ may be more appropriate to use for the design calculations. A specific seismic study should be performed for this Site to develop a set of site-specific design parameters. A site-specific seismic study should include field measurement of shear wave velocity profile and a site-specific response analysis.

4.8 Pavement Design

4.8.1 Permeable Pavers

Based on the boreholes data, the Site is generally underlain by native silty clay with sand followed by shale bedrock. According to the 2012 Ontario Building Code – Supplementary Standard SB-6 Table 3, the coefficient of permeability is equal or less than 10-6 cm /sec and percolation time over 50 min/cm. As such, the overburden and the underlying shale bedrock at this Site can be considered to have a very low permeability to practically impermeable. Therefore, the soils within the area of the proposed permeable pavers are not conducive for infiltration and don’t have adequate permeability values to manage stormwater infiltration from permeable paver unless sub-drainage is installed. Also, due to the relatively shallow groundwater table at this Site, the permeable paver option may not be considered feasible.

The permeable paver installation should be carried out in accordance with the product manufacturer’s specifications.

Subgrade preparation will be important in order to provide satisfactory support for the precast paver system. This option will require the removal of the existing fill and replace it with engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD. Prior to backfilling, the base of the excavation should be inspected and proof rolled using large axially loaded equipment. Any soft or unacceptable areas, i.e. topsoil, should be removed and replaced with suitable materials compacted to minimum of 98 % SPMDD.

4.8.2 Flexible (Asphalt) Pavement

Subgrade Preparation

The existing earth fill may be suitable to support pavements for the potential driveways and at grade parking areas provided the exposed subgrade is proof-rolled, recompacted, and free of all loose and deleterious materials (i.e. topsoil, organics, debris, etc.). It is recommended that any subgrade comprising of existing fill be inspected for obvious soft/loose areas and presence of deleterious materials. Should such areas be found, GHD can provide appropriate advice for replacement of the material and addressing local weak areas at that time.

Where new fill is required to raise the grade, selected on-site fill could be used, provided it is free of any organic material. The fill should be placed in large areas where it can be compacted by a heavy roller. Any fill placed to increase or level the grade must be compacted to a minimum 98 percent


SPMDD in lifts not exceeding 200 mm. In-situ density testing to monitor the effectiveness of the compaction equipment in achieving the required densities is also recommended.

The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently, special provisions such as end dumping and forward spreading of sub-base fills, restricted construction lanes, and half-loads during paving may be required, especially if construction is carried out during inclement weather conditions.

Recommended Pavement Structure

The following asphaltic concrete and granular pavement thickness may be used for the design of the potential driveways and at grade parking areas.

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Light Duty Pavement

Design

Heavy Duty Pavement

Design Surface Course Asphaltic

Concrete HL3 (OPSS 1150)

91% to 96.5% Maximum Relative Density (OPSS 310) 40 mm 40 mm

Base Course Asphaltic Concrete

HL8 (OPSS 1150)

92% to 97.5% Maximum Relative Density (OPSS 310) 50 mm 60 mm

Base Course: Granular ‘A’ or 19mm

Crusher Run (OPSS1010)

100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density 150 mm 150 mm

Sub-base Course: Granular B or 50mm

Crusher Run (OPSS1010)

98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density 250 mm 350 mm

If pavement construction occurs in wet inclement weather it may be necessary to provide additional subgrade support for construction traffic by increasing the thickness of the granular sub-base.

Drainage

Grading adjacent to pavement areas should be designed so that water is not allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of the pavement. Also, the pavement subgrade should be free of depressions and sloped (preferably at a minimum grade of two percent) to provide effective drainage toward the edge of pavement and toward catchbasins.

4.8.3 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement

Rigid concrete pavements can be considered for the design of loading dock and ramp areas (heavy duty areas). The following concrete pavement thickness can be used for this purpose:

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Heavy Duty

Component Thickness

Portland Cement Concrete (CSA A23.1) – Class C2 N/A 200 mm

Base Course: 19mm Crusher Run

(OPSS1010)

100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density 150 mm


Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Heavy Duty

Component Thickness

Sub-base Course: Granular B or 50mm Crusher

Run (OPSS1010)

98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density 300 mm

The concrete pavement will be subjected to frost action and de-icing salts and therefore should be designed with an exposure class C2 with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 32 MPa and air entrainment varying between 5 and 8 percent. It is noted the rigid pavements will also be subjected to frost action movements and therefore the exterior slabs should be separated from the building structure.

The construction for the concrete pavement should be carried out in accordance with the OPSS 350. Proper joints should be installed including transverse and longitudinal contraction and construction joints, and isolation joints.

5. Construction Considerations

5.1 Excavation and Temporary Shoring

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) regulations require that if workmen must enter an unsupported excavation deeper than 1.2 m, the excavation must be suitably sloped and/or braced in accordance with the OHSA requirements. OHSA specifies maximum slope of the excavations for four broad soil types as summarized in the following table:

Soil Type Base of Slope Maximum Slope Inclination

1 Within 1.2 m of bottom 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

2 Within 1.2 m of bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

3 From bottom of excavation 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

4 From bottom of excavation 3 horizontal to 1 vertical

The excavations should be carried out in strict conformance to the current Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). For the purpose of interpreting the act, the fill within the Site above the groundwater table can be classified as Type 3 soils. If affected by groundwater seepage, these fill soils can be considered as Type 4 soils. The native soils can be considered Type 2 soils above groundwater level, and Type 3 below groundwater table. The highest number soil type identified in an excavation must govern the excavation slopes from top to bottom of the excavation.

Excavation into the bedrock can be carried out at or near vertical faces. The shale exposed in the excavation will begin to degrade as soon as it become exposed. As such, it is expected that the shale will weather over time if it is not protected. Therefore, the exposed bedrock should be protected from deterioration if the excavation is to be left open for a long period of time. Such


measures will include using mesh and/or shotcrete that is installed following initial bedrock exposure.

It is anticipated that the excavations within the overburden can be made with conventional equipment. Cobbles and boulders should be expected within the overburden, and the contract should allow for the removal of construction cobbles and boulders. Where the excavations extend into the shale bedrock, the shale bedrock may be removed with a larger excavator equipped with a ‘V’ shaped bucket equipped with a ripper and/or hoe ram. The upper portion of the shale bedrock to where it is highly weathered should be easily removed. The underlying competent/sound rock would be more difficult particularly if interbedded with hard layers of siltsone and limestone. Deeper excavations into the bedrock may need to be advanced using hoe rams, hydraulic splitter or other similar tools. The selection of the excavation equipment to be used into the bedrock is the contractor’s responsibility.

If the above recommended excavation side slopes cannot be maintained due to lack of space or any other reason, the excavation side walls must be supported by an engineered shoring system. The shoring system should be designed in accordance with Canadian Engineering Foundation Manual (4th Edition) and the OHSA Regulations for Construction Projects.

If a shoring system is selected to support the excavation walls, it is recommended that the expertise of an experienced shoring contractor be retained during selection of a shoring approach. It is also recommended that the shoring system required to stabilize the excavation sidewalls during construction be developed by the general and shoring contractors. Further recommendations for shoring may be required depending on the type of shoring system selected for this project.

5.2 Temporary Ground Water Control

The amount of seepage into excavations will depend on the depth and size of excavation relative to the groundwater level at the time of construction.

The measured groundwater levels within the installed monitoring wells were found to range from approximately 1.0 to 3.0 mBGS. Based on the presence of low permeability silty clay till below the fill, no major groundwater control requirements are expected for the construction of underground basement and the foundations for the building. A higher seepage rate emanating from the sand and gravel pockets/layers within the till deposit should be expected during excavation especially at the interface between the overburden and bedrock. In general, the seepage rate in the area of the proposed structures is expected to be slow, and it should be possible to control the seepage by conventional construction dewatering techniques, i.e. gravity drainage and pumping from open sumps or, if necessary pumping from deep sumps with proper filter. If a higher seepage rate is encountered due to the presence of sandy seams a positive construction dewatering system such as well points or other methods may be required prior to any excavation. Contractor should be prepared to employ more elaborate dewatering measures such as well points or other methods. Please refer to the Hydrogeological Assessment Report prepared by GHD for this project.


5.3 Site Servicing

The native soils encountered at the Site are considered suitable to support proposed Site services. The subgrade soils used to support the service pipes, should be visually inspected. Wet, loose or otherwise unsuitable fills should be sub-excavated and replaced with bedding materials or clean fills compacted to minimum of 95% SPMDD.

The bedding for trenched (open cut) services should consist of well graded materials meeting Town of Oakville specifications. The bedding should have a minimum thickness of 150 mm below the pipe and 300 mm above and adjacent to the pipe and should comply with the Town of Oakville Standards. The bedding and cover materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD to provide support and protection to the service pipes.

Where wet conditions are encountered, the use of 'clear stone' bedding (such as 19 mm clear stone, OPSS 1004) may be considered, only in conjunction with a suitable geotextile filter. Without proper filtering, there may be entry of fines from the existing fill and trench backfill into the bedding. This loss of fine soil particles could result in loss of support to the pipes and possible surface settlements.

5.4 Soil Corrosivity Potential

Corrosivity testing was conducted on eight (8) select samples extracted from boreholes BH18-18, BH25-18, BH31-18, BH33-18, BH34-18, and BH35-18 in accordance with ASTM and CSA Standards. The results were compared with CSA A23.1 Standards to determine the potential of sulphate attack on concrete and with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) C105 to assess soil corrosivity potential of ductile iron pipes and fittings. Corrosivity testing as described by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) includes soil resistivity, pH, redox potential, and moisture content. Points are assigned to the sample based on the results of the test. A soil that has a total point score of 10 or more is considered to be potentially corrosive to ductile iron pipe. The potential for sulphate attack on concrete (class of exposure) is determined using Table 3 provided in CSA A23.1. All samples were placed into laboratory-supplied containers, labeled and submitted under chain-of-custody protocol to AGAT. Analytical results received from the laboratory are provided in Appendix D.

The following table summarizes the laboratory test results for the eight (8) soil samples collected from the boreholes to assess soil potential for sulphate attack on concrete structures:

Borehole No. Sample Depth (m)

Sulphate (%)

Class of Exposure (Ref. Table 3 of CSA

A23.1)

Potential for Sulphate Attack (Ref. Table 3 of

CSA A23.1)

Cementing Materials to be

used (Ref. Table 3 of CSA

A23.1) BH18-18 1.5-2.1 0.0046 Below S-3 Negligible Not specified

BH25-18 1.5-2.1 0.0011 Below S-3 Negligible Not specified





Borehole No. Sample Depth (m)

Sulphate (%)

Class of Exposure (Ref. Table 3 of CSA

A23.1)

Potential for Sulphate Attack (Ref. Table 3 of

CSA A23.1)

Cementing Materials to be

used (Ref. Table 3 of CSA

A23.1) BH34-18 3.1-3.7 0.0017 Below S-3 Negligible Not specified



In general, the results of sulphate ion content analysis indicate that the soil samples contain low levels of sulphate ion, which are below the class of exposure levels outlined in CSA A23.1. No additional precautions are required to provide protection against sulphate attack such as special cements or mixtures.

In regards to soil corrosivity potential against ductile iron pipes and fittings, it is noted that sulphide analysis presented in AWWA is a qualitative test where a positive, trace, or negative determination is based on the presence of bubbles as a result of a chemical reaction. Such testing has not been conducted as AGAT defines sulfides concentration that is unrelated to the scale provided by AWWA. As a result, it was assumed that the result was positive and a maximum score of 3.5 was selected (most conservative assumption). Also, for moisture content determination, the value obtained from the conducted laboratory tests were used for this analysis and soil poor drainage condition has been considered to obtain more conservative values. The table below summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating of the tested soil samples on their potential for corrosion towards buried ductile cast iron pipes/fittings. A score of ten (10) points or more indicates the soil is corrosive to ductile iron pipes and protection will be needed.

Borehole No.

Sample Depth (m)

Parameters Total Points

Corrosivity Potential Resistivity

(ohm/cm) pH Redox

Potential (mV)

Moisture (%)

BH18-18 1.5-2.1 5810 8.26 166 13 5.5 No

BH25-18 1.5-2.1 8930 8.05 169 12 5.5 No

BH31-18 1.5-2.1 6620 8.29 164 13 5.5 No

BH33-18 2.3-2.9 7630 8.24 153 12 5.5 No

BH34-18 0.8-1.4 5240 8.18 158 13 5.5 No

BH34-18 3.1-3.7 7300 8.14 155 11 5.5 No

BH35-18 1.5-2.1 6210 8.22 160 13 5.5 No

BH35-18 3.1-3.7 6760 8.39 160 11 5.5 No

Based on the results obtained for the samples submitted, the total points was 5.5. These results indicate that no special provisions will be required for corrosion protection of any metallic pipe components in the area of the test boreholes.


5.5 Construction Monitoring

The foundation installations must be closely monitored and inspected by qualified personnel to ensure that the founding achieved is consistent with the design bearing intended by the design engineer. The on-site review of the condition of the foundation soil as the foundations are constructed is an integral part of the geotechnical design function and is required by Section 4.2.2.2 of the Ontario Building Code 2012.

The ground conditions will vary across the site depending on the final design grades and therefore, the preparation of the sub-grade and the compaction of all materials should be monitored at the time of construction to confirm material quality and thickness and to ensure adequate compaction. All backfilling should be supervised to ensure that proper materials are employed and that adequate compaction is achieved. Strict quality control guidelines should be followed during the placement of fill materials.

Qualified Geotechnical personnel should inspect and test all stages of the proposed development. Specifically, they should ensure that the materials and conditions comply with this geotechnical assessment report. In addition, qualified geotechnical personnel should provide material testing services prior to and during foundation preparation and construction. Should soil conditions be encountered that vary from those described in this report, our office should be informed immediately such that the proper measures are undertaken.

6. Limitations of the Investigation

This report is intended solely for Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation and their designer and is prohibited for use by others without GHD’s prior written consent. This report is considered GHD’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to GHD. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices.

The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevation and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. 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.

All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, GHD will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design.


By issuing this report, GHD is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that GHD be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases.

It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the test locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the test locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by the construction activities on site (e.g., excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by GHD is completed.


All of Which is Respectfully Submitted,

GHD

Ahmed Sorour, P. Eng.

Karl Roechner, P. Eng.

GHD | Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - 11155902 (4)

Figures

SixteenMile Creek

Fourteen Mile Creek

McCraney Creek

140130

170

160

140120

180

160

170150

180

160

150

120

140120

170

160

150

140

140

130

160

150

120

150

140

150

150

160

160 130

130

140

180

170

170

160

160

160

160

140

170170

160

160

160160

160

Proudfoot Trail

Reg Rd 25 Reg Rd

Rosehill Dr

3rd Line

Oakhaven Dr

Neyagawa Blvd

WHam

Rd

Shady

GlenRd

TrailsideDr

Postmaster Dr

Grand Oak Trail

Calloway Dr

HiramTerr

Robert Brown Blvd

Stillmeadow Rd

Wes

toak

Tra

ils B

lvd

Golden

Orchar

dTr

ail

Fairm

ount D r

Scot

ch

Pine Dr

Dunforest

Cr es

Parkglen Ave

Maripo

sa Rd

Pinecli

ff Rd

Arbourview DrHillmoun t

Dr

Upper

Midd

leRd

W

Adirondak

Trail

Woodcrest DrCastlebrook Rd

Stratus Dr

Sprin

gdal

eR

d

Lane 137

Dunda

s St W

Bronte Rd SpringMeadow

Way

Hatfie

ld

Dr

Glenh

ampt

onRd

Carm

Dr

Adam

vale

Cres

Lane 136

Woo dmont

Cres

Khalsa Gate

Lazio Lane

Brookhav

en Cres

Thorncrest Cre

s

Highmoun

t Cres

Old Bronte Rd

Round

woodCres

Whitecliffe Way

Hospital Gate

4th

Line

Hw

y 40

7

Zenon Dr

Burn

hamth

orpe

Rd

W

King

srid

g eD

r

Storn

owayCir

Stone

Glen Cres

Pine

GlenRd

FallingGree n Dr

Gulled

ge Tr

ail

Whis

tling Springs

Cres

Kwinter Rd

Fiddlers

W

ay

Quetico Cres

Wes

tmou

ntDr

Briargro veCir

Falkland Cres

Crestmont DrMillstone Dr

Liver

pool

St

High c roft Rd

Pell Cres

Newcastle Cres

Woo

dgate

Dr

Hw

y 40

7

Burn

hamth

orpe

Rd

W

FIGURE 1

11155902-20 Mar 2, 2018

GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11155000s\11155902\Layouts\004\11155902-20(004)GIS-OT001.mxd

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SITE LOCATION MAP

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2014. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2018Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIOWILLIAM HALTON PARKWAY, OAKVILLE, ONTARIOHALTON REGION CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE (HRCC) DEVELOPMENT

SITE

0 200 400 600

Meters

BH15-18

BH21-18

BH22-18

BH23-18

MW30-18

BH29-18

BH36-18

BH35-18

BH34-18

MW28-18

WILLIAM HALTON PARKWAY

3R

D

LIN

E

BH17-18

MW16-18

BH33-18

BH25-18

BH24-18

BH32-18

BH31-18

MW19-18

BH18-18

CAD File: G:\CAD\8-chars\11------\1115----\111559--\11155902\11155902-REPORT\11155902-20(004)GN-TO002.dwg

Mar 1, 2018

11155902-20

FIGURE 2

INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO

WILLIAM HALTON PARKWAY, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

HALTON REGION CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE (HRCC) DEVELOPMENT

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

SITE LAYOUT/INVESTIGATIVE LOCATIONS PLAN

0 15 30 45m

0.666

7

LEGEND

BOREHOLE LOCATION

MONITORING WELL LOCATION

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

BH

MW


Appendices


Appendix A Borehole Logs

2-2-4-4

7-10-16-19

8-12-17-26

24-45-49-50/75mm

35-50/25mm

33-50/50mm

50/25mm

50/50mm

0.13

0.76

3.05

6.15

0161.90

161.27

158.98

155.88

29

13

13

9

6

6

4

3

83

100

100

100

57

63

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

6

26

29

94

100

100

100

100

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL/CL-ML-SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY SILT,trace gravel, rootlets, wood pieces,brown, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,brown to reddish brown, moist, very stiff

cobble fragments, hard

SHALE, completely weathered, reddishbrown

END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 6.15 m bgs due torefusal- Ground water level measured at 1.96 mbgs upon completion- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber

DATE (FINISH): 16 January 2018

N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field

William Halton Parkway, Oakville, Ontario

Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x

DESCRIBED BY: R. Bagherzadeh

wlAtterberg limits (%)

Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE

(blows / 12 in.-30 cm)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

BOREHOLE No.: BH15-18

Blows per6 in. /15 cm

or RQDStra

tigra

phy

REFERENCE No.: 11155902

CLIENT: Infrastructure Ontario (IO)

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 15

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

DATE (START): 16 January 2018

CHECKED BY: A. Sorour

Dep

th

Shear test (Cu)Sensitivity (S) Water content (%)

wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

PROJECT:Halton Region Consolidated Courthouse (HRCC) Development -Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.03 m

162.03

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S

- WATER LEVELRC - ROCK COREGS - GRAB SAMPLE

SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-3-3-3

2-2-2-2

3-5-6-10

9-16-22-28

49-50/25mm

50/125mm

0.15

1.52

3.05

3.94

0162.19

160.82

159.29

158.40

33

19

14

13

5

6

67

100

100

100

43

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

6

4

11

38

100

100

TOPSOIL : 150 mmFILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, some gravel, rootlets,wood pieces, brown, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, stiff

hard


END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 3.94 m bgs due torefusal- Borehole was dry upon completion- 50 mm diameter monitoring wellinstalled at 3.94 m bgs- Groundwater level measured at 1.40 mbgs on February 7, 2018- Groundwater level measured at 1.00 mbgs on February 20, 2018- Groundwater level measured at 1.05 mbgs on February 27, 2018- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt Blows per6 in. /15 cm

or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 16

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.34 m

162.34

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8BOREHOLE No.: MW16-18

0.3 m

0.9 m

3.9 m

Cement

Bentonite Seal

#2 Sand

Screen

14-18-10-13

4-6-6-7

3-8-13-16

15-27-48-50/25mm

50/75mm

50/75mm

0.13

0.76

3.05

3.90

0161.24

160.61

158.32

157.47

13

22

17

11

5

6

83

42

83

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

28

12

21

75

100

100

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, some gravel, rootlets,cobble fragments, brownish red, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, stiff

very stiff

shale fragments, hard

SHALE, completely weathered, reddishgreen

END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 3.9 m bgs due torefusal- Borehole was dry upon completion- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 17

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 161.37 m

161.37

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-2-4-5

8-15-41-40

14-15-30-39

43-50/50mm

50/75mm

0.13

0.76

2.29

3.13

0160.32

159.69

158.16

157.32

34

13

13

6

6

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

6

56

45

100

100


NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,shale fragments, reddish brown, moist,hard

Gravel : 10%, Sand : 28%, Silt : 50%,Clay : 12%


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 18

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 160.45 m

160.45

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-2-4-4

4-13-19-22

8-14-18-19

8-15-24-33

9-21-37-50/75mm

50/75mm

0.15

0.76

3.81

4.42

0161.86

161.25

158.20

157.59

21

13

14

12

11

11

87

83

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

6

32

32

39

58

100

TOPSOIL : 150 mmFILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, some gravel, rootlets,wood pieces, reddish brown, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,brown, moist, hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte


or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 19

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.01 m

162.01

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1


0.3 m

0.9 m

4.4 m

Cement

Bentonite Seal

#2 Sand

Screen

3-3-5-5

6-11-14-20

10-15-24-26

11-18-28-30

50/100mm

50/75mm

50/50mm

0.13

0.76

3.81

4.62

0162.06

161.43

158.38

157.57

25

15

12

11

13

4

4

96

100

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

8

25

39

46

100

100

100


NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiffGravel : 2%, Sand : 27%, Silt : 43%, Clay: 28%

hardGravel : 2%, Sand : 26%, Silt : 41%, Clay: 31%


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 21

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.19 m

162.19

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-4-9-5

3-4-5-7

--

4-6-10-14

4-7-14-19

8-17-23-50/100mm

--

24-50/50mm

71

83

95

0.13

1.22

3.40

4.27

0162.05

160.96

158.78

157.91

14

16

21

15

14

11

6

7

--

--

--

83

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

95

SS1

SS2A

SS2B

SS3

SS4

SS5A

SS5B

SS6

RC1

RC2

RC3

13

9

--

16

21

40

--

100

--

--

--

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, trace sand and gravel,trace topsoil, reddish brown, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiffGravel : 2%, Sand : 17%, Silt : 50%, Clay: 31%

wet silty sand with gravel layerGravel : 28%, Sand : 36%, Silt : 23%,Clay : 13%

hard


BEDROCK-SHALE, moderately toslightly weathered, weak to moderatelystrong, reddish brown

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x

DESCRIBED BY: S. Hossain


Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 22

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.18 m

162.18

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

97

90

11.43 150.75

--

--

97

98

RC4

RC5

--

--

END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 11.43 m bgs- Borehole was dry upon completion- Rock core from 4.27 m bgs- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 22

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 2

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0


29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

ELEVATION: 162.18 m

162.18

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-2-5-8

7-11-16-22

6-15-21-22

8-11-17-34

13-50/125mm

24-50/25mm

0.10

0.76

3.813.99

0161.59

160.93

157.88157.70

15

12

12

12

10

4

75

96

92

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

7

27

36

28

100

100

TOPSOIL : 100 mmFILL :CL-ML/CL-CLAYEY SILT/SILTY CLAY,some gravel, rootlets, wood pieces,brownish red, moistNATIVE :CL-ML-SILTY CLAY with sand, tracegravel, reddish brown, moist, very stiff tohard

shale fragments, hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 23

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 161.69 m

161.69

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-4-7-8

8-11-17-21

11-33-50/50mm

50/50mm

50/100mm

0.10

0.76

2.29

3.15

0160.08

159.42

157.89

157.03

18

14

11

7

5

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

11

28

100

100

100


NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,brown, moist, very stiffGravel : 2%, Sand : 19%, Silt : 54%, Clay: 25%shale fragment, hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 24

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 160.18 m

160.18

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-2-5-5

7-14-19-18

8-9-20-25

50/100mm

50/125mm

0.13

0.76

2.29

3.18

0159.93

159.30

157.77

156.88

27

13

12

5

6

83

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

7

33

29

100

100


NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, hard

very stiff


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 25

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 160.06 m

160.06

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-2-4-7

7-11-15-20

6-13-17-21

8-13-20-25

9-16-30-45

21-40-50/100mm

15-50/100mm

50/50mm

0.13

0.76

3.81

5.54

0162.54

161.91

158.86

157.13

26

12

13

12

10

10

7

14

79

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

6

26

30

33

46

100

100

100

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL/CL-ML-SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY SILT,some gravel, rootlets, wood pieces,brown, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiff

hard

Gravel : 1%, Sand : 29%, Silt : 42%, Clay: 28%


wet

END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 5.54 m bgs- 50 mm diameter shallow and deepmonitoring wells installed at 3.8 m and5.5 m bgs respectively- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

Deep Well :- Groundwaterlevel measured at 2.85 mbgs on February 7, 2018- Groundwaterlevel measured at 2.83 mbgs on February 20, 2018- Groundwaterlevel measured at 2.58 mbgs on February 27, 2018

Shallow Well :- Groundwaterlevel measured at 2.65 m

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte


or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 28

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.67 m

162.67

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1


0.3 m

0.6 m

3.8 m3.8 m

5.5 m5.5 m

Concrete

Bentonite Seal

Screen

Sand

bgs on February 7, 2018- Groundwaterlevel measured at 2.09 mbgs on February 20, 2018- Groundwaterlevel measured at 1.79 mbgs on February 27, 2018

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 28

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 2

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0


29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

ELEVATION: 162.67 m

162.67

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-3-5-5

5-8-15-16

6-11-18-20

10-12-18-22

8-15-20-24

50/25mm

50/50mm

0.13

0.76

4.57

5.54

0161.69

161.06

157.25

156.28

37

13

14

12

17

4

--

79

100

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

8

23

29

30

35

100

100

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL/CL-ML-SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY SILT,some gravel, rootlets, wood pieces,brownish red, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiffGravel : 4%, Sand : 21%, Silt : 46%, Clay: 29%

hard



END OF BOREHOLE :

NOTE :- End of Borehole at 5.54 m bgs due torefusal- Ground water level measured at 4.69 mupon completion- bgs denotes 'below ground surface'

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 29

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 161.82 m

161.82

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte


or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

2-2-7-6

7-6-8-13

7-10-15-19

16-17-20-50/75mm

44-50/25mm

50/50mm

0.13

0.76

3.05

4.27

0160.89

160.26

157.97

156.75

14

21

13

13

5

4

75

87

100

95

71

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

9

14

25

37

100

100

TOPSOIL : 125 mmFILL :CL-ML/CL-CLAYEY SILT/SILTY CLAY,some gravel, rootlets, wood pieces,brown, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,brown, moist, stiff to hard

very stiffGravel : 3%, Sand : 21%, Silt : 45%, Clay: 31%

hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N

ENCLOSURE No.: 30

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 161.02 m

161.02

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1


0.3 m

0.9 m

4.3 m

Cement

Bentonite Seal

#2 Sand

Screen

1-3-5-7

6-11-16-17

6-11-15-20

9-19-21-30

6-19-31-50/75mm

50/75mm

50/75mm

0.13

0.76

3.81

4.65

0160.89

160.26

157.21

156.37

23

14

13

14

10

5

5

75

100

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

8

27

26

40

50

100

100


NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiff

hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 31

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 161.02 m

161.02

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

2-2-4-5

8-10-16-19

12-21-50/100mm

50/100mm

50/125mm

0.76

2.29

3.13

0

158.84

157.31

156.47

20

17

10

5

5

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

6

26

100

100

100

FILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, some gravel, rootlets,wood pieces, brown, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown, moist, very stiffGravel : 5%, Sand : 17%, Silt : 47%, Clay: 31%hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 32

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 159.60 m

159.60

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

4-2-9-10

5-5-6-9

7-13-17-24

9-21-25-30

11-25-50/75mm

--

50/75mm

0.35

0.76

3.35

3.89

0

161.85

161.44

158.85

158.31

30

20

12

12

1610

9

75

83

79

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5ASS5B

SS6

11

11

30

46

100--

100

TOPSOIL : 350 mm

FILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, trace sand and gravel,topsoil, brown, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,grey to reddish brown, moist, stiff

hard


END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber

DATE (FINISH): 2 February 2018

N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 33

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

DATE (START): 2 February 2018


Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.20 m

162.20

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-2-2-2

6-10-14-17

5-10-14-18

7-15-20-27

8-19-23-45

50/100mm

60

75

83

0.25

0.76

3.81

4.27

0

162.30

161.79

158.74

158.28

26

13

14

12

11

4

--

--

--

42

67

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

RC1

RC2

RC3

4

24

24

35

42

100

--

--

--

TOPSOIL : 250 mm

FILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, trace sand and gravel,trace topsoil, brownish red, moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,grey to reddish brown, very stiff

hard



BEDROCK-SHALE, moderately toslightly weathered, weak to moderatelystrong, reddish brown

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 34

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.55 m

162.55

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

94

9.91 152.64

--98RC4 --

END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 34

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 2

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0


29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

ELEVATION: 162.55 m

162.55

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-5-4-7

3-5-7-10

8-10-14-17

10-13-18-24

10-14-32-50

26-50/100mm

--

0.25

0.76

3.964.06

0

162.07

161.56

158.36158.26

23

15

13

13

11

106

100

83

100

100

100

100100

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6ASS6B

9

12

24

31

46

100--

TOPSOIL : 250 mm

FILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, trace sand, topsoil withrootlets, brown, very moistNATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,grey to reddish brown, moist, stiff

very stiff

hard

trace shale fragmentsSHALE, completely weathered, reddishbrown

END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 35

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.32 m

162.32

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

1-2-3-3

3-4-7-9

--

7-11-15-16

8-15-19-25

16-19-26-38

16-47-50/100mm

50/100mm

53

88

92

0.35

1.07

3.81

4.88

0

162.04

161.32

158.58

157.51

26

17

13

11

12

11

7

8

--

--

--

37

100

100

100

100

100

100

83

100

100

SS1

SS2A

SS2B

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

RC1

RC2

RC3

5

11

--

26

34

45

100

100

--

--

--

TOPSOIL : 350 mm

FILL :CL-SILTY CLAY, trace sand, topsoil withrootlets, brown, moist

NATIVE :CL-SILTY CLAY with sand, trace gravel,reddish brown to grey, moist, very stiffGravel : 3%, Sand : 19%, Silt : 52%, Clay: 26%

hard


BEDROCK-SHALE, moderately toslightly weathered, weak to moderatelystrong, reddish brown,

LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 36

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ELEVATION: 162.39 m

162.39

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8

95

100

11.13 151.26

--

--

100

100

RC4

RC5

--

--

END OF BOREHOLE :


LEGEND

Metres

Type

and

Num

ber


N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

"N" Value

Field


Pen

etra

ion

Inde

x



Lab

ST - SHELBY TUBE


Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



or RQDStra

tigra

phy




Rec

over

y

%

LOCATION:

Feet

ENCLOSURE No.: 36

GROUND SURFACE

Sta

te

of 2Page: 2

BOREHOLE REPORT



Dep

th


wp

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0


29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

ELEVATION: 162.39 m

162.39

Elev

atio

n(m

) BG

S


SS - SPLIT SPOON

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

+WE

LL 1

1155

902-

4.G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 5

/3/1

8


Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

Particle-Size Analysis of SoilsASTM D422 (Geotechnical)

Client: Lab No.:

Project, Site: Project No.:

Borehole No.: Sample No.:

Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks: Silt-size particles (0.074 to 0.002 mm): 50%, Clay-size particles (<0.002 mm): 12%

Gravel 10%, Sand 28%, Silt 50%, Clay 12%

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

Infrastructure Ontario G1749

11155902

BH18-18 SS3

Halton Region Consolidated Courthouse- Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

1.5m - 2.1m

Soil Description Gravel (%) Sand (%) Clay & Silt (%)

Silty Clay with Sand, Trace Gravel 10 28 62

Anwar Rehani February 9, 2018

Raj Kadia, C.E.T. February 15, 2018

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)

Particle-Size Limits as per USCS (ASTM D-2487)

Silty ClaySand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422 Geotechnical) - Rev. 1 - 03/11/2016


Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


11155902

BH21-18 SS2


0.8m - 1.4m





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


11155902

BH21-18 SS4


2.3m - 2.9m





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




1.5m - 2.1m



11155902

BH22-18 SS3


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 28 36 36

2.3m - 2.9m



11155902

BH22-18 SS4


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




0.8m - 1.4m



11155902

BH24-18 SS2


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




3.1m - 3.7m



11155902

MW28-18 SS5


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


11155902

BH29-18 SS2


0.8m - 1.4m





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




3.1m - 3.7m



11155902

BH29-18 SS5


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




1.5m - 2.1m



11155902

MW30-18 SS3


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


11155902

BH32-18 SS2


0.8m - 1.4m





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


11155902

BH34-18 SS5


3.1m - 3.7m





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Client: Lab No.:



Depth: Enclosure:



Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




1.5m - 2.1m



11155902

BH36-18 SS3


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils(ASTM D4318)

Client: Lab no.:

Project/Site: Project no.:

Borehole no.: Sample no.: Depth:

Soil description: Date sampled:

Balance no.: Porcelain bowl no.: 1

Oven no.: Spatula no.: 1

Glass plate no.:

Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3 Dry preparation

37 30 20 Wet preparation

A19 A4 A22

20.22 19.99 21.25

18.95 18.72 19.69

1.27 1.27 1.56

13.53 13.46 13.47

5.42 5.26 6.22

23.4% 24.1% 25.1%

A18 A21

16.52 16.55

16.11 16.13

0.41 0.42

13.54 13.54

2.57 2.59

16.0% 16.2%

K25

28.9

25.8

3.10

1.30

24.50 Liquid Limit (LL)

Plastic Limit (PL)

12.7% 25 16

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Average water content % 16.1%

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %

Natural Water Content Wn

9

Apparatus:

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %

Plasticity Index (PI)Mass of soil, g

Hand Crank

40

G1749

11155902

Low Plasticity Inorganic Clay (CL)

1.5-2.1mBH18-18 SS3

23-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):

Liquid limit device no.:

Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g

Plastic Limit (PL) - Water Content:

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Natural Water Content ( Wn ):

Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

13

Tare no.

1

23/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

23.0

23.5

24.0

24.5

25.0

25.5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL

Soil Plasticity Chart

Low plasticity Inorganic clay

Low compressibiltyIInorganic silt

High plasticity Inorganic clay

- High compressibilityinorganic silt

- Inorganic clay- Medium compressibility

inorganic silt- Organic clay

CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50

GHD FO-930.105-Plastic and liquid limit - Rev. 0 - 07/01/2015


Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A4 A21 A9

20.76 20.37 21.15

19.22 18.89 19.41

1.54 1.48 1.74

13.46 13.54 13.30

5.76 5.35 6.11

26.7% 27.7% 28.5%

A3 A10

16.95 16.41

16.42 16.02

0.53 0.39

13.30 13.59

3.12 2.43

17.0% 16.0%

C16

47.0

41.2

5.80

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

14.5% 27 17

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


10

Apparatus:

21/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1746

11155902


0.8-1.4mBH21-18 SS2

17-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

15

Tare no.

1

22/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A20 A15 A21

21.25 20.68 20.19

19.43 19.05 18.63

1.82 1.63 1.56

13.22 13.55 13.59

6.21 5.50 5.04

29.3% 29.6% 31.0%

A8 A14

16.75 16.70

16.24 16.22

0.51 0.48

13.32 13.37

2.92 2.85

17.5% 16.8%

C18

66.5

59.8

6.70

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

11.5% 30 17

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


13

Apparatus:

21/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1746

11155902


2.3-2.9mBH21-18 SS4

17-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

11

Tare no.

1

22/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

29.0

29.5

30.0

30.5

31.0

31.5

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A20 A16 A3

20.26 20.64 22.34

18.69 19.02 20.26

1.57 1.62 2.08

13.23 13.49 13.31

5.46 5.53 6.95

28.8% 29.3% 29.9%

A14 A18

17.13 16.32

16.58 15.92

0.55 0.40

13.38 13.54

3.20 2.38

17.2% 16.8%

A16

0.00


Plastic Limit (PL)

#DIV/0! 29 17

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


12

Apparatus:

9/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1754

11155902


1.5-2.1mBH22-18 SS3

31-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

#DIV/0!

Tare no.

1

14/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

28.5

28.7

28.9

29.1

29.3

29.5

29.7

29.9

17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A8 A17 A18

19.38 23.21 21.83

18.17 21.17 19.98

1.21 2.04 1.85

13.33 13.29 13.26

4.84 7.88 6.72

25.0% 25.9% 27.5%

A20 A11

16.12 17.08

15.72 16.55

0.40 0.53

13.22 13.27

2.50 3.28

16.0% 16.2%

C22

30.7

27.1

3.60

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

14.0% 27 16

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


11

Apparatus:

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1754

11155902


2.3-2.9mBH22-18 SS4

31-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

14

Tare no.

1

26/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A20 A16 A3

21.38 20.81 20.54

19.80 19.31 19.02

1.58 1.50 1.52

13.54 13.48 13.30

6.26 5.83 5.72

25.2% 25.7% 26.6%

A5 A20

16.80 16.55

16.33 16.09

0.47 0.46

13.34 13.22

2.99 2.87

15.7% 16.0%

C99

43.5

38.4

5.10

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

13.7% 26 16

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

14

Tare no.

1

14/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Hand Crank

40

G1749

11155902


0.8-1.4mBH24-18 SS2

23-Jan-18

9/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %




Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


10

Apparatus:

25.0

25.2

25.4

25.6

25.8

26.0

26.2

26.4

26.6

26.8

27.0

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A16 A3 A9

20.14 20.79 20.15

18.82 19.27 18.73

1.32 1.52 1.42

13.49 13.32 13.30

5.33 5.95 5.43

24.8% 25.5% 26.2%

A1 A10

17.02 17.32

16.52 16.83

0.50 0.49

13.31 13.60

3.21 3.23

15.6% 15.2%

A20

52.9

48.1

4.80

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

10.3% 26 15

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


11

Apparatus:

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1746

11155902


3.1-3.7mMW28-18 SS5

17-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

10

Tare no.

1

23/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

24.5

24.7

24.9

25.1

25.3

25.5

25.7

25.9

26.1

26.3

26.5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A6 A1 A3

21.26 21.40 21.70

19.62 19.62 19.74

1.64 1.78 1.96

13.58 13.31 13.30

6.04 6.31 6.44

27.2% 28.2% 30.4%

A18 A14

16.41 17.46

15.97 16.85

0.44 0.61

13.54 13.38

2.43 3.47

18.1% 17.6%

C43

50.2

44.5

5.70

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

13.2% 29 18

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


11

Apparatus:

21/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1746

11155902


0.8-1.4mBH29-18 SS2

17-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

13

Tare no.

1

22/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

30.5

31.0

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A22 A17 A1

19.35 20.30 23.35

17.84 18.48 20.71

1.51 1.82 2.64

13.47 13.30 13.31

4.37 5.18 7.40

34.6% 35.1% 35.7%

A19 A7

16.69 16.72

16.16 16.17

0.53 0.55

13.53 13.32

2.63 2.85

20.2% 19.3%

A16

53.5

45.8

7.70

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

17.3% 35 20

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

17

Tare no.

1

22/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Hand Crank

40

G1746

11155902


3.1-3.7mBH29-18 SS5

17-Jan-18

21/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %




Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


15

Apparatus:

34.5

34.7

34.9

35.1

35.3

35.5

35.7

35.9

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A7 A2 A5

20.23 20.38 20.28

18.60 18.68 18.61

1.63 1.70 1.67

13.33 13.26 13.35

5.27 5.42 5.26

30.9% 31.4% 31.7%

A11 A17

16.93 16.43

16.38 15.93

0.55 0.50

13.35 13.30

3.03 2.63

18.2% 19.0%

C92

26.9

24.0

2.90

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

12.8% 32 19

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

13

Tare no.

1

23/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Hand Crank

40

G1748

11155902


1.5-2.1mMW30-18 SS3

22-Jan-18

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %




Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


13

Apparatus:

30.5

30.7

30.9

31.1

31.3

31.5

31.7

31.9

23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A4 A9 A21

20.76 20.27 21.76

19.16 18.71 19.86

1.60 1.56 1.90

13.46 13.30 13.53

5.70 5.41 6.33

28.1% 28.8% 30.0%

A15 A6

17.77 17.85

17.17 17.22

0.60 0.63

13.55 13.59

3.62 3.63

16.6% 17.4%

B17

44.3

38.1

6.20

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

16.8% 29 17

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


12

Apparatus:

9/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1749

11155902


0.8-1.4mBH32-18 SS2

23-Jan-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

17

Tare no.

1

14/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

30.5

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A6 A5 A25

20.49 21.30 21.31

19.16 19.73 19.68

1.33 1.57 1.63

13.59 13.31 13.31

5.57 6.42 6.37

23.9% 24.5% 25.6%

A10 A11

16.54 16.49

16.14 16.07

0.40 0.42

13.60 13.35

2.54 2.72

15.7% 15.4%

A16

14.1

12.8

1.30

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

11.3% 25 16

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

11

Tare no.

1

26/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Hand Crank

40

G1754

11155902


3.1-3.7mBH34-18 SS5

31-Jan-18

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %




Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


9

Apparatus:

23.5

24.0

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50



Client: Lab no.:






Glass plate no.:



A12 A17 A11

20.18 20.85 21.22

18.79 19.21 19.49

1.39 1.64 1.73

13.59 13.30 13.27

5.20 5.91 6.22

26.7% 27.7% 27.8%

A14 A18

17.03 16.79

16.49 16.33

0.54 0.46

13.34 13.58

3.15 2.75

17.1% 16.7%

C99

14.9

13.6

1.30

1.30


Plastic Limit (PL)

10.6% 27 17

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:



Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Water content %


10

Apparatus:

22/02/2018

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g

Tare, g

Water content %


Hand Crank

40

G1757

11155902


1.5-2.1mBH36-18 SS3

2-Feb-18

2

Liquid Limit (LL):


Sieve no.:

Water Content:

Mass of soil, g

Mass of water, g


Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

2

Dry soil+tare, g

Mass of water, g


Number of blows

Anwar Rehani

11

Tare no.

1

23/02/2018

Tare, g

Mass of soil, g

Water content %

Tare no.

Wet soil+tare, g


Non-cohesive

Tare, g

Soil Preparation:

Cohesive <425 μm

Cohesive >425 μm

2

26.5

26.7

26.9

27.1

27.3

27.5

27.7

27.9

17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)

Nb Blows

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

PI =

LL-

PL

Liquid Limit LL








CL

CHMH

ML OL

CH

and

andCL ML

LL 50


CLIENT: LAB No.: G1746 to 1754

PROJECT/SITE: PROJECT No.:11155902

Source: Date Sampled: Various

Material: Date Received: Various

Sample Location:

SAMPLEMoisture content Bulk Density(wet) Unit Weight (wet) Bulk Density(dry) Unit Weight (dry)

No.% (kg/m3) (kN/m3) (kg/m3) (kN/m3)

BH18-18 / SS3 10.5 1987.4 19.5 1797.9 17.6

MW28-18 / SS5 10.5 1987.3 19.5 1797.7 17.6

MW30-18 / SS3 13.6 2081.8 20.4 1831.9 18.0

BH21-18 / SS2 13.0 2140.2 21.0 1893.7 18.6

BH29-18 / SS5 14.9 2104.9 20.6 1831.3 18.0

BH29-18 / SS2 14.5 1902.1 18.7 1661.4 16.3

BH32-18 / SS2 15.6 2180.1 21.4 1886.2 18.5

BH22-18 / SS4 14.3 2120.2 20.8 1854.4 18.2

BH36-18 / SS3 11.7 2266.4 22.2 2029.1 19.9

BH31-18 / SS3 12.3 2063.9 20.2 1837.9 18.0

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: Anwar Rehani DATE: 13-Feb-18

VERIFIED BY: DATE: 15-Feb-18

DENSITY OF SOIL

(ASTM # D 2937- 83)

Drilled Boreholes

Silty Clay with Sand



Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

Refer to the Borehole Location Plan

Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D698)

Client : Lab No :

Project/Site : Project No :

Prepared Sample: Dry X Moist -- Assumed Gs:

ASTM D698 Test Method: A X B -- C - Type of Hammer:

Soil Type:Material:Proposed Use:Sample Identification: Max. Dry Density: 1892 kg/m3

Sample Location: Optimum Moisture: 11.4 %Aggregate Supplier / Pit Name: % Retained on 19.0 mm: 0.0 %Sample Date: Corrected Dry Density: 1892 kg/m3

Sampled By: Corrected Opt. Moist.: 11.4 %

Remarks :

Performed by : Date :

Verified by : Date :

N/A

Abdou Diallo

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.

February 2, 2018Sharif

February 20, 2018

February 21, 2018

Infrastructure Ontario (IO)

Courthouse William Halton Parkway, Oakville, ON

S1536

11155902

Manual

2.60

Existing Fill

BH17-18 (Top 2' sample)

N/ABH17-18 (Top 2' sample)

Silty Clay

1750

1770

1790

1810

1830

1850

1870

1890

1910

1930

1950

7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m3 )

Water Content (%)

Zero Air Voids Line

GHD-FO-930.205a (On)-Standard Proctor Total (Rev.2) 04-28-2016


Client : Lab No :







Remarks :



Existing Fill



Silty Clay



S1534

11155902

Manual

2.60

N/A

Abdou Diallo

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.


February 7, 2018

February 9, 2018

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m3 )

Water Content (%)

Zero Air Voids Line



Client : Lab No :







Remarks :



Existing Fill



Silty Clay



S1533

11155902

Manual

2.70

N/A

Seyon Kandasamy

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.


February 5, 2018

February 9, 2018

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m3 )

Water Content (%)

Zero Air Voids Line



Client : Lab No :







Remarks :



N/A

Abdou Diallo

Raj Kadia, C.E.T.


February 9, 2018

February 14, 2018



S1535

11155902

Manual

2.60

Existing Fill



Silty Clay

1500

1520

1540

1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m3 )

Water Content (%)

Zero Air Voids Line


CLIENT: LAB No.: WLA 854-1

PROJECT/ SITE: PROJECT No.: 11155902-A1

Borehole No.:

Depth:

Lithological Description: Queenston Shale

Moisture Content, %

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: DATE:

VERIFIED BY: DATE:

2.22

6.35

14.11

446.87

1151.40

Michael Braverman February 14, 2018

Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens(ASTM D7012 - Method C)

5

35' 6" (10.80 m) Date Sampled: February 4, 2018

151.30

47.78

Moisture Condition


Halton Regional Courthouse, Toronto ON

BH 36-18

S.Segura February 12, 2018

Run #

2.42

Bulk Density, kg/m3

Initial Specimen Parameters

Maximum Applied Load, kN

Compressive Strength, MPa

2576.57

As Received

Diameter, cm

Height, cm

Volume, cm3

Mass, g

Height-to-Diameter Ratio



Borehole No.:

Depth:


Moisture Content, %

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: DATE:

VERIFIED BY: DATE:

February 12, 2018

Run #:

1.89

Bulk Density, kg/m3




2581.78

As Received

Diameter, cm

Height, cm

Volume, cm3

Mass, g




3

27'5" (8.4 m) Date Sampled: January 31, 2018

137.40

43.39

Moisture Condition



BH 22-18

S.Segura

2.23

6.35

14.19

449.42

1160.30



Borehole No.:

Depth:


Moisture Content, %

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: DATE:

VERIFIED BY: DATE:

February 12, 2018

Run #:

1.0

Bulk Density, kg/m3




2572.22

As Received

Diameter, cm

Height, cm

Volume, cm3

Mass, g




3

23'6" (7.2 m) Date Sampled: February 1, 2018

112.93

35.66

Moisture Condition



BH 34-18

S.Segura

2.14

6.35

13.56

429.55

1104.90

BH 34-18 Run 3 23'6"BH 34-18 Run 3 23'6"



Borehole No.:

Depth:


Moisture Content, %

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: DATE:

VERIFIED BY: DATE:

February 12, 2018

Run #:

1.70

Bulk Density, kg/m3




2566.30

As Received

Diameter, cm

Height, cm

Volume, cm3

Mass, g




5

36' (11.0 m) Date Sampled: January 31, 2018

144.37

45.59

Moisture Condition



BH 22-18

S.Segura

2.30

6.35

14.62

462.85

1187.80



Borehole No.:

Depth:


Moisture Content, %

REMARKS:

PERFORMED BY: DATE:

VERIFIED BY: DATE:

February 12, 2018

Run #:

1.88

Bulk Density, kg/m3




2566.91

As Received

Diameter, cm

Height, cm

Volume, cm3

Mass, g




3

27' (8.2 m) Date Sampled: February 4, 2018

195.60

61.76

Moisture Condition



BH 36-18

S.Segura

2.16

6.35

13.70

433.98

1114.00


Appendix C Photographs of Extracted Bedrock

Core Samples

R1 (RUN 1): 4.27 m - 5.33 m R2 (RUN 2): 5.33 m - 6.86 m R3 (RUN 3): 6.86 m - 8.38 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018

Rock Core Photo Log BH22-18

ROCK CORE PHOTO LOG BH22-18Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Halton Region Consolidated Courthouse

(HRCC) William Halton Parkway, Oakville, Ontario

Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui

Checked by:Referen NO.: 11155902

A.Sourour

RUN 3Start

RUN 2Start

R3 (RUN 3): 6.86 m - 8.38 m R4 (RUN 4): 8.38 m - 9.91 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

R5 (RUN 5): 9.91 m - 11.43 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

R1 (RUN 1): 4.27 m - 5.33 m R2 (RUN 2): 5.33 m - 6.86 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

RUN 2Start

R3 (RUN 3): 6.86 m - 8.38 m R4 (RUN 4): 8.38 m - 9.91 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

R1 (RUN 1): 4.88 m - 5.33 m R2 (RUN 2): 5.33 m - 6.86 m R3 (RUN 3): 6.86 m - 8.38 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

RUN 2Start

RUN 3 Start

R4 (RUN 4): 8.38 m - 9.91 m R5 (RUN 5): 9.91 m - 11.13 m

Scale: As Shown

DATE: 22/02/2018




Prepared by:

Omar Badaoui


A.Sourour

RUN 4Start

RUN 5 Start


Appendix D Organic Content and Corrosivity Test Results

CLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED651 COLBY DRIVEWATERLOO, ON N2V1C2 (519) 884-0510

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 7

Feb 21, 2018

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

18T310982AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Sukaina Chandoo

PROJECT: 11155902 (PO# 73510668)

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 7

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

BH-18-18 SS-3BH34-18 BH-31-18 BH-35-18 SS-3 BH-6-18 BH-35-18 SS-5SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-02-012018-02-01 2018-02-01 2018-02-01 2018-02-01 2018-02-01DATE SAMPLED:

9064982Date Prepared Date Analyzed 9064977 9064978 9064979 9064980 9064981G / S RDLUnitParameter

2018-02-16 2018-02-16 <0.05 0.12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Sulfide (S2-) <0.050.05%

2018-02-20 2018-02-20 5 3 5 22 3Chloride (2:1) 322µg/g

2018-02-20 2018-02-20 70 14 32 213 30Sulphate (2:1) 462µg/g

2018-02-16 2018-02-16 8.18 8.29 8.22 8.05 8.39pH (2:1) 8.26NApH Units

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 0.191 0.151 0.161 0.332 0.148Electrical Conductivity (2:1) 0.1720.005mS/cm

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 5240 6620 6210 3010 6760Resistivity (2:1) 58101ohm.cm

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 158 164 160 172 160Redox Potential (2:1) 1665mV

BH-33-18 SS-4 BH-34-18 SS-5 BH-25-18 SS3SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

Soil Soil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-02-012018-02-01 2018-02-01DATE SAMPLED:

Date Prepared Date Analyzed 9064983 9064984 9064985G / S RDLUnitParameter

2018-02-16 2018-02-16 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Sulfide (S2-) 0.05%

2018-02-20 2018-02-20 2 3 <2Chloride (2:1) 2µg/g

2018-02-20 2018-02-20 23 17 11Sulphate (2:1) 2µg/g

2018-02-16 2018-02-16 8.24 8.14 8.05pH (2:1) NApH Units

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 0.131 0.137 0.112Electrical Conductivity (2:1) 0.005mS/cm

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 7630 7300 8930Resistivity (2:1) 1ohm.cm

2018-02-15 2018-02-15 153 155 169Redox Potential (2:1) 5mV

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard

9064977-9064985 EC/Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulphate and Redox Potential were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).*Sulphide analyzed at AGAT 5623 McAdam

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: 2018-02-13

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Sukaina ChandooCLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED

AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T310982

DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-21

PROJECT: 11155902 (PO# 73510668)

Corrosivity Package

SAMPLED BY:SAMPLING SITE:




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 7

BH17-18 BH18-18 BH33-18 BH36-18SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

Soil Soil Soil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-02-012018-02-01 2018-02-01 2018-02-01DATE SAMPLED:

Date Prepared Date Analyzed 9064973 9064974 9064975 9064976G / S RDLUnitParameter

2018-02-20 2018-02-20 6.91 8.81 5.11 6.55Loss on Ignition 0.005%


9064973-9064976 Analysis was performed at 550°C by AGAT 5623 McAdam.




ATTENTION TO: Sukaina ChandooCLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED



PROJECT: 11155902 (PO# 73510668)

Loss on Ignition

SAMPLED BY:SAMPLING SITE:






Corrosivity Package

Sulfide (S2-) 9064977 9064977 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 97% 80% 120%

Chloride (2:1) 9064977 9064977 5 5 NA < 2 96% 80% 120% 100% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Sulphate (2:1) 9064977 9064977 70 69 1.6% < 2 92% 80% 120% 105% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%

pH (2:1) 9064977 9064977 8.18 8.24 0.7% NA 101% 90% 110% NA NA

Electrical Conductivity (2:1)

9064977 9064977 0.191 0.197 3.1% < 0.005 98% 90% 110% NA NA

Redox Potential (2:1) 9064977 9064977 158 153 3.0% < 5 103% 70% 130% NA NA

Loss on Ignition

Loss on Ignition 9064973 9064973 6.91 6.95 0.6% < 0.005 NA

Corrosivity Package

Sulfide (S2-) 9064985 9064985 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 100% 80% 120%

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.Duplicate Qualifier: As the measured result approaches the RL, the uncertainty associated with the value increases dramatically, thus duplicate acceptance limits apply only where the average of the two duplicates is greater than five times the RL.

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED

PROJECT: 11155902 (PO# 73510668)

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Feb 21, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank




QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 4 of 7


Soil Analysis

Sulfide (S2-) MIN-200-12025 ASTM E1915-09 GRAVIMETRIC

Chloride (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Sulphate (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

pH (2:1) INOR 93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER

Electrical Conductivity (2:1) INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER

Resistivity (2:1) INOR-93-6036McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B,SSA #5 Part 3

CALCULATION

Redox Potential (2:1) McKeague 4.12 & SM 2510 B REDOX POTENTIAL ELECTRODE

Loss on Ignition MOE E3139 FURNACE


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Method Summary



PROJECT: 11155902 (PO# 73510668)

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7

CLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED651 COLBY DRIVEWATERLOO, ON N2V1C2 (519) 884-0510




Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5

Mar 01, 2018

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

18T314585AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Jennifer Balkwill

PROJECT: 11155902 (PO#73510668)

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.


Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

BH2-18 SS1 BH26-18 SS1 BH10-18 SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

Soil Soil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-01-252018-01-24 2018-01-29DATE SAMPLED:

Date Prepared Date Analyzed 9087877 9087881 9087882G / S RDLUnitParameter

2018-02-28 2018-02-28 6.17 4.62 9.86Loss on Ignition 0.01%


9087877-9087882 Analysis was performed at 550°C by AGAT 5623 McAdam




ATTENTION TO: Jennifer BalkwillCLIENT NAME: GHD LIMITED



PROJECT: 11155902 (PO#73510668)

Loss on Ignition

SAMPLED BY:Raza BSAMPLING SITE:






Loss on Ignition

Loss on Ignition 9087881 9087881 4.62 4.44 4.0% < 0.01

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Raza B


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance



PROJECT: 11155902 (PO#73510668)

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Mar 01, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank




QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5


Soil Analysis

Loss on Ignition MOE E3139 FURNACE


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Raza B


Method Summary



PROJECT: 11155902 (PO#73510668)

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5

Documents

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - oakville.ca planning/da-132605-geotech.pdf · 4.8.3 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement ... 5. Construction Considerations ... • Unit weight measurements