Woodsmere Phases 4 and 5

Terraprobe Consulting Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering Construction Materials Inspection & Testing

Terraprobe Inc.Greater Toronto Hamilton – Niagara Central Ontario Northern Ontario 11 Indell Lane 903 Barton Street, Unit 22 220 Bayview Drive, Unit 25 1012 Kelly Lake Rd., Unit 1 Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3 Stoney Creek, Ontario L8E Barrie, Ontario L4N 4Y8 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 5P4 (905) 796-2650 Fax: 796-2250 (905) 643-7560 Fax: 643-7559 (705) 739-8355 Fax: 739-8369 (705) 670-0460 Fax: 670-0558

www.terraprobe.ca

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ADDITION - VICTORIA PARK COMMUNITY HOMES

154 BRONTE STREET MILTON, ONTARIO

Prepared for: Victoria Park Community Homes 155 Queen Street North Hamilton, Ontario L8R 2V6

Attention: Ms. Lori-Anne Gagne

File No. 1-17-0214 September 25, 2017

© Terraprobe Inc.

Distribution:

3 Copies - Victoria Park Community Homes 1 Copy - Terraprobe Inc., Brampton

Victoria Park Community Homes September 25, 2017

154 Bronte Street, Milton, ON File No. 1-17-0214

Terraprobe Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

3. FIELD PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 Topsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 Earth Fill/Weathered/Disturbed Soil Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 Native Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.5 Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.1 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.1.1 Foundation Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.2 Slab-on-Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.3 Earth Pressure Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.4 Excavation and Ground Water Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.5 Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.6 Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.7 Pipe Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.8 Earthquake Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6. LIMITATIONS AND RISK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

APPENDIXAbbreviations and TerminologyBorehole Logs Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis Test ReportAtterberg Limit Test ResultsFigure 1 - Site Location PlanFigure 2 - Borehole Location PlanPavement Drainage Alternatives



Terraprobe Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Terraprobe Inc. was retained by Victoria Park Community Homes to conduct a geotechnical investigation

for a proposed addition at the Community Housing Complex located in the southwest quadrant of the

intersection of Bronte Street South and Main Street West, in the Town of Milton, Ontario. The municipal

address of the property is 154 Bronte Street South, Milton.

This report encompasses the result of the geotechnical investigation carried out for the subject site to assess

its geotechnical suitability for the intended development and provide geotechnical design recommendations.

The field investigation consisted of advancing a total of five (5) exploratory boreholes. The geotechnical

investigation was conducted to determine the prevailing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and to

provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the design of building foundations, floor slab, earth

pressure and earthquake design parameters. In addition, comments are also included on pertinent

construction aspects including excavation, backfill and groundwater control.

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located in the southwest quadrant of Bronte Street South and Main Street West, in the

Town of Milton, Ontario. The site is bounded by Bronte Street to the east, Railway track to the west and

apartment buildings to the north and south. The municipal address of the property is 154 Bronte Street

South, Milton. The general location of the property is shown on enclosed Figure 1.

The site is a rectangular parcel of land located west of the Bronte Street South. The property is currently

occupied by an approximately twenty seven (27) unit apartment building and townhomes which provides

affordable housing for families and senior households. The existing two rows of the townhomes run in east-

west orientation and parallel to the access roadway running through the centre of the subject property. The

three storey apartment building is located at rear of the property with two associated at-grade asphalt parking

lots and landscaping areas.

It is proposed to construct a five (5) storey high above ground residential building consists of twenty four

(24) units at north-west portion of the existing townhomes. The first floor would include parking with

utilities, elevator and entrance. The development would be serviced with municipal water and sewer.

3. FIELD PROCEDURE

The field investigation was conducted on May 2, 2017, and consisted of drilling and sampling a total of five

(5) exploratory boreholes each extending to depth of about 6.5 m below existing ground surface located

approximately within the footprint of proposed development.



Terraprobe Page 2

The borehole locations were established in the field by Terraprobe Inc. with respect to existing site features,

based on consultations with the client during the proposal stage. Various utility locate agencies were

contacted to clear the borehole locations of underground public utilities prior to drilling. Terraprobe retained

a private utility locate subcontractor to clear private underground utilities for the work area. The

approximate borehole locations are shown on the enclosed Borehole Location Plan (Figure 2).

The borehole ground surface elevations were surveyed by Terraprobe using a Trimble R10 GNSS System.

The Trimble R10 System uses the Global Navigation Satellite System and the Can-Net reference system to

determine target location and elevation. The Trimble R10 system is reported to have an accuracy of up to

10 mm horizontally and up to 30 mm vertically.

It should be noted that the elevations noted on the Borehole Logs are approximate, and provided only for the

purpose of relating borehole soil stratigraphy, and should not be used or relied on for other purposes.

The borings were drilled by a specialist drilling contractor using a track-mounted drill rig power auger. The

borings were advanced using non-continuous flight solid stem augers, and were sampled at regular interval

(at 0.75 m interval up to 3.0 m and 1.5 m interval below 3.0 m depth) with a conventional 50 mm diameter

split barrel samplers when the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried out (ASTM D1586). The field

work (drilling, sampling and testing) was observed and recorded by a member of our field engineering staff,

who logged the borings and examined the samples as they were obtained.

All samples obtained during the field investigation were sealed into plastic jars and transported to our

laboratory for detailed inspection and testing. Borehole samples were examined (tactile) in detail by a

geotechnical engineer, and classified according to visual and index properties. Laboratory testing consisted

of water content determination on all samples, and a Sieve and Hydrometer analysis on three (3) selected soil

samples (Borehole 1, Sample 4; Borehole 3, Samples 3; Borehole 4, Sample 4) and Atterberg Limits tests

on two (2) selected soil samples (Borehole 1, Sample 4; Borehole 4, Sample 4) . The results of the

geotechnical laboratory testing are plotted on the enclosed Borehole Logs at the respective sampling depths.

The results of laboratory tests (Sieve and Hydrometer analysis and Atterberg Limits Test) are also

summarized in Section 4.4 of this report, and appended.

Ground water levels were observed in the open boreholes upon completion of drilling. Standpipe piezometer

comprising 19 mm diameter PVC tube were installed in two (2) selected boreholes (Boreholes 1 and 3) to

facilitate ground water level monitoring. The piezometers were fitted with a bentonite clay seal as shown

on the accompanying Borehole Logs. Water levels in the piezometers were measured on May 10, 2017



Terraprobe Page 3

(about 1 week following the installation), and are plotted on the enclosed Borehole Logs. The results of

ground water level monitoring are presented in Section 4.5 of this report.

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of the individual boreholes are summarized below and recorded on the accompanying Borehole

Logs. This summary is intended to correlate this data to assist in the interpretation of the subsurface

conditions encountered at the site. Please refer to enclosed Borehole Logs for stratigraphic and other details.

It should be noted that the soil conditions are confirmed at the borehole locations only and may vary between

and beyond the boreholes. The stratigraphic boundaries as shown on the Borehole Logs are based on a

non-continuous sampling. These boundaries represent an inferred transition between the various strata,

rather than a precise plane of geologic change.

In summary, all the boreholes encountered a topsoil layer at the ground surface, underlain by a zone of

weathered/disturbed soils which was in turn underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit extending to the

full depth of investigation (up to about 6.6 m below existing grade).

4.1 Topsoil

A surficial topsoil layer was encountered at all boreholes locations, varying in thickness from about 100 mm

(Boreholes 4) to 200 mm (Boreholes 1). The topsoil was dark brown to black in colour and predominately

consisted of a silt matrix.

4.2 Earth Fill/Weathered/Disturbed Soil Zone

A weathered/disturbed soil zone was encountered beneath the topsoil layer in Boreholes 1, 2, 3 and 5

extended to depths varying from about 0.6 m (Boreholes 3) to 0.8 m (Boreholes 1, 2 and 5) below existing

grade. The composition of the weathered/disturbed soil was similar to that of the underlying undisturbed

native soils but included trace amount of organics.

Earth fill material was encountered beneath the topsoil in Borehole 4 and extended to depth of about 1.5 m

below existing grade. The earth fill materials predominately consisted of clayey silt, with trace amounts of

gravel and organics.

The Standard Penetration Test results (‘N’ Values) obtained from the earth fill/weathered/disturbed materials

generally varied from 6 to 11 blows per 300 mm of penetration, indicating a firm consistency.



Terraprobe Page 4

The measured moisture contents of the earth fill/weathered/disturbed soil samples ranged between 14 to 24

percent by weight, indicating a typically moist to wet condition.

4.3 Native Soil

Undisturbed native glacial till deposit predominantly comprising of clayey silt matrix with some sand to

sandy and trace amounts of gravel was encountered beneath the weathered/disturbed soil zone in Boreholes

1, 2, 3 and 5 and beneath the earthfill materials in Borehole 4 and extended to full depth of investigation in

all boreholes.

The Standard Penetration Test results (‘N’ Values) obtained from the clayey slit deposit varied from about

7 to 65 blows per 300 mm of penetration, indicating a firm to hard consistency (typically hard).

The measured moisture contents of the clayey slit samples ranged from about 7 to 18 percent by weight,

indicating a typically moist to wet condition.

A zone of sandy silt layer (about 400 mm thick) with numerous stone fragment was encountered in Borehole

1 at a depth of about 2.3 m below existing grade.

It should be noted that the glacial till deposits may contain larger sized particles (cobbles and boulders) that

are not specifically identified in the boreholes. Similarly, earthfill materials may also include larger sized

particles. The size and distribution of such obstructions cannot be predicted with borings, because the

borehole sampler size is insufficient to secure representative samples for the particles of this size.

4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

The geotechnical laboratory testing consisted of water content determination on all samples, and a Sieve and

Hydrometer analysis and Atterberg Limits tests on selected soil samples. A summary of the Sieve and

Hydrometer (grain size) analysis results is appended and presented as follows:

Borehole No.Sample No.

SamplingDepth below

Grade

PercentageDescription

(MIT System)Gravel Sand Silt Clay

Borehole 1

Sample 42.5 m 8 27 44 21

CLAYEY SILT, SANDY trace gravel

Borehole 3

Sample 31.8 m 6 23 50 21




Borehole No.Sample No.

SamplingDepth below

Grade

PercentageDescription

(MIT System)Gravel Sand Silt Clay

Terraprobe Page 5

Borehole 4

Sample 42.5 m 7 29 47 17


The results of the Atterberg Limits test were plotted on A-Line Graph (refer to enclosed figure, AtterbergLimits Test Results). A summary of the Atterberg Limits test results is presented as follows:

BoreholeNo. Sample

No.

SamplingDepth below

Grade

LiquidLimit(WL)

PlasticLimit(WP)

PlasticityIndex

(IP)

Natural WaterContent

(WN)Plasticity

Borehole 1

Sample 42.5 m 26 16 9 12

Slightly Plastic

Borehole 4

Sample 42.5 m 25 16 8 11

Slightly Plastic

4.5 Ground Water

Observations pertaining to the depth of water level and caving were made in the open boreholes immediately

after completion of drilling, and are noted on the enclosed Borehole Logs. Standpipe piezometers were

installed in two (2) selected boreholes (Boreholes 1 and 3) to facilitate shallow ground water level

monitoring. The ground water level measurements in the standpipe piezometers were taken on May 10, 2017

and are noted on the enclosed Borehole Logs. A summary of measured ground water level observations is

provided as follows:

BoreholeNo.

Depth ofBoring

Depth toCave

Water Level at the Time of Drilling

Water Level in Piezometerson May 10, 2017

1 6.6 m BG open dry 1.7 m BG

2 6.6 m BG open dry NP

3 6.6 m BG open dry 1.9 m B G



BG = Below Grade

NP = Piezometer not Installed

It should be noted that the ground water levels indicated above may fluctuate seasonally depending on the

amount of precipitation and surface runoff.



Terraprobe Page 6

5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from this investigation

and are intended for use of the owner and the design engineer. Contractors bidding or providing services on

this project should review the factual data and determine their own conclusions regarding construction

methods and scheduling.

This report is provided on the basis of these terms of reference and on the assumption that the design features

relevant to the geotechnical analyses will be in accordance with applicable codes, standards and guidelines

of geotechnical engineering practice. The pertinent sections of Ontario Building Code may require additional

considerations beyond the recommendations provided in this report, and must be followed. If there are any

changes to the site development features, or there is any additional information relevant to the interpretations

made of the subsurface information with respect to the geotechnical analyses or other recommendations, then

Terraprobe should be retained to review the implications of these changes with respect to the contents of this

report.

5.1 Foundations

The proposed development would include construction of a five-storey above ground slab-on-grade

apartment building consists of twenty-four (24) units with parking, elevator and entrance at ground level.

The details of the development are still conceptual and design elevations for proposed addition are not

available. It is understood that the proposed building would be supported on conventional spread footing

foundations.

Boreholes 1 to 5 were advanced within the general footprint of proposed Building. Boreholes 1, 2, 3 and 5

encountered a superficial weathered/disturbed soil zone extending to depths of about 0.6 m (Borehole 3) to

0.8 m (Boreholes 1, 2 and 5) below existing grade, while Borehole 4 encountered a zone of earth fill material

extending to a depth of about 1.5 m below existing grade. The weathered/disturbed soil and earth fill

material were underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit which extended to the full depth of investigation

(up to about 6.6 m below existing grade).

The existing weathered/disturbed soil and earth fill materials are not suitable to support the proposed

building foundation. All foundation must be supported on the underlying undisturbed competent native soil.

A net geotechnical reaction of up to 300 kPa at Serviceability Limit States, (SLS) and a factored geotechnical

resistance 450 kPa at Ultimate Limit States, (ULS) are recommended for the design of the conventional

spread footing foundations (for vertical and concentric loads) supported on the underlying undisturbed native



Terraprobe Page 7

soils of very stiff to hard consistency at a minimum depth of 1.5 m at Boreholes 1, 2, 3 and 5, and 1.8 m

below existing grade at Borehole 4 locations..

The minimum width of the continuous strip footings must be 500 mm and the minimum size of isolated

footings must be 900 mm x 900 mm regardless of loading considerations, in conjunction with the above

recommended geotechnical resistance. The geotechnical resistance(s) as recommended above allow for up

to 25 mm of total settlement. This settlement will occur as load is applied and is linear elastic and non-

recoverable. Differential settlement is a function of spacing, loading and foundation size.

5.1.1 Foundation Installation

It is recommended that all excavated footing bases must be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer

to ensure that the founding soils exposed at the excavation base are consistent with the design bearing

pressure intended by the geotechnical engineer. All exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas

should be provided with a minimum of 1.2 m of earth cover for frost protection or alternative equivalent

insulation.

Prior to pouring foundation concrete, the foundation subgrade should be cleaned of all deleterious materials

such as topsoil, fill, wet, softened, disturbed or caved materials, as well as any standing water. If

construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the

foundation subgrade and concrete must be provided.

It is noted that the native soils tend to weather rapidly and deteriorate on exposure to the atmosphere or

surface water. Hence, foundation bases which remain open for an extended period of time should be

protected by a skim coat of lean concrete.

5.2 Slab-on-Grade

Conventional lightly loaded concrete slab should be placed on at least 150 mm of granular base (OPSS.

MUNI 1010 Granular “A” or 19 mm crusher run limestone; or 19 mm clear stone, OPSS. MUNI 1004)

compacted to a minimum of 98 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) or vibrated to

a dense state in case of a clear stone type material. The granular base should be placed on undisturbed native

soil subgrade, or on clean earth fill subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD. The subgrade

should be assessed by a geotechnical engineer (or its representative) prior to the placement of granular base.

Any soft or wet subgrade areas as well as areas containing excessive amounts of deleterious materials must

be subexcavated, and backfilled with suitably compacted clean earth fill as noted above.



Terraprobe Page 8

Regardless of the approach to slab construction, the floor slabs that are to have bonded floor finish (such as

tiles with adhesives) should be provided with a capillary moisture break and a vapour barrier. The floor

manufacturers have specific requirements for moisture and vapour barrier, therefore, the floor designer/

architect must ensure that a provision of appropriate moisture and vapour barrier conforming to specific floor

finish product requirements is incorporated in the project specifications. Adequate testing must be carried

out to ensure acceptable levels of moisture and relative humidity in the concrete slab prior to the installation

of floor finish. Studies indicate that a provision of 200 mm thick 19 mm clearstone base (OPSS 1004) under

the slab helps provide a good capillary moisture break provided the granular base is positively drained.

However, this provision does not provide protection against moisture vapour migration and/or replace the

floor manufacturers’ specific requirement(s) for a moisture and vapour barrier.

The under-slab vapour retarder specifications, selection and installation shall conform to ASTM E1745 and

ASTM E1643. The moisture vapour measurement tests shall conform to RH: ASTM F2170, RH: ASTM

F2420 and Calcium Chloride: ASTM F1869. The Surface Applied Moisture Vapour Barrier system shall

meet the guidelines established in ASTM F3010-13.

5.3 Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Walls or bracings subject to unbalanced earth pressures must be designed to resist a pressure that can be

calculated based on the following equation:

w w w wP = K [( (h-h ) + (’h + q] + ( h

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

K = the earth pressure coefficient,

wh = the depth below the ground water level (m)

( = the bulk unit weight of soil, (kN/m )3

w ( = the unit weight of water (9.8 kN/m )3

(’ = the submerged unit weight of soil, (( - 9.8 kN/m )3

q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

Where the wall backfill can be drained effectively to eliminate hydrostatic pressures on the wall, this

equation can be simplified to:

P = K[(h + q]



Terraprobe Page 9

This equation assumes that free-draining granular backfill is used and positive drainage is provided to ensure

that there is no hydrostatic pressure acting in conjunction with the earth pressure.

Resistance to sliding of earth retaining structures is developed by friction between the base of the footing

and the soil. This friction (R) depends on the normal load on the soil contact (N) and the frictional

resistance of the soil (tan N) expressed as R = N tan N. This is an ultimate resistance value and does not

contain a factor of safety. The factored geotechnical resistance at ULS is 0.8R.

Passive earth pressure resistance is generally not considered as a resisting force against sliding for

conventional retaining structure design because a structure must deflect significantly to develop the full

passive resistance.

The average values for use in the design of structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures at this site are

tabulated as follow:

Parameter Definition Units

N internal angle of friction degrees

( bulk unit weight of soil kN/m3

aK active earth pressure coefficient (Rankin) dimensionless

oK at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Rankin) dimensionless

pK passive earth pressure coefficient (Rankin) dimensionless

a o pStratum/Parameter N ( K K K

Earth Fill/Weathered/Disturbed

Soils

30 19.5 0.35 0.50 3.00

Clayey Silt Till 32 21.5 0.38 0.47 3.25

Compacted Granular Fill 32 21.0 0.30 0.47 3.25

The values of the earth pressure coefficients noted above are for the horizontal backfill grade behind the

wall. The earth pressure coefficients for inclined grade will vary based on the inclination of the retained

ground surface.



Terraprobe Page 10

5.4 Excavations and Ground Water Control

The borehole data indicate that earth fill materials and undisturbed native till soils would be encountered

in the excavations. Excavations must be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety

Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. These regulations designate four broad classifications of

soils to stipulate appropriate measures for excavation safety.

TYPE 1 SOIL

a. is hard, very dense and only able to be penetrated with difficulty by a small sharp object;

b. has a low natural moisture content and a high degree of internal strength;

c. has no signs of water seepage; and

d. can be excavated only by mechanical equipment.

TYPE 2 SOIL

a. is very stiff, dense and can be penetrated with moderate difficulty by a small sharp object;

b. has a low to medium natural moisture content and a medium degree of internal strength; and

c. has a damp appearance after it is excavated.

TYPE 3 SOIL

a. is stiff to firm and compact to loose in consistency or is previously-excavated soil;

b. exhibits signs of surface cracking;

c. exhibits signs of water seepage;

d. if it is dry, may run easily into a well-defined conical pile; and

e. has a low degree of internal strength

TYPE 4 SOIL

a. is soft to very soft and very loose in consistency, very sensitive and upon disturbance is significantly reduced

in natural strength;

b. runs easily or flows, unless it is completely supported before excavating procedures;

c. has almost no internal strength;

d. is wet or muddy; and

e. exerts substantial fluid pressure on its supporting system.

The weathered/disturbed material and earth fill materials, cohesionless silt, sandy silt and silty sand soils

encountered in the boreholes are classified as Type 3 Soil above and Type 4 Soil below the prevailing

groundwater level. The glacial till soil is classified as Type 2 soil under these regulations.

Where workmen must enter excavations advanced deeper than 1.2 m, the trench walls should be suitably

sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for

Construction Projects. The regulation stipulates steepest slopes of excavation by soil type as follows:



Terraprobe Page 11

Soil Type Base of Slope Steepest Slope Inclination

1 within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

2 within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

3 from bottom of trench 1 horizontal to 1 vertical

4 from bottom of trench 3 horizontal to 1 vertical

Minimum support system requirements for steeper excavations are stipulated in the Occupational Health

and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects, and include provisions for timbering, shoring

and moveable trench boxes.

It should be noted that the native soil deposits may contain larger particles (cobbles and boulders) that are

not specifically identified in the borehole logs. Similarly, earthfill materials may also include larger particles

(rubble, debris etc.) The size and distribution of such obstructions cannot be predicted with borings, because

the borehole sampler size is insufficient to secure representative samples of the particles of this size.

Provision should be made in excavation contracts to allocate risks associated with time spent and equipment

utilized to remove or penetrate such obstructions when encountered.

All boreholes remained open and dry upon completion of drilling. Water levels measured in the piezometers

installed in Boreholes 1 and 3 were about 1.7 m (Borehole 1) and 1.9 m (Borehole 3) depth below grade on

May 10, 2017. The ground water levels may fluctuate seasonally depending upon the amount of

precipitation and surface runoff. The glacial till deposit is expected to have relatively low permeability and

therefore, it is not expected to yield significant water seepage in the short-term.

However, there may be some perched ground water seepage into the excavation. This seepage will likely

emanate from the perched ground water generally present within the earth fill materials or relatively pervious

silt/sand zones typically encountered with the glacial till deposit. This perched ground water seepage should

diminish slowly and can be controlled by continuous pumping from a conventional sump and pump

arrangement at the lowest base of the excavation. The ground water seepage is expected to be minimal,

however, the amount of precipitation and surface runoff water accumulated in the open excavation may

exceed the daily dewatering limit.

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has recently made changes to the requirement

for Permit to Take Water approvals for construction related activities. Under the revised requirements,

specific construction-related water-taking activities are eligible for Environmental Activity and Sector

Registry (EASR). The trigger volume for EASR registration is water taking of more than 50,000 L/day.



Terraprobe Page 12

This includes the ground water that is collected in the open excavation as well as any precipitation or surface

run-off that enters the excavation.

5.5 Backfill

The existing earth fill/weathered/disturbed materials containing excessive amounts of organics should not

be reused as backfill in settlement sensitive areas, such as beneath floor slabs. However, these materials may

be stockpiled and reused for landscaping purposes. The earth fill materials with only trace amounts of

organic inclusion may be utilized as backfill. The selection and sorting of earth fill materials should be

conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer.

A visual inspection of the borehole soil samples retrieved during the sub-surface investigation indicates that

the undisturbed native soils encountered in the boreholes may be used for subgrade preparation and

backfilling purposes.

The moisture content of the backfill soils should be within 3 percent of their optimum moisture content. The

undisturbed native soils and clean earth fill materials are considered suitable for backfilling provided these

soils are within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Any soil material with 3 percent or higher in-situ

moisture content than its optimum moisture content could be put aside to dry, or be tilled to reduce the

moisture content so that it can be effectively compacted. Alternatively, materials of higher moisture content

could be wasted and replaced with imported material which can be readily compacted.

In settlement sensitive areas (beneath the floor slabs), the backfill should consist of clean earth and should

be placed in lifts of 150 mm thicknesses or less, and heavily compacted to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD

at a water content close to optimum. The soils encountered on the site will be best compacted with a heavy

sheepsfoot type roller.

It should be noted that the site soils are generally not free draining, and will be difficult to handle and

compact should they become wetter as a result of inclement weather or seepage. Hence, it can be expected

that earthworks will be difficult during the wet periods (i.e., spring and fall) of the year, and may result in

increased earthwork costs.

5.6 Pavement Design

The proposed works may include construction of asphalt paved parking areas and driveways/access routes.

As noted before, all boreholes encountered surficial topsoil layer at the ground surface underlain by

weathered/disturbed materials extending to depth of about 0.8 m (boreholes 1, 2, 3 and 5) and earthfill



Terraprobe Page 13

materials extending to depth of about 1.5 m (Borehole 4). Therefore, the pavement subgrade for the

proposed development is expected to consist of weathered/disturbed and/or earth fill materials.

The pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy rubber tire vehicle (such as a grader) and any

loose, soft, wet or unstable areas should be sub-excavated, and backfilled with clean earth fill material placed

in 150 mm thick lifts and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD. Local subexcavation in some

areas may be required due to loose/soft, wet and incompetent subgrade conditions or excessive topsoil/

organic presence, as identified during the proof roll.

The existing native and earth fill/weathered/disturbed materials encountered on the site may be utilized for

subgrade preparation provided they do not contain excessive amounts of organics and deleterious materials,

as well as their in-situ moisture content is within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. The selection

and sorting of these soils for reuse should be conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer.

Pavement subgrade fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD, while the upper

zone (within 1.2 m of the design subgrade) should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD.

The industry pavement design methods are based on a design life of 15 to 20 years for typical weather

conditions and for the design traffic loadings. The following pavement thickness design is provided on this

basis (soil subgrade).

Performance Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure

Pavement Layers

Minimum Component ThicknessCompaction

RequirementsPassenger CarParking Lots

Driveway/Fire Route

Surface Course:Asphaltic Concrete HL3 OPSS 1150

40 mm 40 mm

as per OPSS 310

Base Course:Asphaltic Concrete HL8 OPSS 1150

60 mm 80 mm

Base Course:Granular ‘A’ or 19 mm Crusher Run LimestoneOPSS.MUNI 1010 and Pertinent Town Specifications

150 mm 150 mm 100 percent ofStandard ProctorMaximum Dry Density(ASTM D698)Subbase Course:

Granular ‘B’ or 50 mm Crusher Run LimestoneOPSS.MUNI 1010 and Pertinent Town Specifications

300 mm 400 mm

A minimal pavement design is also provided, which will provide an estimated service period of about 8 to

10 years before a complete rehabilitation is required. The cost of the minimal pavement design should be



Terraprobe Page 14

compared to the performance design which could be expected to last about twice as long before significant

maintenance and rehabilitation.

Minimal Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure

Pavement Layers

Minimum Component ThicknessCompaction

RequirementsPassenger CarParking Lots

CommercialDriveway/Fire Route

Surface Course:Asphaltic Concrete HL3 OPSS 1150

65 mm* 40 mm

as per OPSS 310

Base Course:Asphaltic Concrete HL8 OPSS 1150

n/a 60 mm

Base Course:Granular ‘A’ or 19 mm Crusher Run LimestoneOPSS.MUNI 1010 and Pertinent Town Specifications

150 mm 150 mm100 percent ofStandard ProctorMaximum Dry Density(ASTM D698)

Subbase Course: Granular ‘B’ or 50 mm Crusher Run LimestoneOPSS.MUNI 1010 and Pertinent Town Specifications

200 mm 300 mm

* a 40 mm thick HL3 and 50 mm HL8 hot mix asphalt courses may be used if a staged construction is considered for the

pavement areas.

The granular materials should be placed in lifts 150 mm thick or less and compacted to a minimum of 100

percent. Asphalt materials should be rolled and compacted as per OPSS 310. The granular and asphalt

pavement materials and their placement should conform to applicable OPSS 310, 501, 1150 and

OPSS.MUNI 1010 and pertinent City specifications. Asphalt Cement PG 58-28, conforming to OPSS.MUNI

1101 requirements, should be used in both HMA surface and binder courses. Consideration should be given

to use higher grade of asphalt cement (PGAC 64-28) for asphaltic concrete where applicable, particularly

in the areas of intense truck turning and loading docks. Tack coat SS-1 should be applied between hot mix

asphalt binder course and surface course.

Consideration may be given to the use of rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement where there is intense

truck use, and turning of transport vehicles in conjunction with the waste handling, loading docks or delivery

facilities. The following table provides the minimum recommended rigid pavement structure.



Terraprobe Page 15

Minimum Rigid Concrete Pavement Structure

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Heavy Duty Pavement (Transport Trucks)

Portland Cement Concrete:

(CAN3-CSA A23.1) - Class C-2

CAN3-CSA A23.1 200 mm

Base Course:

Granular A or 19 mm Crusher

Run Limestone OPSS.MUNI

1010

100% Standard Proctor

Maximum Dry Density (ASTM-

D698)150 mm

Portland cement concrete should be design, produced and placed in conformation with CAN/CSA A23.1,

OPSS.MUNI 1350 and OPSS 350 requirements and relevant Town’s standards.

It must be noted that this structure does not provide full protection of the subgrade from frost penetration,

therefore, the pavement slabs must be separated from the building structure. Truck loading bays are typically

the lowest points in the pavement grading. It is recommended to provide a subgrade drain at the lowest point

in the bay, usually at the trench drain, to facilitate an exit for subgrade drainage.

Control of surface water is an important factor in achieving a good pavement life. The need for adequate

subgrade drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The subgrade must be free of depressions and sloped

(preferably at a minimum grade of three percent) to provide effective drainage toward subgrade drains.

Grading adjacent to the pavement areas should be designed to ensure that water is not allowed to pond

adjacent to the outside edges of the pavement. Continuous pavement subdrains should be provided along

both sides of the driveway/access routes and parking areas curb lines; and drained into respective catch

basins to facilitate drainage of the subgrade and granular materials. The subdrain invert should be

maintained at least 0.3 m below subgrade level. Subdrains should also be provided at all catch basins within

the parking areas. Two lengths of subdrain (each minimum 3 m long) should be installed at each catch basin

location (refer to attached drawing - Pavement Drainage Alternatives).

For flush entrances, to help prevent slab heave, the outside concrete slab should be supported on a minimum

of 1.2 m thick free draining granular material (Granular “A” or “B” OPSS.MUNI 1010) fill beneath the slab

and provided with a positive outlet for drainage. The granular backfill should be provided with a subdrain

with a positive outlet. Alternatively, a frost slab may be considered in these areas.

The above pavement design thicknesses are considered adequate for the design traffic. However, if the

pavement construction occurs in wet, winter or inclement weather, it may be necessary to provide additional

subgrade support for heavy construction traffic by increasing the thickness of the granular sub-base, base

or both. Further, traffic areas for construction equipment may experience unstable subgrade conditions.

These areas may be stabilized utilizing additional thickness of the granular materials.



Terraprobe Page 16

It should be noted that in addition to the adherence to the above pavement design recommendations, a close

control on the pavement construction process will also be required in order to obtain the designed pavement

life. It is recommended that regular inspection and testing should be conducted during the pavement

construction to confirm material quality, thickness, and to ensure adequate compaction.

5.7 Pipe Bedding

The design details and invert elevations of the underground utilities are not available at the time of

preparation of this report. As noted before, the site stratigraphy predominantly consists of earth fill materials

underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit extending to the full depth of investigation. The undisturbed

native materials and approved compacted earth fill will be suitable for support of buried services on a

conventional well graded granular base material. It is recommended that the utility subgrade be inspected

by a geotechnical engineer or its representative during construction. The utility subgrade may require

stabilization as deemed necessary based on the subgrade assessment, particularly if it consists of earth fill

or wet, loose/soft materials. If the disturbance of the trench base has occurred, such as due to ground water

seepage, or construction traffic, the disturbed soils should be subexcavated and replaced with suitably

compacted granular fill.

Granular bedding material should consist of a well graded, free draining soil, such as OPSS Granular “A”

or 19 mm Crusher Run Limestone or its equivalent as per the pertinent Town/Region specifications. The

bedding materials should be placed in 150 mm thick lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent

SPMDD or vibrated/tempted to a dense state in case of a clear stone bedding.

A clear stone type bedding may be considered if approved by the Town/Region, however, on a silt/sand

subgrade it must be utilized only in conjunction with a suitable geotextile filter (Terrafix 270R or

equivalent). Without proper filtering, there may be entry of fines from the subgrade soils into the bedding.

This loss of ground could result in loss of support to the pipes and possible future settlements.

5.8 Earthquake Design Parameters

Ontario Building Code (2012) stipulates the methodology for earthquake design analysis, as set out in

Subsection 4.1.8.7. The determination of the type of analysis is predicated on the importance of the

structure, the spectral response acceleration and the site classification.

The parameters for determination of Site Classification for Seismic Site Response are set out in Table

4.1.8.4A of the Ontario Building Code (2012). The classification is based on the determination of the



Terraprobe Page 17

saverage shear wave velocity in the top 30 meters of the site stratigraphy, where shear wave velocity (v )

measurements have been taken. Alternatively, the classification is estimated on the basis of rational analysis

uof undrained shear strength (s ) or penetration resistance (N-values).

Shear wavevelocity

Undrainedshear strength

SPT – values

The undisturbed native glacial till deposit below foundation level is expected to consist of typically very stiff

to hard (typically hard) consistency with undrained shear strength of 100 kPa. It is expected that the deeper

stratigraphy in this area is at least as competent as the lower proven stratum. On this basis, the site

designation for seismic analysis is Class C, according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of the Ontario Building Code.

Tables 4.1.8.4.B and 4.1.8.4.C. of the Ontario Building Code provide, the applicable acceleration and

velocity based site coefficients.

aSite Class Values of F (acceleration-based site coefficient)

a a a a aS (0.2) # 0.25 S (0.2) = 0.50 S (0.2) = 0.75 S (0.2) = 1.00 S (0.2)$ 1.25

C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

vSite Class Values of F (velocity-based site coefficient)

a a a a aS (1.0) # 0.1 S (1.0) = 0.2 S (1.0) = 0.3 S (1.0) = 0.4 S (1.0) $ 0.5

C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

It should be noted that the above site seismic designation is estimated on the basis of rational analysis of

the Undrained Shear Strength obtained from the boreholes advanced only to a depth of about 6.5 m

below grade. Consideration could be given to conduct a site specific Multichannel Analysis of Surface

Waves (MASW) to determine the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 metres of the site

stratigraphy. Terraprobe can arrange for this test, and provide results as a separate addendum letter.



Terraprobe Page 18

6. LIMITATIONS AND RISK

It must be recognized that there are special risks whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to

identify subsurface conditions. A comprehensive sampling and testing programme implemented in

accordance with the most stringent level of care may fail to detect certain conditions. Terraprobe has

assumed for the purposes of providing advice, that the conditions that exist between sampling points are

similar to those found at the sample locations. The conditions that Terraprobe has interpreted to exist

between sampling points can differ from those that actually exist.

It must also be recognized that the passage of time, natural occurrences, and direct or indirect human

intervention at or near the site have the potential to alter subsurface conditions.

The discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from the investigation and are

intended for use by the owner and its retained designers in the design phase of the project. Since the project

is still in the design stage, all aspects of the project relative to the subsurface conditions cannot be

anticipated. Terraprobe should review the design drawings and specifications prior to the construction of

this work. If there are changes to the project scope and development features, the interpretations made of

the subsurface information, the geotechnical design parameters and comments relating to constructibility

issues and quality control may not be relevant to the revised project in part or complete. Terraprobe should

be retained to review the implications of these changes with respect to the contents of this report.

The investigation at this site was conceived and executed to provide information for project design. It may

not be possible to drill a sufficient number of boreholes or samples and report them in a way that would

provide all the subsurface information that could have an effect on construction costs, techniques,

equipment, and scheduling. Contractors bidding on or undertaking work on this project should therefore,

in this light, be directed to decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the

factual investigation results. They should be cognizant of the risks implicit in subsurface investigation

activities so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.

This report was prepared for the express use of Victoria Park Community Homes and its retained design

consultants. It is not for use by others. This report is copyright of Terraprobe Inc. and no part of this report

may be reproduced by any means, in any forms, without the prior written permission of Terraprobe Inc. and

Victoria Park Community Homes, who are the authorized users.

It is recognized that the regulatory agencies in their capacities as the planning and building authorities under

Provincial statues, will make use of and rely upon this report, cognizant of the limitations thereof, both

expressed and implied.

APPENDIX

TERRAPROBE INC.

Terraprobe ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Terraprobe Inc.Greater Toronto Hamilton – Niagara Central Ontario Northern Ontario 11 Indell Lane 903 Barton Street, Unit 22 220 Bayview Drive, Unit 25 1012 Kelly Lake Rd., Unit 1 Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3 Stoney Creek, Ontario L8E 5P5 Barrie, Ontario L4N 4Y8 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 5P4 (905) 796-2650 Fax: 796-2250 (905) 643-7560 Fax: 643-7559 (705) 739-8355 Fax: 739-8369 (705) 670-0460 Fax: 670-0558

www.terraprobe.ca

SAMPLING METHODS AS auger sample CORE cored sample DP direct push FV field vane GS grab sample SS split spoon ST shelby tube WS wash sample

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance ('N' values) is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a standard 50 mm (2 in.) diameter split spoon sampler for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.). Dynamic Cone Test (DCT) resistance is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a conical steel point of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter and with 60° sides on 'A' size drill rods for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.)."

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Compactness ‘N’ value

very loose < 4 loose 4 – 10 compact 10 – 30 dense 30 – 50 very dense > 50

COHESIVE SOILS

Consistency ‘N’ value Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

very soft < 2 < 12 soft 2 – 4 12 – 25 firm 4 – 8 25 – 50 stiff 8 – 15 50 – 100 very stiff 15 – 30 100 – 200 hard > 30 > 200

COMPOSITION Term (e.g) % by weight

trace silt < 10 some silt 10 – 20 silty 20 – 35 sand and silt > 35

TESTS AND SYMBOLS

MH mechanical sieve and hydrometer analysis

w, wc water content

wL, LL liquid limit

wP, PL plastic limit

IP, PI plasticity index

k coefficient of permeability

γ soil unit weight, bulk

φ’ internal friction angle

c’ effective cohesion

cu undrained shear strength

Unstabilized water level

1st water level measurement

2nd water level measurement

Most recent water level measurement

Undrained shear strength from field vane (with sensitivity)

Cc compression index

cv coefficient of consolidation

mv coefficient of compressibility

e void ratio

FIELD MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS Damp refers to a soil sample that does not exhibit any observable pore water from field/hand inspection.

Moist refers to a soil sample that exhibits evidence of existing pore water (e.g. sample feels cool, cohesive soil is at plastic limit) but does not have visible pore water

Wet refers to a soil sample that has visible pore water

BOREHOLELOGS

TERRAPROBE INC.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

WATER LEVEL READINGSDate Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

May 10, 2017 1.7 196.8

200mm TOPSOIL

Trace organics(WEATHERED/DISTURBED)

CLAYEY SILT, some sand to sandy,trace gravel, very stiff to hard, reddishbrown, moist(GLACIAL TILL)

SANDY SILT, with numerous stonefragments

.

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open uponcompletion of drilling.

19 mm dia. piezometer installed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 27 44 21

auger grinding

198.30.2

197.70.8

196.22.3

195.82.7

191.96.6

7

16

28

33

42

45

55U

nsta

biliz

edW

ater

Lev

el

198.5

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e

Description Unconfined

Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

198

197

196

195

194

193

192

Pocket Penetrometer Field Vane

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

Dynamic ConeMoisture / Plasticity

10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit

NaturalWater Content

LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lab Vane

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL

Position : E: 590207, N: 4817513 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic

LOG OF BOREHOLE 1Originated by :

Compiled by :

Checked by :

SM

VG

BS

Drilling Method : Solid stem augersRig type : Track-mounted

Project No. : 1-17-0214-01

Date started : May 2, 2017

Sheet No. : 1 of 1

Client : Victoria Park Community Homes

Project : 154 Bronte Street North

Location : Milton, Ontario

file

: 1-

17-0

214

bh lo

gs.g

pj

Penetration Test Values(Blows / 0.3m)

10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

150mm TOPSOIL



...sandy silt

END OF BOREHOLE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

light auger grinding

198.00.2

197.40.8

191.66.6

8

16

30

50

57

33

65U

nsta

biliz

edW

ater

Lev

el

198.2


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

198

197

196

195

194

193

192


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL



Compiled by :

Checked by :

SM

VG

BS


Project No. : 1-17-0214-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




file

: 1-

17-0

214

bh lo

gs.g

pj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

WATER LEVEL READINGSDate Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

May 10, 2017 1.9 197.0

150mm TOPSOIL


CLAYEY SILT, some sand to sandy,trace gravel, firm to hard, reddish brown,moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE


19 mm dia. piezometer installed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6 23 50 21

auger grinding

198.70.2

198.30.6

192.36.6

7

7

26

38

31

27

43U

nsta

biliz

edW

ater

Lev

el

198.9


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

198

197

196

195

194

193


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL



Compiled by :

Checked by :

SM

VG

BS


Project No. : 1-17-0214-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




file

: 1-

17-0

214

bh lo

gs.g

pj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

100mm TOPSOIL

FILL, clayey silt, sandy, trace gravel,trace organics, firm to stiff, brown, moist


...grey below

END OF BOREHOLE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7 30 46 17

sampler wet

197.41.5

192.36.6

6

11

25

38

33

31

50U

nsta

biliz

edW

ater

Lev

el

198.9


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

198

197

196

195

194

193


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL



Compiled by :

Checked by :

SM

VG

BS


Project No. : 1-17-0214-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




file

: 1-

17-0

214

bh lo

gs.g

pj


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

130mm TOPSOIL



...grey below

END OF BOREHOLE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

197.40.8

191.66.6

7

17

29

34

51

31

41U

nsta

biliz

edW

ater

Lev

el

198.2


(MIT)

Gra

phic

Log

Typ

e


Num

ber

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

198

197

196

195

194

193

192


SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES


10 20 30

PL LLMC

PlasticLimit


LiquidLimit

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r(p

pm)

Lab Dataand

Comments

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lab Vane


40 80 120 160

ElevDepth

(m)

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

SAGR SI CL



Compiled by :

Checked by :

SM

VG

BS


Project No. : 1-17-0214-01


Sheet No. : 1 of 1




file

: 1-

17-0

214

bh lo

gs.g

pj


10 20 30 40

SIEVE ANDHYDROMETER

ANALYSIS

TERRAPROBE INC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gravel (%)Depth (m) Elev. (m)

MIT SYSTEM

Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)SampleHole ID

Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS4 2.5 196.0 8 27 44 211

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Title:

1-17-0214-01File No.:11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3(905) 796-2650

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

CLAYEY SILT, SANDY, TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS3 1.8 197.1 6 23 50 213

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS4 2.5 196.4 7 30 46 174

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:




ATTERBERGLIMITS

TEST RESULTS

TERRAPROBE INC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line

Depth (m) Elev. (m)SampleBorehole

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH

Very High Extremely HighHighLow

Upper Plasticity Range

ML

CL - ML

Liquid Limit (LL, %)

SS4 2.5 196.0 16 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC

MLorOL

1

LL (%) PI (%)

10

DescriptionPL (%)

26

Title:


ATTERBERG LIMITS CHART

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line

Depth (m) Elev. (m)SampleBorehole

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH

Very High Extremely HighHighLow

Upper Plasticity Range

ML

CL - ML

Liquid Limit (LL, %)

SS4 2.5 196.4 16 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC

MLorOL

4

LL (%) PI (%)

9

DescriptionPL (%)

25

Title:


ATTERBERG LIMITS CHART

FIGURES

TERRAPROBE INC.

SITE

SITE

REFERENCE

Microsoft Streets & Trips 2011

FIGURE :Terraprobe11 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3

Tel: (905) 796-2650 Fax: (905) 796-2250

Title:

File. No.:

SITE LOCATION PLAN

1-17-0214-01

1

T:\1-P

ro

ject Files\2017\1-17-0214 - 154 B

ro

nte Street, M

ilto

n\01-G

EO

In

vestIg

atio

n\A

. D

wg

s, Lo

gs\A

uto

CA

D\1-17-0214-01 Fig

ure 1 &

2.d

wg

,

Kam

al

BH3

BH2BH1

BH5

BH4

SCALE 1:400

0 10m24

FIGURE :Terraprobe11 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3

Tel: (905) 796-2650 Fax: (905) 796-2250

Title:

File No.

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

1-17-0214-01

2

REFERENCE

Victoria Park Community Homes

Sheet Name: Site Plan

Project No.: 117046

Date: June 2017

By: Chamberlain Architect Services Limited

Approximate Borehole Location

LEGEND

T:\1-P

ro

ject Files\2017\1-17-0214 - 154 B

ro

nte Street, M

ilto

n\01-G

EO

In

vestIg

atio

n\A

. D

wg

s, Lo

gs\A

uto

CA

D\1-17-0214-01 Fig

ure 1 &

2.d

wg

,

Kam

al

PAVEMENTDRAINAGE

ALTERNATIVES

TERRAPROBE INC.

Documents

Woodsmere Phases 4 and 5