dear mr. nazzicone, re: preliminary geotechnical

SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC. GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 83 Citation Drive, Unit 9 Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z6 Tel: (905) 760-5566 Fax: (905) 760-5567 www.shadinc.ca

February 28, 2017 Ref. No.: T17674 Majestic Edge Estates Inc. 250 Lesmill Road Toronto, Ontario M3B 2T5 Attention: Mr. Bruno Nazzicone, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Vice President, Land Development Dear Mr. Nazzicone, RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION &

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING VACANT PROPERTY LAKESHORE ROAD WEST, WEST OF SHOREWOOD PLACE

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO Please find enclosed the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the above mentioned project. Should you have any questions or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to be of service to you. Sincerely, Shad & Associates Inc.

Houshang Shad, Ph.D., P. Eng. Principal

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING VACANT PROPERTY

LAKESHORE ROAD WEST, WEST OF SHOREWOOD PLACE OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Submitted to:

Majestic Edge Estates Inc.

250 Lesmill Road Toronto, Ontario

M3B 2T5

Attention:

Mr. Bruno Nazzicone, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Vice President, Land Development

Submitted by:

Shad & Associates Inc. 83 Citation Drive, Unit 9

Vaughan, Ontario, L1K 2Z6 Canada

Tel: (905) 760-5566 Fax: (905) 760-5567

February 28, 2017

T17674

Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 February 28, 2017

…/… Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 1 3.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 2

3.1 Topsoil and Fill .................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Native Cohesionless Deposits ............................................................................. 2 3.3 Clayey Sandy Silt Till .......................................................................................... 3 3.4 Weathered Shale ................................................................................................ 4 3.5 Groundwater Conditions ..................................................................................... 4

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 5 4.1 Site Grading ........................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 6 4.3 Earthquake Considerations ................................................................................. 7 4.4 Engineered Fill .................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Excavating and Dewatering ................................................................................ 9 4.6 Basement Slab Construction ..............................................................................10 4.7 Backfill, Perimeter Drainage and Basement Floor Drainage ...............................10 4.8 Sewers and Watermain ......................................................................................11

4.8.1 Trenching ...............................................................................................11 4.8.2 Bedding ..................................................................................................12 4.8.3 Backfill ....................................................................................................12

4.9 Sewage Pumping Station ...................................................................................13 4.10 Pavement Thickness ..........................................................................................14

4.10.1 Pavement Structure ................................................................................14 4.10.2 Construction Comments .........................................................................15

4.11 Slope Stability Analysis ......................................................................................16 5.0 CLOSURE .....................................................................................................................18 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Plan Figure 2 Borehole Location Plan Figure 3 Assumed Sections for Slope Stability Analysis Figure 4 Recommended Setback Line for Stable Slope

RECORD OF BOREHOLES RECORD OF BOREHOLES (BH 1 to 15) EXPANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS ENCLOSURES Enclosure A Laboratory Test Results Enclosure B Slope Stability Analysis


…/… Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Shad & Associates Inc., was retained by Majestic Edge Estates Inc. (‘Client’) to carry out a preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential development to be constructed on an existing vacant property located on Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, in Oakville, Ontario, as shown in Figure 1. The development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high valley slope along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analysis is also carried out for the valley slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope. According to the preliminary information provided to us by the client, we understand that the residential development will consist of eighteen detached dwellings with associated underground services and a paved road. However, the exact invert details were not available for our review at the time of preparation of this report. The purpose of the current geotechnical investigation was to obtain some information about the

subsurface conditions at the site by means of a number of boreholes. Based on our interpretation

of the data obtained, some recommendations are provided on the geotechnical aspects of design

for the proposed development.

This report contains the findings of our geotechnical investigation, together with our

recommendations and comments. These recommendations and comments are based on factual

information and are intended only for use by the design engineer.

We recommend on-going liaison with Shad & Associates Inc. during the design and construction

phases of the project to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are applicable

and/or correctly interpreted and implemented. Also, any queries concerning the geotechnical

aspects of the proposed project should be directed to Shad & Associates Inc. for further

elaboration and/or clarification.

2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

The fieldwork for the investigation was performed during the period of February 7 to 9, 2017, and

it consisted of drilling and sampling altogether fifteen boreholes down to depths ranging from

approximately 5.0 m to 12.3 m below the existing ground surface. The borehole locations were

stake-out by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, who also provided with

their ground surface elevations. We understand the elevations to be geodetic. The approximate

borehole locations are shown in Figure 2.

The boreholes were advanced using solid stem continuous flight augers, with a track-mounted drilling rig, under the full-time supervision of geotechnical personnel from our office. Soil samples were taken at 0.76 to 1.5 m intervals for the full depth of the investigation and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed in accordance with ASTM D1586. This consists of freely


…/… Page 2

dropping a 63.5 kg (140 lbs) hammer a vertical distance of 0.76 m (30 inches) to drive a 51 mm (2 inches) diameter o.d. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler into the ground. The number of blows of the hammer required to drive the sampler into the relatively undisturbed ground by a vertical distance of 0.30 m (12 inches) is recorded as the SPT ‘N’-value of the soil and this gives an indication of the consistency or the relative density of the soil deposit.

Upon completion of boreholes, the soil samples were transported to our Soils Laboratory for

further examination and laboratory testing. Soil laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content

determination and gradation analysis (Sieve and Hydrometer tests), was performed on selected

representative soil samples. The results of the in-situ and laboratory tests are presented on the

corresponding Record of Borehole Sheets as well as in Enclosure A.

Samples obtained during this investigation will be stored in our Soils Laboratory for three months and will be disposed thereafter.

3.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations drilled at the property,

below the surficial topsoil and some fill, the site is predominantly underlain by cohesionless fine

sand and/or silty find sand with occasional layers/interbeddings of sandy silt or silt. However,

these deposits were found to be in turn underlain by clayey sandy silt till and weathered shale at

lower elevations at some borehole.

The stratigraphic units and groundwater conditions are briefly discussed in the following sections.

For more detailed information, reference should be made to the Record of Borehole Sheets.

3.1 Topsoil and Fill At the time of our investigation, the property was generally covered with grass and all the

boreholes encountered a surficial layer of topsoil that was underlain by fill predominantly

consisting of silty fine sand with some organic stains, that extended down to depths generally

ranging from approximately 0.7 to 1.5 m below existing ground surface. However, at Borehole 7,

the fill was found to extend deeper, down to a depth of about 2.2 m below existing grade.

It should however be noted that the thickness and quality of topsoil and fill can vary significantly

in between and beyond the borehole locations. Considering this, the extent of fill at the site, the

limited size of an auger hole as well as time of fieldwork, we recommend that allowance be made

for possible variations when making estimates. Alternatively, the depth and quality of topsoil and

fill could be further investigated by test pitting.

3.2 Native Cohesionless Deposits The fill at all borehole locations was underlain by native cohesionless deposits, generally


…/… Page 3

consisting of fine sand with trace to some silt and silty fine sand that extended down to the

completion of Boreholes 1 to 3 and 7 to 11 as well as down to depths ranging from about 4.0 m

to 8.5 m below existing ground surface at the remaining boreholes. However, occasional layers

or interbeddings of silt and sandy silt were also encountered at Boreholes 1 to 3 and 6.

Standard Penetration Tests were performed at the site and the recorded 'N'-values within the fine

sand with trace to some silt were found to range widely from 10 to 57 blows/0.3 m penetration,

indicating a compact to very dense, but generally compact to dense relative density. Samples

from this deposit were also tested for natural moisture content and the results were found to

generally range from 3 to 11 with a higher value of 20% measured in Borehole 4. Considering

these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the recovered soil samples, the fine sand

with trace to some silt was found to be generally damp and occasionally moist.

Representative samples from the fine sand deposit were tested for gradation analysis. The results

are presented on the Record of Boreholes as well as in Enclosure A and they are summarized

below:

BH 2:S3 BH 8:S4 BH 13:S6 BH 15:S3

Gravel: 0% 0% 1% 0%

Sand: 90% 91% 87% 87%

Silt and Clay: 10% 9% 12% 13%

The recorded ‘N’-values within the silty fine sand layers ranged from 20 to more than 50 blows/0.3

m, indicating a compact to very dense, but generally compact to dense relative density. Samples

from this deposit were also tested for moisture content and the results were found to generally

range from 12 to 23%. Based on these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the

recovered soil samples, the silty fine sand deposit was generally moist or moist to wet.

The sandy silt and silt layers or interbeddings encountered at Boreholes 1 to 3 and 6 were

compact to dense and damp to moist with recorded ‘N’-values of 18 to 50 blows/0.3 m and

measured moisture content values of 15 to 19%. A representative sample from the silt with trace

to some sand deposit was analyzed for gradation. The results are shown in Enclosure A and they

are summarized below:

BH 6:S5A

Gravel: 0%

Sand: 11%

Silt: 82%

Clay: 7%

3.3 Clayey Sandy Silt Till Clayey sandy silt till was contacted near the completion of Boreholes 4 to 6 and also at depths


…/… Page 4

ranging from about 6.4 to 8.5 m at Boreholes 12 to 15. The measured ‘N’-values within the glacial

deposit were found to generally range from 27 to more than 30 blows/0.3 m with a lower value of

15 blows/0.3 m measured at Borehole 12 where a silt/clayey silt seam was contacted. Samples

from this deposit were also tested for moisture content and the results were found to range from

10 to 16%. Considering these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the recovered

soil samples, the clayey sandy silt till was generally very stiff to hard and damp.

Representative samples from the clayey sandy silt till deposit were analyzed for gradation. The

results are shown in Enclosure A and they are summarized below:

BH 5:S6 BH 14:S(8)

Gravel: 3% 4%

Sand: 29% 17%

Silt: 44% 58%

Clay: 24% 21%

It should be noted that the occurrence of cobbles and boulders should always be expected when

working in glacial till deposits.

3.4 Weathered Shale

Weathered shale was encountered near the completion of the deeper Boreholes 13, 14 and 15

at a depth of about 10.3 m below existing ground surface. Practical refusal to augering was

reached at depths ranging from 10.5 to 12.3 m below existing ground surface, possibly due to

less-weathered shale or limestone seams/interbeddings.

The recorded ‘N’-values within the weathered shale deposit were all well in excess of 50 blows/0.3

m.

It should however be noted that the condition and the surface elevation of the weathered shale

as described in the borehole logs should be considered as approximate only, as this was inferred

from the observations during drilling rather than proven by rock coring.

3.5 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater conditions were monitored during and upon the completion of drilling as well as by installing standpipe piezometers in eight of the boreholes. The results are summarized in Table 1.


…/… Page 5

Table 1: Measured Groundwater data

Borehole Geodetic Ground Surface Elevation (m)

Measured Groundwater Depth / Elevation (m)

Upon Completion Feb.17, 2017 Feb.24, 2017

BH 1 89.3 4.5 / 84.8 3.3 / 86.0 3.3 / 86.0

BH 2 88.8 3.9 / 84.9 2.7 / 86.1 2.7 / 86.1

BH 3 88.0 4.0 / 84.0 N/A N/A

BH 4 87.1 3.5 / 83.6 N/A N/A

BH 5 86.8 2.9 / 83.9 N/A N/A

BH 6 85.8 2.7 / 83.1 1.6 / 84.2 1.5 / 84.3

BH 7 87.4 3.8 / 83.6 N/A N/A

BH 8 86.7 3.9 / 82.8 N/A N/A

BH 9 86.3 3.7 / 82.6 N/A N/A

BH 10 85.3 3.8 / 81.5 3.1 / 82.2 3.3 / 82.0

BH 11 85.8 4.3 / 81.5 3.3 / 82.5 3.4 / 82.4

BH 12 85.4 4.1 / 81.3 N/A N/A

BH 13 86.0 10.1 / 75.9 5.6 / 80.4 5.7 / 80.3

BH 14 85.4 Dry 5.7 / 79.7 5.8 / 79.6

BH 15 85.0 Dry 5.2 / 79.8 5.4 / 79.6

It should be mentioned that the groundwater at the site would fluctuate seasonally and can be

expected to be somewhat higher during the spring months and in response to major weather

events. Furthermore, a perched water condition may also exist within the fill deposit.

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to the preliminary information provided to us, we understand that eighteen detached dwellings with associated underground services and a paved road will be constructed at the site. We also understand that a sanitary pumping station may be built on the west part of the site (near Borehole 12). However, the exact project details were not available for our review at the time of preparation of this report. For the purpose of our current analysis, we have assumed the houses to consist of two-storey structures with one level of basement. Furthermore, the development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high valley slope located along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analysis were carried out for the valley slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope. Considering the above information and the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, some discussions and recommendations are provided in this section. However, they should be considered as preliminary and will need to be reviewed and confirmed once the exact project details are known.


…/… Page 6

4.1 Site Grading

The development of the site will require clearing and stripping of all topsoil and fill. Since all areas

could be developed as either residential lots or road/driveways, it is recommended that all fill be

placed as engineered fill to provide competent subgrade. Prior to placement of engineered fill, all

the surficial topsoil and fill should be stripped from planned fill areas to expose the inorganic

subgrade. The exposed subgrade should then be proof-rolled with a suitably heavy roller to

identify weak areas. Any weak or excessively wet zones identified during proof-rolling should be

sub-excavated and replaced with compacted competent material to establish stable and uniform

conditions. Prior to placement of engineered fill, the subgrade should be inspected and approved

by a geotechnical engineer. Reference is made to Section 4.4 for recommendations regarding

engineered fill placement.

Provided the above recommendations are followed, and all topsoil and compressible materials

are stripped or sub-excavated, the existing deposits are not considered to be highly compressible

and long-term settlements should be minimal.

4.2 Foundations

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at Boreholes 1 to 12 drilled for the subdivision

elements, the footings would need to be extended down to the competent undisturbed native

deposits or be placed on properly compacted engineered fill. The recommended spread footing

depths and allowable soil bearing pressures are given in the following table.

Table 2: Recommended Soil Bearing Capacity Values

Borehole

Depth Below Existing Grade (m)

Recommended Geotechnical Reaction at SLS * (kPa)

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS (with a Geotechnical Resistance Factor of 0.5), (kPa)*

BH 1 1.7 150 225

BH 2 1.8

2.4

125 150

190 225

BH 3 1.7 150 225

BH 4 0.9 150 225

BH 5 1.1 150 225

BH 6 1.5 150 225

BH 7 2.4

3.2

100 150

150 225

BH 8 1.6 150 225


…/… Page 7

BH 9 1.8 150 225

BH 10 1.5 150 225

BH 11 1.5 150 225

BH 12 1.8 to 4.6 Below 4.6

200 150

300 225

* Higher Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity values are available at some boreholes, if required.

Considering the above information and relatively high groundwater level at the site, we would

recommend to keep the footings as high as possible to minimize the need for any temporary

construction dewatering as well as for subfloor weeping tiles.

The minimum footing sizes, footing thickness, excavations and other footing requirements should

be designed in accordance to the latest edition of the Ontario Building Code.

The footing subgrade should be inspected and evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to

concreting to ensure that the footings are founded on competent subgrade capable of supporting

the recommended design pressure. It should be noted that the sandy deposits are easily disturbed

through construction foot traffic and weathering. We would recommend that once the footing

subgrade has been inspected and approved, it should be protected by a 50 mm thick (minimum)

layer of non-shrinkable concrete.

Design frost penetration depth for the general area is 1.2 m. Therefore, a permanent soil cover

of 1.2 m or its thermal equivalent is required for frost protection of foundations. All exterior footings

and footings beneath unheated areas should have at least 1.2 m of earth cover or equivalent

synthetic insulation for frost protection.

Where necessary, the stepping of the footings at different elevations should be carried out at an

angle no steeper than 2 horizontal (clear horizontal distance between footings) to 1 vertical

(difference in elevation) and no individual footing step should be greater than 0.6 m and may have

to be as low as 0.3 m if weaker soils are encountered.

For footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria, total and differential

settlements should be less than 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively. These values are usually within

tolerable limits for most types of structures.

4.3 Earthquake Considerations

In conformance to the Criteria in Table 4.1.8.4.A, Part 4, Division B of the National Building Code

(NBC 2005), for footings designed as recommended in Section 4.2, the subject site is classified

as Site Class “D-Stiff Soil”. The four values of the Spectral Response Acceleration Sa(T) for the

different periods and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) can be obtained from Table C-2 in


…/… Page 8

Appendix C, Division B of the NBC (2005). The design values of Fa and Fv for the project site

should be calculated in accordance to Table 4.1.8.4.B and C.

4.4 Engineered Fill

Depending on the proposed grades for the site, engineered fill may be required to replace the fill

as well as to raise the site grades for the possible support of footings and floor slabs. Engineered

fill could be placed after stripping all topsoil, any soils containing excessive organics and

otherwise unsuitable soils, within an area extending at least 2.5 m beyond the perimeter of the

footprint of the proposed structures. Engineered fill would then be suitable to support the

foundations including the slab provided that the following criteria are strictly followed. Engineered

fill may also be carried out to raise the existing grades below the proposed road.

The following placement procedure is recommended.

(i) The areal extent of engineered fill should be controlled by proper surveying techniques to

ensure that the top of the engineered fill extends a minimum of 2.5 m beyond the perimeter

of the buildings to be supported. Where the depth of engineered fill exceeds 1.5 m, this

horizontal distance of 2.5 m beyond the perimeter of the building should be increased by

at least 1.0 m for each 1.0 m depth of fill.

(ii) The area to receive the engineered fill should be stripped of any topsoil, fill and other

compressible, weak and deleterious materials. After stripping, the entire area should be

inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer. Spongy, wet or soft/loose spots

should be sub-excavated to stable subgrade and replaced with compactable approved

soil, compatible with subgrade conditions, as directed by the geotechnical engineer.

(iii) The fill material should be placed in thin layers not exceeding approximately 200 mm when

loose. Oversize particles (cobbles and boulders) larger than 120 mm should be discarded,

and each fill layer should be uniformly compacted with heavy compactors, suitable for the

type of fill used, to at least 98% of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

The on-site inorganic soils are generally acceptable for use as engineered fill, provided

they are not contaminated with the overlying organic rich deposits and any organic

inclusions are removed. Depending on the construction season, the on-site soils may

require some reconditioning. It should be noted that the fine sands and specially the silty

deposits are sensitive to moisture and they will require strict control on the moisture

content during compaction.

(iv) Full-time geotechnical inspection and quality control (by means of frequent field density

and laboratory testing) are necessary for the construction of a certifiable engineered fill.

Compaction procedures and efficiency should be controlled by a qualified geotechnical

technician.


…/… Page 9

(v) The engineered fill should not be frozen and should be placed at a moisture content within

2% of the optimum value for compaction. The engineered fill should not be performed

during winter months when freezing ambient temperatures occur persistently or

intermittently.

The allowable soil bearing pressure is 150 kPa for footings supported by at least 1.0 m of

engineered fill constructed in accordance with the above recommendations. We also recommend

that the footing subgrade be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing the formwork.

It is recommended to increase the rigidity of foundations of structures erected over engineered

fill, and this is generally achieved by making the footings at least 0.5 m wide, and adding nominal

reinforcing to the footings and walls. This measure helps to bridge over eventual weak spots in

the fill.

All footings should have at least 1.2 m of earth cover or equivalent artificial insulation for frost

protection.

For footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria, total and differential

settlements should be less than 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively. These values are usually within

tolerable limits.

4.5 Excavating and Dewatering

All temporary excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety

Regulations. The soils to be excavated can be classified as follows:

-Topsoil / Fill Type 4

-Compact to Very Dense Fine Sand, Silty Fine Sand, Sandy Silt

(above groundwater level or when dewatered) Type 3

Accordingly, for Type 3 Soils, a side slope of 1H:1V is required for excavations in accordance with

the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations. Within Type 4 Soils, the side slope of the excavation

would need to be flattened to at least 3H:1V. Below the groundwater level, all excavations within

the non-glacial silty and sandy deposits should only be attempted after proper advance

dewatering.

Stockpiles of excavated materials should be kept at least 5 m away from the edge of the

excavation to avoid slope instability. This distance should be increased to at least 25 m for any

stockpiling along the top of the existing valley slope. Care should also be taken to avoid

overloading of any underground services/structures by stockpiles.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes, within the recommended depth

for footings provided in Table 2, we anticipate all house footing excavations to be above the


…/… Page 10

measured groundwater levels, either in engineered fill or within native deposits. Considering this,

we do not anticipate major dewatering problems for house excavations, although some

dewatering may have to be carried out for excavations due to surface runoff, from any perched

water within the fill layer or groundwater seepage. We are of the opinion that these should be

manageable by pumping from temporary sumps protected against erosion. Such sumps should

be dug outside the footprint of the buildings to minimize disturbance to the footing grade. However,

increased seepage should be expected when excavating in the vicinity of Boreholes 3, 5 and 6

and also if the house footings are extended deeper, where increased number of filtered sump

pumps or more elaborate dewatering measures may be required. We recommend that once the

house footing invert information are known and prior to construction, the groundwater conditions

at the site to be further assessed by test pitting at the presence of the Project Hydrogeologist /

specialist dewatering contractor to review and confirm our recommendations as well as to ensure

that the most suitable dewatering scheme is employed.

4.6 Basement Slab Construction

Concrete basement floor slab may be built on properly prepared subgrade or engineered fill. If

the existing fill is left underneath the basement slab, long-term settlement and/or cracks may

occur. The existing fill materials should be removed and replaced with compacted engineered fill

in order to support the basement floor slab. For engineered fill subgrade, Section 4.4 should be

followed.

Underneath the slabs, a 150 mm thick base course consisting of 20 mm size clear stone or OPSS

Granular A should be placed to improve the support for the floor slab and function as drainage

layer. This base course should be compacted with vibratory equipment to a uniform high density.

If the subgrade is wet, the clear stone or OPSS Granular A base should be separated from the

subgrade by an approved filter fabric (e.g. non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 - 150 μm, Class

II).

4.7 Backfill, Perimeter Drainage and Basement Floor Drainage

The basement walls of the buildings should be backfilled with granular material placed in 125 mm

thick loose lifts that can be compacted with light equipment to avoid damaging the basement

walls. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated along basement walls, especially

when the walls are unsupported at their top. The backfill should not be over-compacted to avoid

damage to basement walls. Due to its high permeability, the granular material will permit quick

drainage of water to perimeter drains, but in order to reduce the quantity of water percolating into

the backfill, the uppermost 0.5 m of the backfill should consist of clayey soils.

Due to their rigidity and unyielding character, basement walls should be designed for the at-rest

earth pressure condition calculated in accordance with the Canadian Foundation Engineering

Manual, 4th Edition. The following parameters may be adopted:


…/… Page 11

Coefficient of lateral earth pressure = 0.45

Bulk unit weight of retained soils = 21 kN/m3

We recommend that for basements, a permanent drainage system consisting of weeping tiles,

damp-proofing and an underfloor granular drainage layer as indicated in Section 4.6 be installed.

Weeping tiles should be installed along the perimeter of the buildings to prevent accumulation of

water in the backfill and possible dampness of floor slabs. The weeping tile system should be

installed to provide a positive discharge to a non-frost susceptible sump or outlet. The weeping

tiles should be surrounded by a designed graded granular filter or wrapped with an approved

geotextile to prevent migration of fines into the system.

In areas where the basements are placed below the groundwater level or within the natural

groundwater fluctuation depth of about 1 m above the permanent groundwater level, a subfloor

drainage system consisting of weeping tiles (at about 3 m spacing) will be required to permanently

depress the groundwater level or the building walls and slabs would need to be designed against

hydrostatic pressures and would need to be watertight. Alternatively, the slab inverts should be

raised to at least 1 m above the permanent groundwater level. We recommend that once the

invert information are known, we should be given the opportunity to review and assess the need

for these measures.

The upper 0.5 m of backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable clayey soil, which will

minimize the ingress of surface water. The site should be graded for drainage away from

foundations. A minimum cross fall of three percent (3%) immediately adjacent to foundations is

recommended to allow for some settlement and promote good surface drainage.

4.8 Sewers and Watermain

Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, assuming the pipes

to be installed within 3 to 4 m of the existing ground surface, the pipes would be predominantly

placed on fine sand with trace to some silt and/or silty fine sand. The following discussion is based

on this assumption.

4.8.1 Trenching

Trench excavations should be carried out as per the Safety Regulations of the Province of Ontario.

The boreholes show that below the surficial topsoil and fill, trench excavations will be

predominantly dug in fine sand with trace to some silt and/or silty fine sand deposits. These are

classified in Section 4.5 in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations. Within

these soils, above the groundwater level the side slopes of excavations are expected to be

temporarily stable at 1H:1V. However, flatter slopes would be required in Type 4 Soils, in surficial

topsoil and fill deposits as well as if the excavations are extended to below the measured

groundwater levels. Properly designed temporary shoring systems may be used to limit the extent

of the excavation, if required.


…/… Page 12

Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, within the assumed

depth for trenching of 3 to 4 m below existing ground surface, increased seepage should be

expected with increased depth. The groundwater seepage for the proposed site servicing down

to a depth of about 2 m or so should generally be minor and manageable by gravity drainage and

pumping from filtered sumps, if required. However, increased seepage may occur from perched

water within the fill or surface water flow, which may require a series of sumps and pumps. Below

this depth, the trenches would generally be dug in moist to wet fine sand with trace to some silt

and/or silty fine sand where substantial amount of seepage could occur and prior temporary

dewatering in the form of well points may be required. We recommend that once the pipe inverts

are known, the groundwater condition at the site to be further assessed by test pitting in the

presence of the Project Hydrogeologist / specialist dewatering contractor to ensure that the most

effective and economical dewatering methodology is chosen. It should also be noted that as the

trenching would be carried out near existing houses to the east and infrastructures, extra attention

(such as dewatering inside closed temporary shoring systems, etc.) is recommended. To prevent

disturbance of the soil at the bedding level, the groundwater table must be lowered to at least 0.8

m below the invert of the trench. In no case should the pipes be placed on dilated or disturbed

subsoil.

Normal excavation equipment will be suitable for making trenches within soils in which the

proposed underground services will be installed. The terms describing the compactness

(compact, dense, very dense) of soil strata give an indication of the effort needed for excavation.

4.8.2 Bedding

The boreholes show that the sewer pipes will be predominantly laid within competent native

deposits which are considered to be suitable to support the pipes provided that they are not

disturbed during excavation or by groundwater seepage. The recommended minimum thickness

of granular bedding for normal Class ‘B’ Type of bedding (i.e., compacted granular bedding

material – OPSD-802) below the invert is 150 mm. The thickness of the bedding may, however,

have to be increased depending on the pipe diameter or if wet or weak subgrade conditions are

encountered.

4.8.3 Backfill

Based on the visual and tactile examination of the soil samples, the on-site excavated inorganic

soils could be re-used as backfill in service trenches. The moisture contents at the time of

construction should be at or near optimum. It should be noted that the silty and sandy deposits

are sensitive to moisture and they would require strict control during backfilling. The backfill should

be placed in maximum 200 mm thick layers at or near (+2%) their optimum moisture content, and

each layer should be compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. This

value should be increased to at least 98% within 0.6 m of the road subgrade surface.


…/… Page 13

The excavated native deposits may require reconditioning (e.g., wetting or drying) prior to reuse.

The on-site excavated deposits should not be used in confined areas (e.g., around catch-basins

and laterals under roadways) where heavy compaction equipment cannot be operated. The use

of good backfill together with an appropriate frost taper would be preferable in confined areas.

Unsuitable materials such as organic soils, boulders, cobbles, frozen soils, etc., should not be

used for backfilling.

We recommend that frost tapers be provided at backfilled trenches to ensure gradual transition from the frost-free materials to the frost susceptible natural soil, otherwise differential frost heaving may occur. Frost taper would not be necessary if the backfill material can be matched within the frost zone (i.e. within about 1.5 m depth below the pavement surface) with subgrade-type material. The need for anti-seepage collar should be assessed during site servicing.

4.9 Sewage Pumping Station According to the preliminary information provided to us, we understand that a sewage pumping station may be constructed near Borehole 12. However, the exact details were not available for our review. According to subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 12, below the surficial topsoil and fill, the excavation for the well should occur within a compact to very dense fine sand with trace to some silt. This deposit was then underlain by very stiff clayey sandy silt till. The groundwater level on borehole completion was measured at 4.1 m below existing ground surface. Considering the above subsurface information, provided that the bottom of the well is within 1.5 to 4.6 m below existing ground surface, the well slab could be designed with a soil bearing capacity at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa. Below this depth, the soil bearing capacity should be reduced to 150 kPa at SLS and 225 kPa at ULS. Underneath the slab, a 200 mm thick base course consisting of OPSS Granular ‘A’ should be placed to improve the support for the well slab. This base course should be compacted with vibratory equipment to 100% of material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density value. If the subgrade is wet, OPSS Granular ‘A’ base should be separated from the subgrade by an approved filter fabric (e.g. non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 - 150 μm, Class II). Assuming these, the total settlements should be less than 25 mm.

The foundation subgrade should be inspected and evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior

to concreting to ensure that the well slab is founded on competent subgrade capable of supporting

the recommended design pressure.

The well structure should be checked for buoyant uplift assuming that it has minimum loading and that the groundwater is at the ground level. To resist uplift forces, the friction between the concrete walls and the granular surround should be assumed as 0.35. If necessary additional resistance could be provided by increasing the dead weight of the structure by projecting the base slab beyond the outside face of the walls and utilizing the weight of the soil above the base slab. Assuming that granular backfill is used, the unit weight of the backfill may be taken as 19.6 kN/m3 (less the buoyancy).


…/… Page 14

The well should be designed for the condition when it is empty and the external water level is at the ground level. The earth pressure diagram should be assumed to be triangular to which hydrostatic pressure should be added. It is assumed that both the slab and the walls of the structure are watertight and designed to resist the full hydrostatic pressure. The lateral earth pressure on the wall should be calculated with the aid of the following formula (assuming granular backfill): P = Ko (Ɣ’ z + q) + Ɣ w z where Ko =0.5, Coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ɣ w=Unit weight of water, use 9.8 kN/m3 Ɣ’=12.2 kN/m3 (below the water table) z=Depth below finished grade (m) q=Surcharge on the ground surface (kPa) Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the Borehole 12, provided that the

excavation is kept to above the measured groundwater level, no major dewatering problems are

anticipated and the discharge should be manageable by pumping from filtered sumps. We would

however recommend that once the well details are known, the groundwater conditions should be

further assessed by test pitting prior to excavation to ensure that the most efficient dewatering

method is chosen. No major excavation difficulties are foreseen but allowance should be made

for boulders and cobbles if the excavation is extended below into the clayey sandy silt till.

4.10 Pavement Thickness

4.10.1 Pavement Structure

The native undisturbed deposits or properly placed engineered fill may be used as subgrade.

Using good engineering and construction practice, the following minimum pavement structure

may be used:

Table 3: Recommended Pavement Thickness

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

COMPACTION LOCAL- RESIDENTIAL

(mm)

HL-3 Asphaltic Concrete HL-8 Asphaltic Concrete

97% Marshall Density

40 50

Granular ‘A’ Base

100% 150

Granular ‘B’ Sub-base 100% 300


…/… Page 15

NOTE: HL-3 and HL-8 asphaltic concrete to conform to OPSS Form 1150 and 310. To ensure the longevity of the pavement, the roadbed should be well drained at all times. We

recommend that full-length perforated sub-drain pipes of 150 mm diameter be installed along both

sides of the road, below the roadbed level, to ensure effective drainage. The sub-drain pipes

should be surrounded by 20 mm size clear stone drainage zone of minimum 150 mm thickness,

which should have non-woven geotextile (non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 – 150 μm, Class

II) wraparound to minimize infiltration of fines in pipes which would reduce their effectiveness.

The granular materials should be compacted as per American Society for Testing and Material’s

Number D698. The placing, spreading and rolling of the asphalt should be in accordance with

Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications Form 310, or equivalent.

Construction traffic over exposed subgrade materials should be minimized, and temporary

construction hauling routes should be established. If these routes coincide with future paved

areas, adequately reinforced haul roads (increased thickness of granular base, use of geo-fabrics,

etc.) should be constructed to reduce disturbance to the subgrade soils. These provisions are

particularly important if the construction is scheduled during wet and cold seasons.

4.10.2 Construction Comments In order to provide a durable pavement structure, the following pavement construction method is

recommended.

The subgrade should be adequately prepared to receive the sub-base course. Any disturbed and

wet subgrade materials should be removed and the top of the subgrade should then be inspected

and approved, by proof-rolling, by qualified geotechnical personnel. Cavities created by the

removal of unsuitable materials should be backfilled with approved, inorganic fill materials similar

to the existing subgrade material. All new fill should be placed in maximum 200 mm loose lifts

within 2% of its optimum moisture content, and each lift compacted with suitable equipment to

minimum 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, before placing the next lift.

The uppermost zones of the roadfill, within 600 mm of the roadbed, should be compacted to

minimum 98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. If construction of the roadfill is carried

out in wet weather, the thickness of the sub-base course should be increased.

Special attention should be paid to proper grading of the subgrade surface. Depressions and

undulations should be eliminated and, to permit quick drainage, the subgrade surface should be

sloped towards ditches, sub-drains and/or catch-basins.

It is recommended that a programme of geotechnical/material inspection and testing be carried

out during the construction phase of the project to confirm that the conditions exposed in the


…/… Page 16

excavations are consistent with those encountered in the boreholes and the design assumptions,

and to confirm that the various project specifications and materials requirements are being met.

4.11 Slope Stability Analysis

According to the topographic survey plan provided to us by the Client (prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors (plan dated December 19, 2016), the proposed development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high valley slope located along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analysis were carried out for the valley slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope. The valley slope was visited by senior staff from our office on November 23, 2017. During this time, the slope was noted to be generally covered with low vegetation and some vertical standing young and occasional mature trees. However, some inclined and uprooted trees were also noted. The valley side slope was noted to be around 1H:1V with occasional steeper slopes. Boreholes 13 to 15 were drilled close to the valley slope. According to these boreholes, below the surficial topsoil and fill (extending down to depths ranging from about 0.9 to 1.1 m below existing grade), the site is underlain by a compact to very dense fine sand with trace to some silt, overlying dense to very dense silty fine sand, down to depths ranging from about 7.1 to 8.5 m below existing ground surface. These non-glacial deposits were then underlain by very stiff to hard clayey sandy silt till that was in turn underlain by weathered shale that extended to the completion of all three boreholes at 10.5 to 12.3 m below existing grade where practical refusal to augering was reached. The groundwater level was monitored during drilling, upon borehole completion as well as by installing standpipe piezometers in all three boreholes and the highest groundwater depth was measured at 5.6 m, 5.7 m and 5.2 m below existing grade at Boreholes 13, 14 and 15, respectively. Considering the above information, the stability of the valley slope was assessed by assuming three representative cross-sections 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3, as shown in Figure 3. The sections were then analysed by assuming conservative soil parameters, as summarized in Table 4, based on the borehole information, the field and laboratory tests performed, our experience with similar site conditions as well as published geotechnical data.


…/… Page 17

Table 4: Assumed Geotechnical Parameters

Soil Type Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Shear Strength Parameters

C’ (kPa)

’ (degree)

Cu (kPa)

u

(degree)

Topsoil 16.0 0 17 25 0

Silty Fine Sand Fill 16.5 0 18 0 17

Compact to Dense Fine Sand, trace to some silt /

Silty Fine Sand

18.5 0 30 0 29

Very Dense Fine Sand, trace to some silt /

Silty Fine Sand

19.0 0 32 0 30

Very Stiff to Hard Clayey Sandy Silt Till

21.5 5 32 90 10

For slope stability analysis, computer program Slope/W 2012 and the Bishop’s Simplified method for the calculation of the factor of safety for slip surface were used. For a slope to be assessed as being stable, a minimum Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.5 is normally required.

The assumed cross-sections were analysed for short-term (undrained) and long-term (drained) conditions. For a conservative analysis, an elevated groundwater level was assumed for short-term undrained analysis. The results are shown in Enclosure B and the results are discussed below: Section 1-1: At this section, located near the east end of the site, the valley slope is about 10 m high and it slopes at about 1H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 13 and the results as shown in Enclosures 1 and 2, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 3 to 7. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 14.6 m behind the assumed existing top of bank. Section 2-2: At this section, located near the centre of the site, the valley slope is about 8 m high and it slopes at about 0.8H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 14 and the results as shown in Enclosures 8 and 9, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 10 to 12. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 12.6 m behind the assumed existing top of bank.


…/… Page 18

Section 3-3: At this section that is located near the west end of the site, the valley slope is about 8.5 m high and it slopes at about 1.1H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 15 and the results as shown in Enclosures 13 and 14, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 15 to 17. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 9.2 m behind the assumed existing top of bank. Considering the above slope stability analysis results, the recommended setback line is presented in Figure 4. It should however be noted that for the Long-Term Stable Top of Bank Line, the recommended toe erosion setback allowance to be provided by the Project Geomorphologist should also be included. Furthermore, an erosion access allowance should also be considered. We recommend the vegetation on the valley slope to be maintained and enhanced on as needed

basis.

5.0 CLOSURE

We recommend that once the development details are finalized, our recommendations should be reviewed for their specific applicability. The attached Report Limitations are an integral part of this report. Sincerely, Shad & Associates Inc.

Stephen Chong, P. Eng. Houshang Shad, Ph. D., P. Eng. Senior Engineer Principal

STATEMENT OF LIMITATION

The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information obtained at

the testhole locations. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the

testholes may differ from those encountered at the testhole locations, and conditions may

become apparent during construction which could not be detected or foreseen at the time of the

site investigation.

The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of the project,

unless stated otherwise.

The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation

differences between the testhole locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as

planning, grading, excavating, etc.

The design recommendations given in this report are project as well as site specific and then

only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. We

recommend, therefore, that we be retained during the final design stage to review the design

drawings and to verify that they are consistent with our recommendations or the assumptions

made in our analysis.

The comments given in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are

intended only for the guidance of the designer. The number of the testholes may not be

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

contractors bidding on this project or undertaking construction should, therefore, make their own

interpretation of the factual information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the

subsurface conditions may affect their work.

We recommend that we be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface

conditions throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered in the testholes.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made

based on it, is the responsibility of such third party. We accept no responsibility for damages, if

any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

FIGURES

RECORD OF BOREHOLES

Record of Boreholes (BH 1 - 15)

Explanation of Borehole Logs

RECORD OF BOREHOLE

Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,

CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.

LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario

ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674

BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger

COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic

DATE: February 9, 2017

CHECKED BY: H.S.

SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION

(%)

GR SA SI CL

1

89.3

89.0

88.0

86.6

85.3

84.3

Ground Surface

Topsoil

brown, occ. rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill

some organic stains, damp

light brownFine Sandsome silt

damp, compact

reddish brownSandy Silt

damp, compact

reddish brownSilty Fine Sand

moist to wet, dense

End of Borehole

Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 4.5m

Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:

February 17, 2017: 3.3mFebruary 24, 2017: 3.3m

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

33

23

33

28

30

30

3

4

22

23

21

39

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION

5 15 25 35

31

18

13

7

9

19

20

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

moist

Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

2

88.8

88.5

87.6

86.7

85.8

83.8

Ground Surface

Topsoil



brownFine Sand

trace to some siltdamp, compact

reddish brownSandy Silttrace clay

damp to moist, compact

reddish brownSilty Fine Sandmoist, compact

End of Borehole




1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

33

30

28

30

35

35

4

9

13

18

29

48

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

34

16

16

9

15

18

20greyish brown

moist to wet, dense


Gradation Analysis,S(3):

0 90 10

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

3

88.0

87.7

86.6

86.2

83.0

Ground Surface

Topsoil

some organic stains

brown, occ. mottled brownSilty Fine Sand Fill

damp

reddish brownSandy Silt

damp, compact

compact

brownSilty Fine Sand

moist, dense

End of Borehole


1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

35

28

30

35

41

28

4

6

24

39

33

35

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

26

14

13

20

20

18

23greyish brown, moist to wet

reddish brown


RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

4

87.1

86.8

86.4

85.0

82.3

82.1

Ground Surface

Topsoil

mottled brownSilty Fine Sand Fill


reddish brownFine Sandsome silt

damp, compact


moist to wet, dense

greyClayey Sandy Silt Till

damp, hard

End of Borehole

Cave-in Depth on Completion: 4.3mGroundwater Depth on Completion: 3.5m

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

28

28

30

35

30

33

5

27

28

36

33

35

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

22

16

10

20

21

18

18

10

moist

moist to wet

Groundsurface frozen at the time offieldwork

moist

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

5

86.8

86.5

85.7

82.8

81.8

Ground Surface

Topsoil

brown, occ rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill


brownSilty Fine Sandmoist, compact


damp, hard

End of Borehole


1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

28

28

35

38

35

25

2

16

26

36

39

36

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

22

14

16

19

19

20

12

dense

reddish brownsome silty seams, moist to wet



3 29 44 20

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

6

85.8

85.5

84.7

83.0

82.5

81.0

80.8

Ground Surface

Topsoil



moist, compact


moist to wet, dense

greyish brownSilt

trace to some sanddamp to moist, dense

reddish brown, occ greysih brown Silty Fine Sand

moist to wet, dense


damp, very dense

End of Borehole




1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

18

18

23

30

25

30

4

9

44

48

50

52

Feb

ruar

y 9,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

28

17

20

20

23

17

18

10

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7


Gradation Analysis,S(5A):

0 11 82 7

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

7

87.487.4

85.2

84.2

82.4

Ground Surface

Topsoil

some gravel

reddish brown

reddish dark brownSilty Fine Sand Fill


brownFine to Medium Sand

trace siltdamp, compact


moist, dense

End of Borehole


1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

23

30

30

35

38

33

6

7

5

13

33

22

Feb

ruar

y 8,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

30

9

15

15

6

15

18

brownish greymoist, compact


RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

8

86.7

86.4

85.2

83.8

81.7

Ground Surface

Topsoil

brownSilty Fine Sand Fill


brownFine Sand

trace siltdamp, compact


some sandy silt seamsmoist, very dense

End of Borehole

Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 3.9m

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

25

30

30

41

35

38

1

3

26

38

64

74

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

20

10

15

9

6

15

23


damp, dense

wet


0 91 9

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

9

86.3

86.0

84.9

83.7

81.3

Ground Surface

Topsoil

rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill

some organic stains, trace rootletsdamp

reddish brownFine to Medium Sand

trace silt damp, compact


moist to wet, dense

End of Borehole


1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

23

25

30

30

38

30

2

3

17

39

40

44

Feb

ruar

y 8,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

29

14

12

7

9

18

17

greyish brown


RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

10

85.3

85.0

83.9

82.7

80.3

Ground Surface

Topsoil

some organic stains, trace topsoil


damp

light brownFine to Medium Sand

trace siltdamp, dense

greyish reddish brownSilty Fine Sand

wet, dense

End of Borehole




1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

25

30

35

30

35

41

1

8

44

40

40

42

Feb

ruar

y 8,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

26

12

14

5

11

22

18

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

moist to wet


moist

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

11

85.8

85.5

85.1

83.4

80.8

Ground Surface

Topsoil

rusty brown to brownSilty Fine Sand Fill

some organic stains, trace topsoildamp

brownFine Sand

damp, compact

damp to moist


moist to wet, dense

End of Borehole




1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

35

30

35

38

41

35

1

18

36

40

44

75

Feb

ruar

y 8,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

26

15

8

5

12

20

13

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

greymoist, very dense

dense


RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

12

85.4

85.0

83.9

82.5

79.0

Ground Surface

Topsoil

rusty brown Silty Sand Fill


rusty brownFine Sand

trace to some siltdamp, compact


some clayey silt seamsdamp, compact


damp, very stiff

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

14

23

28

30

28

30

15

3

7

20

30

20

65

22

Feb

ruar

y 8,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

16

14

15

11

7

18

16

17

14


moist, very dense

compact

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

12

76.6

End of Borehole


8

9

SS

SS

30

41

15

39

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

16

11

silt/clayey silt seamsmoist to wet, stiff to very stiff

damp, hard

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

13

86.0

85.7

84.9

80.5

Ground Surface

Topsoil



compact

brownFine Sandsome silt

damp, dense

greyish reddish brownSilty Fine Sand

moist to wet, dense

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

23

20

23

30

30

38

35

6

10

31

28

31

32

37

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

20

11

10

4

3

5

8

17

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

compact


Gradation Analysis,(S6):

1 87 12

dense

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

13

77.5

75.7

75.5


damp, hard

greyWeathered Shale

End of Borehole

Practical auger refusal at ~10.5m




8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

38

28

5

45

35

Feb

ruar

y 7,

201

7

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

17

11

6

50/3cm

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

14

85.4

85.1

84.5

81.4

78.3

Ground Surface

Topsoil



compact


damp, dense


moist to wet, very dense

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

28

25

28

30

30

30

38

3

16

30

33

57

62

46

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

31

11

8

7

4

4

19

12

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

very dense

Groundsurface frozen at the time offieldwork

greymoist, dense

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

14

75.0

73.1

greyWeathered Shale

End of Borehole


Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: Dry



8

9

10

11

SS

SS

SS

SS

23

20

8

5

32

27

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

15

11

7

650/5cm

50/13cm

Gradation Analysis,(S8):

4 17 58 21


damp, hard

very stiff

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

15

85.0

84.8

83.9

80.3

Ground Surface

Topsoil




damp, dense

reddish greyish brownSilty Fine Sand

moist to wet, very dense

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

25

25

28

35

25

30

35

3

9

38

36

54

33

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

26

12

12

6

3

5

20

17

Feb

ruar

y 17

, 201

7

Feb

ruar

y 24

, 201

7

82/28cm

very dense



0 87 13

dense

RECORD OF BOREHOLE






COMPILED BY: M.Z.

DATUM: Geodetic


CHECKED BY: H.S.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

etre

s)

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

(m

etre

s)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(cm

)

" N

" V

AL

UE

S

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

WATER CONTENT

(%)MONITORING

WELL

REMARKS AND


(%)

GR SA SI CL

15

77.2

74.6

74.3


damp, very stiff

greyWeathered Shale

End of Borehole


Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: Dry



8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

35

30

2

30

29

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



5 15 25 35

17

10

10

50/13cm

EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOG

This form describes some of the information provided on the borehole logs, which is based primarily on examination of the recovered samples, and the results of the field and laboratory tests. It should be noted that materials, boundaries and conditions have been established only at the borehole locations at the time of investigation and are not necessarily representative of subsurface conditions elsewhere across the site. Additional description of the soil/rock encountered is given in the accompanying geotechnical report.

GENERAL INFORMATION Project details, borehole number, location coordinates and type of drilling equipment used are given at the top of the borehole log.

SOIL LITHOLOGY

Elevation and depth This column gives the elevation and depth of inferred geologic layers. The elevation is referred to the datum shown in the Description column.

Lithology Plot This column presents a graphic depiction of the soil and rock stratigraphy encountered within the borehole.

Description This column gives a description of the soil stratums, based on visual and tactile examination of the samples augmented with field and laboratory test results. Each stratum is described according to the following classification and terminology (Ref. Unified Soil Classification System):

The compactness condition of cohesionless soils (SPT) and the consistency of cohesive soils (undrained shear strength) are defined as follows (Ref. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual):

Compactness of Cohesionless Soils

SPT N-Value Consistency of Cohesive Soils

SPT N-Value Undrained Shear Strength

kPa psf

Very loose 0 to 4 Very soft 0 to 2 0 to 12 0 to 250

Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 12 to 25 250 to 500

Compact 10 to 30 Firm 4 to 8 25 to 50 500 to 1000

Dense 30 to 50 Stiff 8 to 15 50 to 100 1000 to 2000

Very Dense > 50 Very stiff 15 to 30 100 to 200 2000 to 4000

Hard > 30 Over 200 Over 4000

Soil Sampling Sample types are abbreviated as follows:

SS Split Spoon TW Thin Wall Open (Pushed) RC Rock Core

AS Auger Sample TP Thin Wall Piston (Pushed) WS Washed Sample

Additional information provided in this section includes sample numbering, sample recovery and numerical testing results.

Field and Laboratory Testing Results of field testing (e.g., SPT, pocket penetrometer, and vane testing) and laboratory testing (e.g., natural moisture content, and limits) executed on the recovered samples are plotted in this section.

Instrumentation Installation Instrumentation installations (monitoring wells, piezometers, inclinometers, etc.) are plotted in this section. Water levels, if measured during fieldwork, are also plotted. These water levels may or may not be representative of the static groundwater level depending on the nature of soil stratum where the piezometer tips are located, the time elapsed from installation to reading and other applicable factors.

Comments This column is used to describe non-standard situations or notes of interest.

*The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System (Technical Memorandum 36

prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S Army. Vol. 1

March 1953.) modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of "medium plasticity" is recognized.

MAJOR DIVISION GROUP SYMBOL

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(M

OR

E T

HA

N H

AL

F B

Y W

EIG

HT

L

AR

GE

R T

HA

N 7

5µ

m)

GR

AV

EL

S M

OR

E T

HA

N

HA

LF

TH

E

CO

AR

SE

F

RA

CT

ION

LA

RG

ER

TH

AN

4

.75

mm

CLEAN

GRAVELS

(TRACE OR NO

FINES)

GW

GP

DIRTYGRAVELS

(WITH SOME OR

MORE FINES)

GM

GC

SA

ND

S M

OR

E T

HA

N H

AL

F

TH

E C

OA

RS

E F

RA

CT

ION

S

MA

LL

ER

TH

AN

4.7

5m

m

CLEAN SANDS

(TRACE OR NO

FINES)

SW

SP

DIRTY SANDS

(WITH SOME OR

MORE FINES)

SM

SC

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S (

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

BY

WE

IGH

T S

MA

LL

ER

T

HA

N 7

5µ

m)

SIL

TS

BE

LO

W “

A”

LIN

E N

EG

LIG

IBL

E

OR

GA

NIC

CO

NT

EN

T

WL < 50% ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT

WL < 50% MH INORGANIC SILTS,

CL

AY

AB

OV

E “

A”

LIN

E

NE

GL

IGIB

LE

O

RG

AN

IC C

ON

TE

NT

WL < 30% CL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN

30% < WL < 50% CI

WL < 50% CH

OR

GA

NIC

S

ILT

S &

CL

AY

S

BE

LO

W “

A”

LIN

E

WL < 50% OL

WL < 50% OH

HIGH ORGANIC SOILS Pt

SOIL COMPONENTS

FRACTION U.S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

DEFINING RANGES OF PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF

MINOR

GR

AV

EL

COARSE

PASSING RETAINED

76 mm 19 mm

FINE 19 mm 4.75 mm

SA

ND

COARSE 4.75 mm 2.00 mm

MEDIUM 2.00 mm 425 µm

FINE 425 µm 75 µm

FINES (SILT OR CLAY BASED ON

PLASTICITY)

75 µm

OVERSIZED MATERIAL

ROUNDED OR SUBROUNDED: COBBLES 76 mm TO 200 mm

BOULDERS > 200 mm ROCKS> 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN

Note 1: Soils are classified and described according to their engineering properties and behavior.Note 2: The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentageCanadian Geotechnical Society, 1992)

MODIFIED * UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System (Technical Memorandum 36-357

prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S Army. Vol. 1

March 1953.) modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of "medium plasticity" is recognized.

TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATOR

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SILT MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 4

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 7

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT

PLASTICITY

CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHARTINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN

CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES CONTENT HAS NOT

BEEN DETERMINED, IT IS

SF IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAYORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE

DEFINING RANGES OF PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF

MINOR COMPONENTS

PERCENT DESCRIPTOR

35-50

20-35

10-20

1-10

AND

Y/EY

SOME

TRACE

NOT ROUNDED:

ROCK FRAGMENTS > 76 mm

ROCKS> 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN

VOLUME

engineering properties and behavior. Note 2: The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentage range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual ( 3

Pla

stic

ity

In

de

x,

l p (%

)

Plasticity Chart for Soil Passing 425 Micron

Liquid Limit, W

CL-ML

CL

CL

OL

ML

WL

WL

=50

=30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

60

50

40

30

20

10

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

C� ��

��

4; C� � D��

D�� x D��

� 1 to 3

NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I. MORE THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I. MORE THAN 7

C� ��

��

6; C� � D��

D�� x D��

� 1 to 3

NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 7

CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHART

(SEE BELOW)

WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES CONTENT HAS NOT

BEEN DETERMINED, IT IS DESIGNATED BY THE LETTER "F", E.G

SF IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY

STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE

range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual ( 3rd

Edition,

Plasticity Chart for Soil Passing 425 Micron Sieve

Liquid Limit, WL (%)

OH

MH

CH

=50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20) Ip=0.73 (WL -

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure A: Laboratory Test Results

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

ha

din

c.c

a

Te

l: 90

5) 7

60

-55

66

Fa

x: (9

05

) 76

0-5

56

7

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

T17674

83

Cita

tion

Driv

e, U

nit 9

Geo

tech

nic

al In

vestig

atio

n

Va

ug

ha

n, O

nta

rioR

em

ark

s:

L4

K 2

Z6

Maje

stic

Ed

ge E

sta

tes In

c.

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA

Date Sampled :

February 9, 2017Sam

ple Location: BH 2-SS3Lab N

o.:S1773/1

Gravel:0 %

Sand:90

%Silt &

Clay :10

%

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

hadin

c.c

a

T17674

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

83 C

itatio

n D

rive, U

nit 9

Vaughan, O

nta

rio

L4K

2Z

6

Ma

jes

tic E

dg

e E

sta

tes

Inc

.

Fax: (9

05) 7

60-5

567

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

Tel: 9

05) 7

60-5

566

Ge

ote

ch

nic

al In

ve

stig

atio

n

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA

Date Sampled : February 9, 2017

Sample Location: BH 5-SS6

Lab No.:

S1774/2Gravel:

3 %Sand:

29 %Silt :

44 %Clay:

24 %

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

hadin

c.c

a

T17674

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

83 C

itatio

n D

rive, U

nit 9

Vaughan, O

nta

rio

L4K

2Z

6

Ma

jes

tic E

dg

e E

sta

tes

Inc

.

Fax: (9

05) 7

60-5

567

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

Tel: 9

05) 7

60-5

566

Ge

ote

ch

nic

al In

ve

stig

atio

n

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA


Sample Location: BH 6-SS5A

Lab No.:

S1775/3Gravel:

0 %Sand:

11 %Silt :

82 %Clay:

7 %

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

ha

din

c.c

a

Te

l: 90

5) 7

60

-55

66

Fa

x: (9

05

) 76

0-5

56

7

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

T17674

83

Cita

tion

Driv

e, U

nit 9

Geo

tech

nic

al In

vestig

atio

n

Va

ug

ha

n, O

nta

rioR

em

ark

s:

L4

K 2

Z6

Maje

stic

Ed

ge E

sta

tes In

c.

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA

Date Sampled :

February 9, 2017Sam

ple Location: BH8-SS4Lab N

o.:S1776/4

Gravel:0 %

Sand:91

%Silt &

Clay :9

%

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

ha

din

c.c

a

Te

l: 90

5) 7

60

-55

66

Fa

x: (9

05

) 76

0-5

56

7

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

T17674

83

Cita

tion

Driv

e, U

nit 9

Geo

tech

nic

al In

vestig

atio

n

Va

ug

ha

n, O

nta

rioR

em

ark

s:

L4

K 2

Z6

Maje

stic

Ed

ge E

sta

tes In

c.

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA

Date Sampled :

February 9, 2017Sam

ple Location: BH13-SS6Lab N

o.:S1777/5

Gravel:1 %

Sand:87

%Silt &

Clay :12

%

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

hadin

c.c

a

T17674

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

83 C

itatio

n D

rive, U

nit 9

Vaughan, O

nta

rio

L4K

2Z

6

Ma

jes

tic E

dg

e E

sta

tes

Inc

.

Fax: (9

05) 7

60-5

567

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

Tel: 9

05) 7

60-5

566

Ge

ote

ch

nic

al In

ve

stig

atio

n

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA


Sample Location: BH 14-SS8

Lab No.:

S1778/6Gravel:

4 %Sand:

17 %Silt :

58 %Clay:

21 %

Pro

ject :

Pro

ject N

o.:

Clie

nt:

ww

w.s

ha

din

c.c

a

Te

l: 90

5) 7

60

-55

66

Fa

x: (9

05

) 76

0-5

56

7

SH

AD

& A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

INC

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E A

NA

LY

SIS

T17673

83

Cita

tion

Driv

e, U

nit 9

Geo

tech

nic

al In

vestig

atio

n

Va

ug

ha

n, O

nta

rioR

em

ark

s:

L4

K 2

Z6

Maje

stic

Ed

ge E

sta

tes In

c.

2 2 m m

3 3 m m

4 4 m m5 5 m m

10 10 m m

20 20 m m

30 30 m m

40 40 m m

270 53 m m

200 75 m m

140 106 m m

100 150 m m

60 250 m m

50 300 m m

30 600 m m

40 425 m m

20 850 m m

16 1.18 mm

10 2.00 mm

8 2.36 mm

4 4.75mm

3/8" 9.5 mm

1/2" 13.2 mm

3/4" 19.0 mm

1" 26.5 mm

1.5" 37.5 mm

2" 53.0 mm

2.5" 63.0 mm

3" 75.0 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COARSE

SAND

GRAVEL

FINEG

rainSize in M

illimeters

CLAY & SILT

FINE

MEDIU

MCO

ARSE

PERCENT PASSING

SIEVED

ESIGN

ATION

(metric)

Grain

Size in Microm

eters

SIEVE DESIG

NATIO

N (Im

perial)

1

SAMPLE DATA

Date Sampled :

February 7, 2017Sam

ple Location: BH 15-SS3Lab N

o.:S1779/7

Gravel:0 %

Sand:87

%Silt &

Clay :13

%

Enclosure B: Slope Stability Analysis

1.089

Cross Section 1-1

Nearest Borehole: BH13

Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)

Enclosure 1

Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle

No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)

(kN/m^3)

1 16.0 0 17

2 16.5 0 18

3 18.5 0 30

4 21.5 5 32

3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt

1-Topsoil

2- Silty Fine Sand Fill

3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt

3- dense, Silty Fine Sand

4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till

Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank


Edge of Water


Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.158

Cross Section 1-1


Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)

Enclosure 2



(kN/m^3)

1 16.0 25 0

2 16.5 0 17

3 18.5 0 29

4 21.5 90 10


1-Topsoil





Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank


Edge of Water


Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.131

Cross Section 1-1



Enclosure 3



(kN/m^3)

1 16.0 0 17

2 16.5 0 18

3 18.5 0 30

4 21.5 5 32

1-Topsoil

2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt



Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

1.5H1V

Edge of Water




Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.309

Cross Section 1-1



Enclosure 4



(kN/m^3)

1 16.0 0 17

2 16.5 0 18

3 18.5 0 30

4 21.5 5 32


1-Topsoil





Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.0H

1V

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.424

Cross Section 1-1



Enclosure 5



(kN/m^3)

1 16.0 0 17

2 16.5 0 18

3 18.5 0 30

4 21.5 5 32


1-Topsoil





Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.25H1V

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.531

Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)

Enclosure 6

Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)

(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 21.5 5 32


1-Topsoil





Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.5H1V

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.503

Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)

Enclosure 7


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 21.5 90 10


1-Topsoil





Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.5H1V

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.042


Enclosure 8

Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil

4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt


Edge of Water


5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till

Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

5- very dense, Silty Fine Sand


Distance

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.293

Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)

Enclosure 9


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10

1- Topsoil



Edge of Water



Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank



Distance

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.336


Enclosure 10

Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil



Edge of Water



Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2H1V



Distance

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.501


Enclosure 11


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil



Edge of Water



Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.25H1V



Distance

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.542


Enclosure 12


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10

1- Topsoil



Edge of Water



Weathered Shale

Assumed Top of Bank

2.25H1V



Distance

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.151


Enclosure 13


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil




Assumed Top of Bank

5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till

Weathered Shale

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.165

Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)

Enclosure 14


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10

1- Topsoil




Assumed Top of Bank


Weathered Shale

Edge of Water



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.343


Enclosure 15


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil




Assumed Top of Bank


Weathered Shale

Edge of Water


2H1V


Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.511


Enclosure 16


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32

1- Topsoil



3- dense , Fine Sand, some silt

Assumed Top of Bank


Weathered Shale

Edge of Water

2.25H1V



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

1.575


Enclosure 17


(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10

1- Topsoil



3- dense , Fine Sand, some silt

Assumed Top of Bank


Weathered Shale

Edge of Water

2.25H1V



Distance

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elevation

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

dear mr. nazzicone, re: preliminary geotechnical

Documents