geo technical investigation volume 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
1/23
Coffey Geotechnics Inc.351 Steelcase Road West, Unit 10, Markham, ON L3R 4H9 Canada
REPORT ON
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONDUFFIN CREEK WPCP OUTFALL
VOLUME 1
FACTUAL DATA
The Regional Municipality of DurhamWorks Department605 Rossland Road East, Level 5PO Box 623Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
GEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
Distribution:
4 copies CH2M HILL, Daniel Olsen, P.Eng.
1 copy Coffey Geotechnics
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
2/23
CONTENTS
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
i
FACTUAL REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 11 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Project Background, Overview 21.2 Description of Site and Regional Geology 21.3 Scope and Method of Investigation 31.3.1 Exploratory Drilling 31.3.2 Laboratory Testing 51.3.3 Geophysical Survey 51.4 Summarized Stratigraphy 51.5 Detailed Description of the Deposits 61.5.1 Overburden 61.5.1.1 Sandy Silt 61.5.1.2 Organic Silt 61.5.1.3 Silt 61.5.1.4 Clayey Silt 71.5.1.5 Silty Clay 71.5.1.6
Sand 7
1.5.1.7 Sand and Silt Till 71.5.1.8 Sand and Gravel 71.5.2 Bedrock (General) 71.5.2.1 Whitby Formation 81.5.2.2 Lindsay Formation 111.6 Environmental and Chemical Soil and Bedrock Quality Testing 151.6.1 Environmental Testing 151.6.2 Chemical Testing 191.7 Statement of Limi tations 19
List of References
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
3/23
CONTENTS
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
ii
Appendices
Appendix A: Drawings (1-12)
Appendix B: Borehole Logs
Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results (Soils)
Appendix D: Tables
Appendix E: Photographs of Rock Cores
Appendix F: Environmental Test Results
Appendix G: Geophysical Report
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
4/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
1
FACTUAL REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
DUFFIN CREEK WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT OUTFALLTHE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Volume1
1 INTRODUCTION
Coffey Geotechnics Inc. (Coffey) was retained by the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York (the
Regions) to carry out a geotechnical investigation and to prepare a geotechnical report for a new potential
Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Outfall. The work was carried out in general agreementwith the Terms of Reference dated February 22, 2010, prepared by the Regions and Coffeys Proposal
P-10.030 dated March 11, 2010. Authorization for the investigation was contained in the Agreement for
Professional Consulting Services dated July 9, 2010 (Agreement Number CA-2010-10).
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to characterize the lake bottom soil and bedrock conditions
at eleven (11) off-shore borehole locations, and to provide geotechnical input for the environmental
assessment (EA) of the potential outfall. Investigation of the land portion of the project (e.g. a potential
shaft) is not included in this report. During the detail design stage it is proposed that a borehole or
boreholes be drilled on land and at the shaft location.
The results of the off-shore investigation are presented in a report consisting of two volumes. In this
volume, Volume 1, the factual information generated by the investigation is presented. In particular,Volume 1 briefly describes the nature of the project, the site and the geology, the scope and method of the
investigation. It then describes the lake bottom conditions and the bedrock formations encountered in the
boreholes. Appended to Volume 1 are the borehole log sheets, and the results of the field and laboratory
tests.
In Volume 2, the factual data is interpreted as relevant to the geotechnical design and construction of the
project.
It is noted that the reported soil and rock conditions are known only at the relatively widely spaced (250 m
to 500 m) borehole locations and that variations in the properties of the deposits can be expected between
the boreholes.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
5/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
2
VOLUME 1
FACTUAL DATA
1.1 Project Background, Overview
The Duffin Creek WPCP is located at 901 McKay Road in the City of Pickering. The WPCP is jointly owned
by the Regions of Durham and York and is operated by Durham. To meet the growing demand, the
Regions plan to increase the present 420 MLD process capacity of the plant to 630 MLD. Since this
expansion of the process capacity exceeds the 560 MLD hydraulic capacity of the existing outfall, the
construction of a new outfall pipe may become necessary. The Schedule C Class Environmental
Assessment (EA), currently being undertaken by CH2M Hill Canada Limited (CH2M), tentatively concluded
that the new outfall should be a 3600 mm I.D. pipe reaching into the lake a maximum distance of 3000 m.
The investigation described in this report is in support of the Class EA.
The potential Duffin Creek WPCP Outfall would be located on the shoreline of Lake Ontario from where the
outfall pipe would extend perpendicularly for a maximum distance of approximately 3000 m into Lake
Ontario. The new outfall alignment would be roughly parallel to the existing outfall and would be about
200 m to 300 m to the east of it.
The purpose of the present investigation is to characterize the geotechnical conditions for the offshore
portion of the outfall between the shoreline and the diffuser to be located a maximum of 3000 m offshore,
where the water depth exceeds 20 m. Presently, two options for construction are being considered: a deep
concrete lined rock tunnel or a concrete pipe placed in a dredged trench at lake bottom.
1.2 Descr ipt ion of Site and Regional GeologyThe project site is located in Lake Ontario on the shore of which the Duffin Creek WPCP is located.
Immediately to the west is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, while to the east is the estuary of the
Duffin Creek. Further along the shoreline, both to the west and to the east are park lands beyond which are
residential subdivisions.
The City of Pickering is located in the physiographical region of the Iroquois Plain along the north shore of
Lake Ontario and is bordered in the north by the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The abandoned
old shoreline of post-glacial Lake Iroquois, formed as the last glaciers withdrew from the region about
10,000 years ago, lies about 10 km inland from the present Lake Ontario shoreline. The wave-washed
Iroquois Plain is characterized by gently rolling, bevelled till plains with flat sand and clay plain areas that
formed as lake bed deposits in Lake Iroquois. Deeply eroded stream valleys of the Rouge River and Duffin
Creek provide the largest relief in the region.
Upper Ordovician sedimentary rocks of the Whitby and Lindsay Formations underlie the region. The Whitby
formation is grey and black shale and the older Lindsay Formation is a grey limestone with thin shale
interbeds.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
6/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
3
Shales of the Whitby Formation are generally medium strong, moderately fissile, and are of medium
durability. They are thinly bedded with two sets of nearly vertical joints[9]
. The rock comprises three
members of which the lowest (oldest) often contains organic gases.
The limestone of the Lindsay Formation is fine grained, fossiliferous, and massively bedded with thin shaley
interbeds throughout. It too contains pockets of gas.
1.3 Scope and Method of Investigation
1.3.1 Exploratory Drilling
The field work was undertaken between July 7 and August 25, 2010, and between July 27 and August 23,
2011 and consisted of extending eleven (11) boreholes to depths ranging between 49 m and 29 m below
lakebed. The drilling was carried out from a drilling platform consisting of a 25 m x 12 m jack-up barge with
hydraulically operated spuds that made it possible to work in waters up to 22 m deep while elevating the
platform out of the water to provide the required static conditions for rock coring. The barge was owned
and operated by McKeil Marine Limited, working under contract to Canadian Soil Drilling Inc. The drilling
work was subcontracted to Canadian Soil Drilling Inc. (CSD). CSD provided a truck mounted, hydraulically
operated drill rig (CME 75) equipped for soil sampling and rock coring. The positioning of the barge and
drill rig over the pre-determined borehole locations was done using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with
an accuracy of 5 m. The approximate borehole locations with their UTM (NAD 83) coordinates are shown
on Drawing 1 in Appendix A, and on the individual borehole logs in Appendix B.
Sampling of the unconsolidated lakebed deposits overlying the bedrock was effected by the standard
penetration test method (ASTM D1586-84) at 0.75 m intervals to 6 m below lake bottom and then at 1.5 m
intervals at greater depths. Through the overburden, the boreholes were advanced by rotary mud drilling
using tri-cone roller drilling bits with tungsten carbide inserts. PWT (127 mm I.D) casing was used to
stabilize the borehole walls within the overburden.
Sampling of the bedrock was by diamond core drilling, using a 1.5 m long HQ3 triple tube wireline core
barrel providing 61 mm diameter rock core samples. HWT (102 mm I.D.) casing was lowered inside the
larger PWT casing and sealed into the bedrock prior to rock coring. The recovered rock cores were visually
examined and described in the field. In addition, the following index properties were noted and recorded:
Total Core Recovery (TCR);
Solid Core Recovery (SCR);
Rock Quality Designation (RQD);
Fractured Index (FI);
Percent of Hard Layers (HL);
The locations and thicknesses of the hard layers were also recorded.
The meaning of these terms is given in the Explanation of Terms Used in the Bedrock Core Log Sheets,
which is enclosed in Appendix B.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
7/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
4
The freshly recovered rock cores were logged, photographed and subjected to Point Load Index Strength
testing. Rock core photographs are presented in Appendix E.
On every 1.5 m length of core, a number of point load index tests were performed to provide an indirectapproximation of the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material.
Within a 9 m thick zone of the rock, within which the tunnel would most likely be located, packer tests were
carried out to estimate the bulk or secondary hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the rock mass
surrounding the borehole. The tests were performed at 3 m intervals by the packer test method, using
double pneumatic seals. A double straddle pneumatic packer arrangement was used at the completion of
the coring of the individual boreholes. The tests were performed at three pressure increments which were in
excess of the external water pressure. In the test, the amount of water injected is measured with a flow
meter during regular time intervals. From these, the hydraulic conductivity (i.e. secondary permeability) of
the rock mass surrounding the test zone was calculated, using the following relationship:
k=[Q/2HL] [ln(L/r)]
where
k - is permeability;
Q - is the rate of water injection;
H - is the pressure head of water in the test section;
L - is the length of the test section;
r - is the radius of the test section.
Details and results of the tests are given in Table D5, Appendix D, which shows the depths below lake
bottom where the packers were set (i.e. test zone), the gauge pressures, and the calculated hydraulic
conductivity values. Hydraulic conductivity values are also shown on the borehole logs and are presented
graphically on the Profile Drawings Nos 6, 9 and 12.
Due to high gas pressures in the rock, packer tests were not performed in Borehole 207, and were
completed only partially in Borehole 301 before abandoning and grouting these boreholes.
After completing the coring and the in-situ tests, each borehole was fully grouted, under the supervision ofan MNR certified Examiner, to the surface of the bedrock using a cement grout. The quantity of the grout
premixed was about 15% more than the theoretical volume of the borehole. The depth to the top of the
grout from the level of the drilling platform was measured to confirm that it is approximately at rock surface.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
8/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
5
The reference datum for establishing water depths and sampling elevations was Lake Ontario Level. Lake
Ontario level was, during the duration of the investigation program, at Elevations 75.0+m, as determined
by the hourly records provided by Canadian Hydrographic Service, who monitor the lake level relative to the
International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD).
1.3.2 Laboratory Testing
The soil and bedrock samples were forwarded to Coffeys Markham laboratory, where samples of the
overburden soils and bedrock were selected for testing. The laboratory testing of the soil samples
consisted of measurement of natural water contents, grain size analyses (sieve and hydrometer analyses)
and Atterberg consistency limit tests. Test results are plotted on the borehole log sheets in Appendix B.
The grain size distribution curves and plasticity charts are presented on Figures C1 to C7 in Appendix C.
Testing of the rock cores, in addition to the point load index tests, consisted of hardness tests, uniaxial
compression (UCS) tests and the determination of Youngs elastic modulus and Poissons ratio. These
tests were performed by the Department of Mining Engineering of Queens University. The laboratory testdata on the rock cores is provided in Appendix C.
1.3.3 Geophysical Survey
Prior to Coffeys engagement on the project, CH2M commissioned ASI Group Limited of St. Catharines,
Ontario, to carry out a marine geophysical survey consisting of bathymetric, side scan sonar and
sub-bottom profiling survey. The results of these surveys were reported to CH2M in November 2009.
Because of the known presence of buried valleys in the bedrock, Coffey retained the ASI Group to perform
seismic profiling of the lake bottom in order to locate the extent and depths of any of these buried rock
valleys. The field work for this seismic survey was undertaken between June 4 and 10, 2010 covering two
proposed outfall alignments, each approximately 3 km in length. The results of this survey were reported toCoffey on July 14, 2010 and were used, in consultation with the members of the team (Durham and York
Regions, CH2M), to modify the original drilling program. A copy of the Geophysical Survey is attached as
Appendix G.
1.4 Summarized Stratigraphy
Both, the geotechnical and the geophysical survey established that throughout almost the entire length of
the proposed outfall alignment the surface of the bedrock is overlain by overburden soil deposits. The
thickness of these, at the borehole locations, range between 0 (BH301 and BH402) and 8.4 m, except at
the locations of the buried rock valleys, where overburden thicknesses of 14 m to 16 m were recorded. The
composition of the overburden soils is highly variable and ranges from very loose or soft organic silts or
clays to very dense glacial tills.
The surface of the bedrock was encountered between Elevations 58.6 m and 40.1 m and its quality was
explored by core drilling to between Elevations 21 m and 16 m, i.e. to a depth of 21 m to 39 m below rock
surface. To this depth, two rock formations were identified: The upper Whitby Shale and the lower and
older Lindsay Limestone Formation. The Upper Ordovician Whitby Formation has been subdivided into
Upper, Middle and Lower (Collingwood) members. The upper and middle members are greenish to
brownish grey fissile shale, while the lower Collingwood member is a dark brownish grey; often highly
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
9/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
6
fossiliferous marl with black shale interbeds and is the most organic rich of the three members. While
pockets of gas can be found in all three members, they are more common in the Collingwood member. The
Lindsay Formation consists of grey; fine grained, fossiliferous limestone with thin shale interbeds It too
contains pockets of gas.
For details of the sub-lake bottom conditions encountered at the borehole locations, reference should be
made to the individual borehole log sheets and bedrock core log sheets presented in Appendix B.
1.5 Detailed Descr ipt ion of the Deposits
1.5.1 Overburden
The thickness of the soils (lake bottom sediments) that overlie the bedrock at the borehole locations ranged
from 0 to as much as 16.4 m. The thickest deposits (14.3 m to 16.4 m) were encountered in the areas of
the two buried valleys outside of which overburden thicknesses were typically varying from 4 m to 8 m. The
composition of these varied widely from fine grained clayey and organic soils to coarse grained sands andgravels and glacial tills. Similar wide variations were found in the consistency and compactness conditions
of the various deposits. Consistencies of very soft to hard and compactness conditions of very loose to
very dense were recorded. Not unexpectedly, the weakest and/or organic soils are found in the buried rock
valleys, where they extend to considerable depths below the lake bottom.
Details of the sub-lake bottom profiles are given on the borehole logs in Appendix B and the laboratory data
on these are presented in Appendix C on Figures C1 to C7. In the following paragraphs, the main
characteristics of the various soil types encountered in the boreholes will be briefly summarized.
1.5.1.1 Sandy Silt
Sandy silt, in very loose (N=0) condition was encountered in Boreholes 202 and 206. Grain size distribution
curves are given on Figure C1 in Appendix C showing 22-30% sand; 61-68% silt; and 8-15% clay size
particles.
1.5.1.2 Organic Silt
A 3.8 m to 4.4 m thick organic silt deposit was found in Boreholes 202 and 206. They are either very soft or
very loose as indicated by SPT N values of 0. A sample tested for particle sizes gave 14% sand; 72% silt
and 14% clay (see Figure C2). Atterberg consistency limit tests performed on the soil fines gave Liquid
Limit of 58% to 67%; Plastic Limit of 57% to 66% and Plasticity Indices of 1%.
1.5.1.3 Silt
Silt of low plasticity in very loose to dense condition was found in Boreholes 202 and 204 respectively. The
following consistency limits were obtained from two Atterberg tests: LL=14-21%; PL=11-18% and PI=3.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
10/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
7
1.5.1.4 Clayey Silt
The predominant soil type in Boreholes 203, 204 and 403 is a very stiff to hard clayey silt (CL-ML) deposit.
SPT N values ranged from 17 to greater than 50 blows for 76 mm penetration. Its consistency limits weremeasured to be LL=16-20%; PL=11-13% and PI=5-7%.
1.5.1.5 Silty Clay
A low plasticity (CL) silty clay deposit was found in Boreholes 202 and 206 in very soft (N=0) or very stiff
(N=29) consistency respectively. Its consistency limit properties were measured to be LL=29%; PL=19%
and PI=10%.
1.5.1.6 Sand
Relatively thin (0.8 to 2.4 m) sand layers were found in Boreholes 202, 203 and 206. The sand was in
compact (N=19) to very dense (N= 51) condition in Boreholes 202 and 203, but very loose (N=3-4) inBoreholes 206. Grain size analyses indicate 1-31% gravel; 49-83% sand; 10-16% silt; and 0-4% clay size
particles in the deposit (Figure C3).
1.5.1.7 Sand and Silt Till
Compact to very dense (N=17-94) glacial till was encountered in Boreholes 203, 204 and 205. The texture
of the till is sandy and silty as confirmed by grain size analyses, which gave 11-15% gravel, 38-52% sand;
26-34% silt and 7-14% clay. Where the percentage of clay is higher, the till has occasionally clayey silt
texture. Grading curves are shown on Figure C4.
1.5.1.8 Sand and Gravel
Present as a 1.0 m to 1.5 m thick layer, sand and gravel was found in Boreholes 205 and 206. Analysis of
a sample showed 34% gravel; 36% sand; 20% silt and 10% clay. Based on the in-situ penetration tests
which gave SPT N values of 10 blows/0.3 m to 79 blows/0.3 m, the deposit is in a compact to very dense
state of compaction.
1.5.2 Bedrock (General)
Bedrock formations of Upper and Middle Ordovician age underlie the Site, and are referred to as the Whitby
and Lindsay Formations. Bedrock surface elevations at the borehole locations range between 58.6 m and
40.1 m. These represent the surface of the Whitby Shale Formation which, at the borehole locations, is
about 7 to greater than 34 m thick. The surface of the underlying Lindsay Limestone Formation was
contacted between Elevations 43.9 m and 25.3 m, with the exception of Boreholes 402 and 403 which wereterminated in the Whitby formation, at Elevations 19.5 m and 19.3 m, respectively. It should be noted that
available geological maps indicate the presence of buried valleys in the bedrock marking probably the
locations of ancient glacial river channels. Two of these were detected and confirmed on the proposed
alignments by the geophysical seismic survey and are shown on Figures 6 and 7 of the Geophysical Report
in Appendix G. The locations of these valleys on land are shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix A.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
11/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
8
Rocks belonging to the Whitby Formation are typically weak to medium strong, brownish grey to black, fine
to very fine grained, brittle and moderately fissile and are thinly bedded. They consist of approximately
70% to 90% shale interbedded with limestone and are frequently bituminous and contain organic gases.[7]
The grey limestone of the Lindsay Formation is typically fine grained, fossiliferous and massively bedded
with thin shale interbeds. Two major joint sets located perpendicularly to each other are known to exist in
this formation. Joint spacing in one of them is close, less than 1 m and is wider, 1 m to 5 m, in the other[9]
.
The Lindsey Formation also contains pockets of gas.
The descriptive terms used on the record of rock cores and throughout the report are explained on the
Explanation of Terms Used in the Bedrock Core Log sheet in Appendix B preceding the log sheets. In
general, the conventions of the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) are adopted herein. The
measured index properties of the two formations are summarized in the sections that follow.
1.5.2.1 Whitby Formation
Total Core Recovery (TCR)
The total core recovery indicates the total length of rock core recovered expressed as a percentage of the
actual length of the core run (usually 1.5 m). The total core recovery was generally good, with values
ranging from 44% to 100%. In the individual boreholes the average TCR values ranged from 93% to 100%.
Solid Core Recovery (SCR)
Solid core recovery is the total length of solid, full diameter, rock core that was recovered and expressed as
a percentage of the length of the core run. Solid core recovery ranged from 0% to 100%, with average
values between 21% and 94%. The low values were recorded near the rock surface due to some
weathering in the surface zone, but almost throughout the full depth of the Formation in Borehole 302.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
The RQD value is obtained by measuring the total length of recovered rock core pieces which are longer
than 100 mm and expressing the sum total as a percentage of the length of the run. On the basis of the
recorded RQD values, which range between 0% and 100%, the rock quality is estimated to be very poor to
excellent. Average values of 8% to 78% recorded in the individual boreholes indicate a rock of very poor to
good quality. Again the lowest values were recorded in Borehole 302. Graphical presentations of the RQD
values are given in Appendix A on Drawings 4, 7 and 10.
The RQD values are a general indicator of the rock mass quality, however, in horizontally laminated, fissile
sedimentary rock formations (such as the Whitby), the reader is cautioned that RQD values are likely
conservatively low since the development of this index was primarily for igneous and metamorphic rocks.
RQD has strong directional bias. In our experience, the RQD index tends to underestimate the rock
quality in shale formations.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
12/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
9
A relationship between rock quality and RQD indices was suggested by Deere (1969) and is given below:
RQD (%) Designation of Rock Quality
0 - 25 Very Poor25 - 50 Poor50 -75 Fair75 - 90 Good90 -100 Excellent
Fracture Index (FI)
Frequency of fractures, or fracture index, is a measure of the frequency of fracturing and bedding plane
separations. It is expressed as the number of fractures per 0.3 m length of rock core run. Breaks which
were obviously induced by the drilling are excluded. A continuous vertical fracture, regardless of its length,
is counted as one fracture.
The recorded values ranged between 0 and over 25. Average values within the boreholes ranged from 1.5
to 5.6 and was 16.3 in Borehole 302. Planes of weaknesses along which the cores tended to break were
planes of bedding, the contact surfaces between shale and hard layers. Occurrence of sub-vertical
fractures was irregular and typically within hard layers. Their surface is usually planar, rough and dipping at
an angle close to 90 to the axis of the core.
Hard Layers
When recovering the core samples, the thickness of the interbedded hard limestone layers were
measured and their aggregate expressed as a percentage of the length of the core run. Hard layers are
defined herein as distinct stronger rock layers or lenses which have unconfined compressive strengthswhich exceed that of the bulk of the rock mass. This, however, is a subjective index based on visual
examination and relatively crude index strength tests. The measured thicknesses of individual hard layers
ranged from less than 25 mm to approximately 125 mm. Percentage of hard layers ranged from 0% to
100%, averaging at 0% to 21%. The observed percentage values are shown on the individual borehole log
sheets in Appendix B.
Weathering
In general, weathering of the Whitby Formation was estimated as slight to fresh, but generally fresh with
occasional weathering on discontinuity surfaces. A few layers of moderately weathered rock core were
recovered near the rock surface; thicknesses and occurrence of these zones were limited.
Point Load Index Strength
Indirect approximations of the compressive strength of the Whitby Formation were obtained by performing
point load tests on selected core samples. Tests were performed both in axial and diametric directions and
included tests on the weaker shale and the stronger calcareous siltstone and limestone layers. It was
observed that testing of shale samples in diametric direction typically resulted in irregular breaks along sub
horizontal planes due to the fissile nature of shale as would be expected. For more representative UCS
values, reference should be made to the laboratory uniaxial compressive tests, Table D4, Appendix D.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
13/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
10
Inferred unconfined compressive strength values were calculated as UCS=Is50 x 24 where Is50 represents
Point Load Index. Point load index strength tests performed on the weaker shale layers in the axial
direction gave inferred unconfined compressive strength values between 5 MPa and 88 MPa, with an
average at around 28 MPa. In the diametric direction, the inferred UCS values ranged between 1 MPa and
50 MPa, and an average value of 13 MPa was obtained for the shale samples. Testing of the stronger
limestone and calcareous siltstone layers produced higher UCS values. Inferred UCS values in axial
direction ranged from 70 MPa to 126 MPa, with average at around 106 MPa. Inferred UCS values in the
diametric direction ranged between 38 MPa and 94 MPa, averaging at around 63 MPa.
Test results are presented in the individual borehole log sheets and on Table 2, Appendix C.
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Test results of the unconfined compressive strength of rock cores measured in the laboratory of Queens
University on thirteen (13) samples are presented in Table D4, Appendix D, and are also shown on the rock
core log sheets in Appendix B.
UCS test results of the thirteen (13) samples ranged from 7.4 MPa to 56.0 MPa with average at 28.3 MPa.
Based on these results, the shale is classified as a weak to strong, but generally medium strong rock
according to ISRM convention.
Density
The density of intact rock was measured on thirteen (13) samples and ranged from 2,490 kg/m3
to
2,710 kg/m3
with an average value of 2,600 kg/m3. (See Table D4, Appendix D)
Youngs Modulus (E)
The elastic or Youngs Modulus of the intact rock material was measured when performing the uniaxial
compression tests. Measured modulus values ranged between 0.6 GPa and 12.5 GPa, with an average
value of 5.4 GPa. Test results are presented in Table D4, Appendix D.
Poissons Ratio ()
The ratio of lateral to longitudinal strain in the elastic range of the intact rock was determined during the
uniaxial compression tests. Poissons ratio values ranged from 0.12 to 0.35, as shown in Table D4,
Appendix D.
Hardness
The hardness of the rock was determined using the Mohs Hardness Test method. Samples of both the
shale and hard limestone layers were tested by the Department of Mining and Geology, Queens
University, to obtain relative hardness parameters based on the Mohs Hardness Scale which is as follows:
Diamond 10Corundum 9Topaz 8Quartz 7
Apatite 5Fluorite 4
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
14/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
11
Calcite 3Gypsum 2Talc 1
The scale is not of equal value as the difference in hardness between 9 and 10 is much greater than
between 1 and 2. According to the test results, hardness ranged from 1.5 to 5. Test results are presented
in Table D4, Appendix D.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Packer pressure tests, to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass, were performed in the
Whitby Formation in Boreholes 205, 206, 206A, 302, 402 and 403. Tests in the Whitby Formation could not
be performed in Boreholes 207 and 301 due to the presence of gas under high pressure and duration. Test
results, given on the individual borehole logs, are summarized in Table D5 in Appendix D and are also
presented graphically on Drawings 6, 9 and 12 in Appendix A.
The highest hydraulic conductivity value inferred from the tests was 4 x 10-3
cm/s recorded about 3 m
above the tunnelling zone in Borehole 206. Elsewhere, measured values ranged from 10-4
cm/s to 10-6
cm/s or were less than 10-6
cm/s as indicated by no water takes during the pressure packer tests.
In-situ Stresses
In-situ stress measurements were not performed as part of this investigation. In-situ stress measurements,
however, were made in the Whitby Formation in connection with the design and construction of the
Darlington Power Generating Station located about 22 km to the east[9]
. The values there obtained are
believed to be applicable to this site as well. These measurements gave major principal stress values of
9 MPa to 11 MPa and minor principal stress values of 4 MPa to 6 MPa.
GasThe Whitby Formation is known to contain pockets of combustible gas.
[7]
During the present investigation the presence of gas was observed on a number of occasions. The
locations where gas was observed, along with the associated gas monitor readings, are given in Table D7
in Appendix D.
1.5.2.2 Lindsay Formation
Total Core Recovery (TCR)
The total core recovery indicates the total length of rock core recovered expressed as a percentage of the
actual length of the core run (usually 1.5 m). The total core recovery in the Lindsay Formation wasgenerally excellent, with values ranging from 94% to 100%. In the individual boreholes, the average values
were 99% to 100%.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
15/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
12
Solid Core Recovery (SCR)
Solid core recovery is the total length of solid, full diameter rock core that was recovered and expressed as
a percentage of the length of the core run. Solid core recovery ranged from 88% to 100%, with averagevalues between 96% and 100%. Exception to this was only Borehole 302, where lower values of 27% to
83% and average 64% were recorded.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
The RQD value is obtained by measuring the total length of recovered rock core pieces which are longer
than 100 mm and expressing the sum total as a percentage of the length of the run. On the basis of the
recorded RQD values, which range between 58% and 100%, the rock quality is estimated to be fair to
excellent. Average values of 84% to 100% recorded in the individual boreholes indicate a rock of good to
excellent quality. Lower (7% to 47%) values were recorded in Borehole 302, where an average RQD value
of 25% indicate very poor to poor quality rock. RQD values are given on the individual borehole logs and
also graphically on the Profile Drawings Nos 4, 7 and 10 in Appendix A.
A relationship between rock quality and RQD indices was suggested by Deere (1969) and is given below:
RQD (%) Designation of Rock Quality
0 25 Very Poor25 50 Poor50 -75 Fair75 90 Good90 -100 Excellent
Fracture Index (FI)Frequency of fractures, or fracture index, is a measure of the frequency of fracturing and bedding plane
separations. It is expressed as the number of fractures per 0.3 m length of rock core run. Breaks which
were obviously induced by the drilling are excluded. A continuous vertical fracture, regardless of its length,
is counted as one fracture.
The recorded FI values ranged between 0 and 6 and average values within the boreholes were generally
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
16/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
13
Point Load Index Strength
Indirect approximations of the compressive strength of the Lindsay Formation were obtained by performing
point load tests on selected core samples. Tests were performed both in axial and diametric directions onthe limestone layers. Inferred unconfined compressive strength values were calculated as UCS=Is50 x 24
where Is50 represents Point Load Index. Inferred unconfined compressive strength values range between 8
MPa and 255 MPa, with an overall average value of 131 MPa. In contrast with the Whitby shale Formation
there was noticeably less difference between the tests results performed in the axial or diametral direction.
Average inferred UCS values measured in the axial direction ranged from 64 MPa to 116 MPa and between
54 MPa and 86 MPa when the test was performed in the diametral direction. Based on these average
values the rock is classified as being strong to very strong, but generally strong. Test results are presented
on the individual borehole log sheets and in Table D3, Appendix D.
For more representative UCS values, reference should be made to results of the uniaxial laboratory tests
which can be found in Table D4, Appendix D.
Uniaxial Compressive StrengthTest results of the unconfined compressive strength of rock cores measured in the laboratory of Queens
University on twenty one (21) samples are presented in Table D4, Appendix D and are also shown on the
rock core log sheets in Appendix B.
UCS values of the core samples ranged from 24.4 MPa to 70.3 MPa with average at 47.4 MPa. Based on
these results the rock formation is classified as a weak to strong, but generally a medium strong rock
according to ISRM convention.
Density
The density of intact rock, measured on twenty one (21) samples, ranged from 2,640 kg/m
3
to 2,690 kg/m
3
with average value of 2,670 kg/m
3.
Youngs Modulus (E)
The elastic or Youngs Modulus of the intact rock material was measured when performing the uniaxial
compression tests. Measured modulus values ranged between 6.0 GPa and 19.4 GPa, with an average
value of 13.6 GPa. Test results are presented in Table D4, Appendix D.
Poissons Ratio ()
The ratio of lateral to longitudinal strain in the elastic range of the intact rock was determined by the uniaxial
compression tests. The Poissons ratio values ranged from 0.10 to 0.31 as shown in Table D4,
Appendix D.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
17/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
14
Hardness
The hardness of the rock was determined using the MOHs Hardness Test procedure. Samples of both the
shale and hard limestone layers were tested by the Department of Mining and Geology, QueensUniversity, to obtain relative hardness parameters based on the MOHs Hardness Scale which is as follows:
Diamond 10
Corundum 9
Topaz 8
Quartz 7
Apatite 5
Fluorite 4
Calcite 3
Gypsum 2
Talc 1
The scale is not of equal value as the difference in hardness between 9 and 10 is much greater than
between 1 and 2. According to the test results, hardness ranged from 2.5 to 5 with an average value of 4.0.
Test results are presented in Table D4, Appendix D.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Since the anticipated zone of tunneling is in the Lindsay Formation hydraulic conductivity tests were
performed in every borehole where this formation was encountered, except in Borehole 207 where down
hole gas pressure prevented testing. Test results, given on the individual borehole logs, are summarized inTable D5 in Appendix D and are also presented in Drawing 6 in Appendix A.
The highest hydraulic conductivity value, inferred from the test results, was 3x10-5
cm/s at the boundary of
the two rock formations. Elsewhere, the values were typically 10-6
cm/s or less as indicated by no water
takes during the pressure packer tests.
In-situ Stresses
In-situ stress measurements were not performed as part of this investigation. In-situ stress measurements
however were made in the Lindsay Formation in connection with the design and construction of the
Darlington Power Generating Station (PGS) located only about 22 km to the east[9]
. The values obtained at
the PGS site are believed to be applicable to this site as well. At the Darlington Station, the measured
major principal stress values ranged from 10 MPa to 14 MPa and minor principal stress values werebetween 6 MPa to 9 MPa. The orientation of the major principal stress is N70
oE.
[9]
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
18/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
15
Time-Dependent Deformation Characteristics (TDD)
The Lindsay Formation, similarly to the other Paleozoic sedimentary rock formations found in Southern
Ontario, is known to exhibit long term, time dependent deformation characteristics (TDD) also referred to asrock swelling or rock squeezing. An approximate indication of the swelling potential of the rock can be
obtained in the laboratory from free swell tests. Tests performed on the Lindsay Formation in connection
with the Darlington PGS indicated a horizontal swelling potential, defined as the expansion strain per log
cycle of time, varying from negligible to 0.1% but typically 0.05%.[9]
This range was believed to be due to
natural variations in the rock formation. The low values were associated with core samples consisting
predominantly of limestone with no shale, while the higher values were obtained on samples containing
larger amounts of shale interbeds. Field measurements of the horizontal rock convergence during
construction confirmed a maximum value of 0.037% of tunnel diameter per log cycle of time.
GasThe Lindsay Formation is known to contain occasional pockets of combustible gas. During theinvestigation, small pockets of gas were recorded in Boreholes 202, 204, 205, 206A, 207, 301 and 302. On
these occasions the gas dissipated within 20 minutes to 60 minutes except in Boreholes 206A, 207 and
301, where larger gas pockets were recorded and where the gas was burned for about seven (7) hours or
dissipated overnight. In Boreholes 207 and 301 gas was not recorded during drilling, but was encountered
during the in-situ hydraulic conductivity (packer) testing. In both cases, the presence of the gas prevented
successful completion of the packer tests.
The locations where gas was observed, along with the associated gas monitor readings, are given in
Table D7 in Appendix D.
1.6 Environmental and Chemical Soil and Bedrock Quality Testing
1.6.1 Environmental Testing
Eleven (11) soil samples, including six (6) samples representative of native soil and five (5) rock samples
were selected from the boreholes for environmental testing to assess on-site management and off-site
disposal options for the excavated soil and rock. The samples were selected for representative coverage of
the site and layers to be excavated. Hydrocarbon odour in Borehole 203 at the depth between 32.1 m and
33.6 m (shale - Whitby formation) and Borehole 205 at the depth between 24.5 m and 26.4 m (shale -
Whitby formation), and occasional partially decayed wood fragments (tree branches) encountered in
Borehole 202 at the depth below 14 m and Borehole 206 at the depth between 22.5 m and 36 m were
observed during the samples collection. The samples were analyzed by AGAT Laboratories in
Mississauga, Ontario, which is a certified laboratory according to the Standards Council of Canada (SCC)
and the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc., (CALA). The laboratory indicated to Coffey
that they followed MOE QA/QC procedures. The soil and rock samples were analyzed for general
chemistry and inorganic parameters including pH, heavy metals, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and
electrical conductivity (EC) as set out in the Ministry of Environment (MOE) document Soil, Ground Water
and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (O. Reg. 153/04 as
amended), dated April 15, 2011, (known as MOE Standards), and leachate analyses using the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) required by O.Reg. 347 (amended to O. Reg. 558/00, Leachate
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
19/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
16
Quality Criteria) for waste classification purposes. The laboratory results were compared with Table 2 Full
Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Conditions, Residential / Parkland /
Institutional (RPI) and Industrial / Commercial / Community (ICC) Property Use and Schedule 4 Leachate
quality criteria listed in O.Reg. 347.
Although chemical analysis under O.Reg. 153/04 (as amended) is only applicable to soil; it is assumed that
the rock material may be considered as fill once weathered to soil consistency. As such, the purpose of the
analysis of the rock samples was to assess its environmental quality as a soil that would eventually be
produced from the weathering of the rock. The submitted rock samples were pulverized in the laboratory
prior to analysis.
Five (5) soil samples were also tested for their aggressiveness on concrete and five (5) rock samples were
analysed for the aggressiveness of the rock on concrete. These samples were analyzed for sulphate
(SO4).
A summary of the samples tested and the types of tests performed are listed in Table 1.6.1.
Table 1.6.1: Summary of Environmental and Chemical Tests
BH No.Sample No. Depth (m) Soil/Rock Type
O. Reg.
153(511)
Table 2 Metals
and Inorganics
O. Reg.
347(558)
Metals and
Inorganics
SO4
202 SS2,3 17.5-18.75 Clayey silt
202 R16 52.15 Limestone/
siltstone
202 R17 52.2 Limestone/
siltstone
203 SS3 17.2-17.68 Silty clay
203 SS5 18.7-19.2 Gravelly sand
203 R19 48.77 Silty limestone
to siltstone
203 R20 50.19 Silty limestone
to siltstone
204 SS2 17.1-17.6 Clayey silt
204 SS4 18.72-19.13
Clayey silt
204 SS5 19.4-19.89 Sandy silt
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
20/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
17
BH No.Sample No. Depth (m) Soil/Rock Type
O. Reg.
153(511)
Table 2 Metalsand Inorganics
O. Reg.
347(558)
Metals andInorganics
SO4
204 R13 41.28 Silty limestone
to siltstone
204 R18 48.9 Silty limestone
to siltstone
204 R20 51.97 Silty limestone
to siltstone
205 SS2 18.75-19.2 Sandy clayey
silt
205 SS5 21.03-21.49
Silty sand
205 R6 31.7 Shale
206 SS3 24.54-24.99
Silt
206 SS4 25.3-25.76 Silt
The laboratory results which are presented in Appendix F showed that EC and concentration of free
cyanide in the soil sample Borehole 202 SS2, 3 exceeded the new MOE Table 2 Standards for RPI
property use. Concentration of free cyanide in this sample also exceeded the new MOE Table 2 Standardsfor ICC property use. This sample represents the soil material between 17.5-18.75 m depth in this borehole.
Concentration of hot water extractable boron in the rock sample Borehole 205 R6 exceeded the new MOE
Table 2 Standards for RPI and ICC property use. This sample represents the rock material at 31.7 m depth
in this borehole.
SAR and/or EC in the rock samples Boreholes 202 R17, 203 R19, 204 R13, 204 R20 and 205 R6
exceeded the new MOE Table 2 Standards for RPI property use. EC in the rock sample Borehole 203 R19
exceeded the new MOE Table 2 Standards for ICC property use as well. The laboratory results for the rock
sample Borehole 204 R20 also showed that that the sample had a pH of 9.15. These samples represent
the material between 31.7 m and 52.2 m depth. The rock sample Borehole 203 R19 represents the material
at approximate depth of 48.77 m.
The Leachate concentrations of the metals and inorganics in all samples analysed were below the
Schedule 4 Leachate quality criteria listed in O.Reg. 347 (amended to O.Reg. 558/00). Therefore, the
tested soils can be classified as non-hazardous soil waste for the purpose of off-site disposal at a receiver
licensed to accept such waste.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
21/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
18
Based on the analytical laboratory results, the soil samples taken from the location at Boreholes 203 and
205 at the depth between 17.1 m and 19.2m, and at the location of Borehole 206 at the depth between
24.54 m and 24.99 m met the new MOE Table 2 Standard criteria for RPI property use. Therefore, if soil
from these areas and depths is to be excavated and disposed, this material is considered chemically
suitable for re-use at redevelopment sites accepting fill that meets the new MOE Table 2 RPI Standards,
provided that the soil is free of stains, odours, debris, cinders, mixed materials, etc. It should be noted that
acceptance of this material will be at the discretion of the receiving site(s).
The soil sample at the location of Borehole 202 at the depth between 17.5 and 18.75 exceeded the new
MOE Table 2 ICC Standards. Therefore, the soil material from the location between Boreholes 202 and
203 at the depth between 17.5 m and 18.75 m is not considered chemically suitable for re-use at the
redevelopment sites accepting fill that meets MOE Table 2 ICC Standards. If soil from this area is to be
excavated and disposed, additional analyses will be required to determine the limits of the free
cyanide-impacted soil. The extent and depth of the free cyanide-impacted soil were not determined in this
investigation. This material will require off-site disposal as a waste at a receiver licensed to accept suchwaste. It should be noted that acceptance of this material will be at the discretion of the receiving site(s).
The laboratory results for rock samples indicated that the samples at the locations of Borehole 202 at the
approximate depth of 52.2 m and Borehole 204 at the depth between 41.28 m and 51.97 m exceeded the
new MOE Table 2 RPI Standards due to the exceedance of EC and/or SAR, but met Table 2 Standards for
ICC property use. If material from this area is to be excavated and disposed, additional analyses will be
required to determine the limits of the EC and/or SAR-impacted material. The extent and depth of EC
and/or SAR-impacted rock were not determined in this investigation. Therefore, if the material from these
areas is to be excavated and disposed, weathered and used as soil, it is considered chemically suitable for
re-use at redevelopment sites accepting fill that meets the new MOE Table 2 ICC Standards. The pH of the
rock in the vicinity of Borehole 204 should be retested prior to the material being sent off-Site as fill for a
redevelopment site. It should be noted that acceptance of this material will be at the discretion of thereceiving site(s).
EC in the rock sample Borehole 203 R19 at approximate depth of 48.77 m and the concentration of hot
water extractable boron in the sample Borehole 205 R6 at approximate depth of 31.7 m exceeded the new
MOE Table 2 Standard for ICC property use. Therefore, the rock material from these locations is not
considered chemically suitable for re-use at the redevelopment sites accepting fill that meets MOE Table 2
ICC Standards. If the material from this area is to be excavated and disposed, additional analyses will be
required to determine the limits of the EC and hot water extractable boron-impacted rock. The extent and
depth of the EC and hot water extractable boron-impacted rock were not determined in this investigation.
This material will require off-site disposal as a waste at a receiver licensed to accept such waste. It should
be noted that acceptance of this material will be at the discretion of the receiving site(s).
The analytical test results are appended to this report in Appendix F.
Coffey makes no warranty, express or implied, as to whether or not excavated soils and shale will be
accepted by receivers. Off-site receivers will likely require additional testing prior to acceptance of any
soils. They may also reject soils based on other criteria, such as presence of organic material, peat,
topsoil, rubble, or elevated moisture content.
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
22/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AAJune, 2012
19
The testing has been conducted in order to assess the possible options for off-site soil and shale disposal
only and is not intended to constitute a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment and as such does not
comment on the environmental condition of the Site. Soil and shale quality may vary at locations other than
those tested.
During excavation, soils or shale that exhibit stained, hydrocarbon, solvents or other odours, or contain
rubble, debris, cinders or other visual evidence of impact, must not be taken to a clean fill site. These
materials should be segregated on-Site and this office should be contacted immediately.
1.6.2 Chemical Testing
The sulphate (SO4) resistance of concrete in contact with the soils and rock was evaluated by performing
water-soluble sulphate tests on the five (5) soil and five (5) rock samples listed in Table 1.6.1 in Section
1.6.1. Compared with Table 3 specified in the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) specification CSA
A.23.1-09, the test results revealed that the sulphate concentration in the soil samples was between 220
and 1110 g/g or between 0.022% and 0.111%. In the rock samples, the SO4 concentration was between52.2 g/g and 146 g/g or between 0.00522% and 0.0146%.
Based on the results of the limited testing performed on the selected soil and rock samples, it appears that
the concentration of SO4 in the overburden soils has in places the potential of being aggressive on
concrete, and therefore, the use of high sulphate-resistant hydraulic cement (HS) is warranted. In contrast,
the SO4 concentration in the rock core samples tested indicates only a moderate degree of exposure (S-3)
and therefore, general use of hydraulic cement (GU) or high early strength hydraulic cement (HE) can be
used for the manufacturing of concrete in contact with the rock.
The analytical data are attached to this report inAppendix F.
1.7 Statement of Limi tations
The Statement of Limitation, as quoted in Appendix F, is an integral part of this report.
For and on behalf of Coffey Geotechnics Inc.
Ivan P. Lieszkowszky, P.Eng., FEIC Janos Garami, P.Eng., FECSenior Principal Senior Geotechnical Engineer
-
7/27/2019 Geo Technical Investigation Volume 1
23/23
Report on Geotechnical Investigation Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall - Volume 1
Coffey GeotechnicsGEOTMARK00171AA
1
LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] Franklin, J. A.: Rock Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1989, p.41
[2] Morton, J.D., Lo, K.Y. and Belshaw, D.: Rock performance consideration for shallow tunnels inbedded shales with high lateral Stresses, Proceedings, 12
thCanadian Rock Mechanics
Symposium, Kingston, Ontario, 1975.
[3] Lo, K.Y. and Morton, J.D.: Tunnels in bedded rock with high horizontal stresses, CanadianGeotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, 1976.
[4] Lo, K.Y., Palmer, J.H.L. and Quigley, R.M.: Time-dependent deformation of shaley rocks in
southern Ontario, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, 1978.
[5] Franklin, J.A. and Hungr, O.: Rock Stresses in Canada, their relevance in engineering projects,Rock Mechanics, by Springer-Verlag, 1978.
[6] Lo, K.Y., Cooke, B.H. and Dunbar, D.D.: Design of buried structures in squeezing rock in Toronto,Canada, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, 1987.
[7] J.A. Franklin: Evaluation of Shales for Construction Purposes, MOT, 1983
[8] Lo, K.Y and Yuen, C.M.K. Design of tunnel lining in rock for long term time effects. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Volume 18, 1981
[9] Lo, K.Y. and Lukajic, Boro. Predicted and measured stresses and displacements around theDarlington Intake Tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21, 1984
[10] Groundwater Resources of the Duffin Creek Rouge River Drainage Basins. Ministry of the
Environment, Ontario, Water Resources Report 8.1977.