report on detailed design geotechnical investigation

March 2015

REPORT ON

Detailed Design Geotechnical Investigation Expansion of Lamoureux Hall 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier Ottawa, Ontario

RE

PO

RT

Report Number: 1418274 Rev-0

Distribution:

1 e-copy - University of Ottawa 1 copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to:

University of Ottawa 141 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5

DETAILED DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION EXPANSION OF LAMOUREUX HALL

March 2015 Report No. 1418274 Rev-0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

4.2 Topsoil and Surficial Fill ....................................................................................................................................... 4

4.3 Silty Clay .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

4.4 Clayey Silt and Silt ............................................................................................................................................... 5

4.5 Glacial Till ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.6 Refusal and Bedrock ........................................................................................................................................... 6

4.7 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.8 Corrosion Testing ................................................................................................................................................ 6

5.0 EXISTING PILE CAPS...................................................................................................................................................... 7

6.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

6.2 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 9

6.2.1 Liquefaction Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 9

6.2.2 Shear Wave Velocity and Site Class ............................................................................................................ 10

6.3 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

6.3.1 Pile foundations ........................................................................................................................................... 11

6.3.1.1 Pile Installation Considerations ................................................................................................................. 11

6.3.1.2 Resistance to Lateral Loads ..................................................................................................................... 13

6.3.2 Rock Anchors ............................................................................................................................................... 14

6.4 Link Tunnel ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

6.5 Basement Excavation and Groundwater Control ............................................................................................... 16

6.6 Excavation Shoring ............................................................................................................................................ 17

6.7 Ground Movements ........................................................................................................................................... 18

6.8 Foundation Wall Backfill .................................................................................................................................... 18


March 2015 Report No. 1418274 Rev-0 ii

6.9 Lateral Earth Pressures for Design .................................................................................................................... 19

6.10 Basement Floor Slab ......................................................................................................................................... 21

6.11 Frost Protection ................................................................................................................................................. 21

6.12 Site Servicing ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

6.13 Corrosion and Cement Type .............................................................................................................................. 22

7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 23

8.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 24

9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Important Information and Limitations of This Report

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Key Plan

Figure 2 – Site Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets – Current Investigation

APPENDIX B Record of Borehole and Test Pit – Previous Investigations

APPENDIX C Results of Chemical Analysis – EXOVA Laboratories Report 1502771

APPENDIX D Geophysical Testing – Previous Investigation

APPENDIX E Existing Lamoureux Hall Pile Location Plan

APPENDIX F Monitoring Well Decommissioning


March 2015 Report No. 1418274 Rev-0 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed expansion to

Lamoureux Hall located at 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier on the University of Ottawa Campus in Ottawa, Ontario

(see Key Plan, Figure 1).

The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to determine the general soil and groundwater conditions

across the site by means of advancing a limited number of boreholes at the site. Based on an interpretation of

the factual information obtained, in conjunction with existing subsurface information available for this site, a

general description of the subsurface conditions is presented. These interpreted subsurface conditions in

conjunction with available project details were used to provide engineering input on the geotechnical design

aspects of the project, including construction considerations which could influence design decisions.

The reader is referred to the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report” which follows the text of the

report but forms an integral part of this document.



2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

It is understood that the University of Ottawa (University) is exploring the possibility of constructing an addition

on the east side of the existing Lamoureux Hall. The proposed expansion area is displayed for reference on

Figure 2.

It is understood that, the proposed new addition will consist of a six storey structure that will incorporate an

approximately 6 metre deep basement level to house an amphitheater. The building will generally be rectangular

in shape but will have an irregular shape on the west side where it joins with the existing structure. The new

structure will have a length of about 115 metres and a width that varies between about 24 and 38 metres.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) previously completed a desktop study for the proposed expansion to Lamoureux

Hall. The results of that study were provided to the University in the following report:

Golder report to the University of Ottawa titled: “Desktop Geotechnical and Environmental Study,

Expansion of Lamoureux Hall, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, Ontario”, dated March 2014 (Report

Number 1401348).

The desktop study revealed that the site is underlain by about approximately 13 to 17 metres of overburden

consisting of silty clay over bouldery glacial till, which is in turn underlain by bedrock consisting of limestone of

the Verulam formation.

In addition to that previous desktop study, Golder completed a geophysical study in support of the Vanier Hall

project (located immediately to the west of the site), and the results of that study were provided in the following

technical memorandum:

Golder technical memorandum to the University of Ottawa titled: “Vertical Seismic Profile Data Processing

and Results”, dated September 9, 2008 (Memo Number 07-1121-0210, in Appendix D).

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) testing was completed in the parking area between the Vanier Hall and

Lamoureux Hall, and the subsurface soil and bedrock conditions are consistent with those encountered during

the current study.



3.0 PROCEDURE

The field work for this investigation was carried out between February 3 and 10, 2015 during which time four

boreholes (numbered 14-01 to 14-04, inclusive) were put down at the approximate locations shown on the

Site Plan, Figure 2. The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill rig supplied

and operated by Marathon Drilling of Ottawa, Ontario.

The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from about 13.0 to 17.1 metres below the existing ground

surface. Within the boreholes, standard penetration tests (SPTs) (ASTM D1586) were carried out at regular

intervals of depth and soil samples were recovered using split spoon sampling equipment. In situ vane testing

was carried out, where possible, in the silty clay to evaluate the undrained shear strength of this deposit.

Upon reaching auger refusal in Boreholes 14-02 and 14-03, the boreholes were advanced into the bedrock for a

length of 1.7 and 2.4 metres, respectively, using rotary diamond drilling techniques while retrieving NQ sized

bedrock core.

In Boreholes 14-01 and 14-04 below depths of 8.2 and 10.5 metres, respectively, the boreholes were advanced

without sampling to refusal to dynamic cone penetration testing (DCPT) at depths of 14.5 and 13.0 metres below

ground surface, respectively.

To allow for subsequent measurement of the groundwater level, monitoring wells were installed in Boreholes

14-01, 14-02, and 14-03. Water level measurements were taken in the monitoring wells on February 11, 2014.

The field work was supervised by an experienced technician from our geotechnical staff who located the

boreholes, monitored the drilling operations, logged the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes,

directed the in situ testing, and took custody of samples.

On completion of drilling, soil samples were transported to our laboratory for examination by the project engineer

and for laboratory testing. Index and classification tests, including water content determinations and an

Atterberg limit test, were carried out on select soil samples.

One sample of soil from Borehole 14-02 was submitted to Exova Laboratories for basic chemical analysis related

to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and potential corrosion of buried ferrous elements.

The borehole locations were selected, staked in the field, and subsequently surveyed by Golder personnel.

The locations of the boreholes were determined using existing site features and the elevations were surveyed

relative to the existing Lamoureux Hall floor slab (doorway on south side of Lamoureux Hall to the northwest of

Borehole 14-01) which is understood to have a Geodetic elevation of 70.76 metres.



4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

The following information on the subsurface conditions at this site is provided in this report:

The results of the boreholes from the current investigation are provided on the Record of Boreholes in

Appendix A.

Relevant borehole and test pit records from previous investigations are provided in Appendix B.

The results of the basic chemical analyses on one sample of soil are provided in Appendix C.

The results of the previous Golder 2008 geophysical study are provided in Appendix D.

In general, the subsurface conditions at the site consist of a surficial layer of topsoil and/or surficial fill, overlying

deposits of silty clay and glacial till that are in turn underlain by limestone bedrock. From the Geological Survey

of Canada published bedrock geology maps, the bedrock in this area is indicated to be limestone from the

Verulam formation.

The silty clay deposit is of Champlain Sea origin. The upper portion of the silty clay deposit consists of a stiff to

very stiff grey brown silty clay (weathered crust) which is underlain by firm to stiff grey silty clay.

Bedrock is generally found at depths ranging between about 13 and 17 metres below the ground surface.

The following sections present a more detailed overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the

boreholes advanced during the current investigation.

4.2 Topsoil and Surficial Fill

Boreholes 14-01 to 14-03 were advanced through a sidewalk comprised of Portland cement concrete.

The Portland cement concrete is about 90 to 150 millimetres in thickness.

A layer of fill was encountered beneath the sidewalk in Boreholes 14-01 to 14-03 and at ground surface at

Borehole 14-04. The fill generally consisted of silty sand to sand and gravelly sand and extends to depths

ranging from about 1.1 to 1.5 metres below the existing ground surface. Based on the presence of debris

materials within the fill including asphalt, brick, ashes, cinders, metal, mortar and glass that were found during

the current and previous investigations, the fill is considered to be uncontrolled (i.e., non-engineered).

Standard penetration tests carried out within the fill measured SPT ‘N’ values ranging from 14 to 185 blows per

0.3 metres of penetration, which indicates a compact to very dense state of packing. The higher blow counts

could possibly reflect frost within the soil.

The water content on one sample of the fill was measured to be about 4 percent, expressed as a percentage of

the dry weight of the soil.



4.3 Silty Clay

The Portland cement concrete and fill are underlain by a deposit of sensitive silty clay. The upper portion of the

silty clay has generally been weathered to form a weathered crust that extends to depths ranging from 3.8 to

4.6 metres below the existing ground surface. The results of one in situ vane test in the weathered crust

measured an undrained shear strength of greater than 96 kilopascals. Standard penetration tests carried out

within the weathered silty clay crust measured SPT ‘N’ values ranging from 5 to 16 blows per 0.3 metres of

penetration. The results of the in situ testing indicate the weathered crust has a stiff to very stiff consistency.

The measured natural water content on three samples of the weathered silty clay crust ranged from about 47 to

70 percent.

The silty clay below the depth of weathering is grey in colour. The grey silty clay was fully penetrated by

Boreholes 14-02, 14-03, and 14-04 and extends to depths of about 8.7 to 9.1 metres below the existing ground

surface. The results of in situ testing in the grey silty clay measured undrained shear strengths ranging from

approximately 38 to 82 kilopascals, indicating a firm to stiff consistency.

The measured natural water content on three samples of the silty clay ranged from about 35 to 76 percent.

4.4 Clayey Silt and Silt

A layer of clayey silt to silt was encountered beneath the silty clay in Boreholes 14-03 and 14-04. The clayey

silt was fully penetrated and extends to depths of about 9.9 metres below the existing ground surface in

Boreholes 14-03 and 14-04.

Standard penetration tests carried out within the clayey silt measured SPT ‘N’ values ranging from ‘weight of

hammer’ to 9 blows per 0.3 metres.

The measured natural water content on one sample of the clayey silt was about 37 percent.

A layer of silt was encountered beneath the clayey silt in Boreholes 14-03 and 14-04. The silt extended to

depths of about 11.3 and 10.5 metres below the existing ground surface.

Standard penetration tests carried out within the silt measured SPT ‘N’ values ranging from 2 to 9 blows per

0.3 metres. The SPT ‘N’ values, suggest that the silt is in a very loose to loose state of packing; however, the

SPT ‘N’ values are inferred to have been influenced by disturbance of these soils during the drilling process.

Atterberg limit testing was carried out on one sample of the silt in Borehole 14-04. The silt was found to be

non-plastic. The measured natural water content on two samples of the silt ranged from about 20 to 24 percent.

4.5 Glacial Till

A deposit of glacial till was encountered beneath the silty clay, clayey silt and silt, where present. The glacial till

consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of sandy silt to silty sand.

The glacial till was fully penetrated in Boreholes 14-02 and 14-03. The till has a thickness of about 6.6 and

2.3 metres and extends to depths of about 15.3 and 13.9 metres below the existing ground surface at these

borehole locations, respectively.

Standard penetration tests carried out within the glacial till measured SPT ‘N’ values ranging from 35 to greater

than 50 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration indicating a dense to very dense state of packing.



4.6 Refusal and Bedrock

Dynamic cone penetration test refusal was encountered in Boreholes 14-01 and 14-04 at depths of about

14.5 and 13.0 metres below the existing ground surface, respectively.

Limestone bedrock was encountered beneath the glacial till in Boreholes 14-02 and 14-03 at depths of about

15.3 and 13.9 metres below the existing ground surface.

The limestone bedrock is generally fresh to slightly weathered, thinly to medium bedded, brown grey, fine

grained and non-porous with some shale partings. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranges from 68 to

100 percent indicating a fair to excellent quality.

4.7 Groundwater

The groundwater levels from previous (1971, 1985, and 2005) investigations measured in standpipes indicated

that the groundwater levels ranged from depths of between 5.9 and 9.3 metres below the existing ground surface.

Three monitoring wells were installed within the boreholes from the current investigation. The groundwater

levels in the monitoring wells were measured on February 11, 2015 and are summarized below:

Borehole Number

Ground Surface Elevation

(m)

GWL Depth

(m)

GWL Elevation

(m) Date of Reading

BH 14-1 70.67 7.56 63.11 February 11, 2015

BH 14-2 70.03 7.79 62.24 February 11, 2015

BH 14-3 70.38 6.99 63.39 February 11, 2015

Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are expected during wet

periods of the year, such as spring.

4.8 Corrosion Testing

One soil samples from Borehole 14-2 was submitted to Exova Laboratories Ltd. for basic chemical analysis related

to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The results of

this testing are provided in Appendix D and are summarized below.

Borehole Number

Sample Number

Sample Depth

(m)

Chloride (%)

SO4

(%) pH

Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

BH 14-2 Sa 6 7.6 – 8.2 0.008 0.02 8.5 2860



5.0 EXISTING PILE CAPS

A brief and limited review of the construction inspection records of Lamoureux Hall available in the archive

files of McRostie Genest St-Louis (MGS) (Reports SF-1455A and B) offers the following pertinent information.

MGS joined Golder in 2006.

The foundations for the Faculty of Education Building project, which is the existing Lamoureux Hall building, in

general consist of concrete filled driven pipe piles with a 406 millimetre outside diameter and 7 millimetre

thick wall. During the pile driving operations in 1976, four of the 406 millimetre diameter piles were damaged.

These damaged piles were mitigated by driving a 356 millimetre diameter pile with a 9.5 millimetre thick wall

inside of the damaged pile.

From the pile driving records, some of the piles were driven open base and cleaned out prior to filling

with concrete. The other piles were driven with a welded steel base plate.

Two static load tests were carried out using rock anchors and a reaction beam. The required structural capacity

for the piles on this project was proven to be sufficient by means of the static load tests.

Pile foundation details in the area of the proposed addition are provided in the table below, and the pile locations

are shown in Appendix E.

Pile Number Pile Diameter

(mm) Pile Wall Thickness

(mm) Pile Batter

(H:V) Bottom Elevation

(m)

1 406 7.1 Vertical 55.78

2 406 7.1 Vertical 56.08

3 406 7.1 1:5 56.64

4 406 7.1 1:5 57.07

5 406 7.1 Vertical 55.96

6 406 7.1 Vertical 56.03

7 406 7.1 1:5 56.54

8 406 7.1 1:5 55.93

9A 356 9.5 1:5 60.78

10 406 7.1 1:5 57.18

11 406 7.1 1:5 56.36

12 406 7.1 1:5 57.07

13 406 7.1 1:5 57.86

14 406 7.1 1:5 57.25

15 406 7.1 1:5 57.84

16 406 7.1 Vertical 56.85

17 406 7.1 1:5 56.39

18 406 7.1 1:5 56.67

19 406 7.1 1:5 56.24

20 406 7.1 1:5 58.17



Pile Number Pile Diameter

(mm) Pile Wall Thickness

(mm) Pile Batter

(H:V) Bottom Elevation

(m)

21 406 7.1 1:5 58.12

22 406 7.1 1:5 56.31

23 406 7.1 1:5 57.35

24 406 7.1 1:5 57.99

25 406 7.1 1:5 58.27

26 406 7.1 1:5 58.12

27 406 7.1 1:5 58.45

30 406 7.1 1:5 58.32

31 406 7.1 1:5 58.45

32 406 7.1 1:5 58.27

33 406 7.1 1:5 58.57

34 406 7.1 1:5 58.75

35 406 7.1 1:5 58.45

36 406 7.1 1:5 57.18

37 406 7.1 1:5 57.30

38 406 7.1 1:5 56.69

39 406 7.1 1:5 56.72

40 406 7.1 1:5 57.28

41 406 7.1 1:5 57.33

42 406 7.1 1:5 57.38

43 406 7.1 1:5 57.15

44 406 7.1 1:5 58.22

47 406 7.1 1:5 57.96

48 406 7.1 1:5 57.66

49 406 7.1 1:5 57.40

50 406 7.1 1:5 57.12

53 406 7.1 1:5 58.06

54 406 7.1 1:5 58.75

79 406 7.1 1:5 56.92

80 406 7.1 1:5 56.39

81 406 7.1 1:5 56.41

82 406 7.1 1:5 55.98

91 406 7.1 1:5 58.45

92 406 7.1 1:5 58.72

121 406 7.1 1:5 55.98

122 406 7.1 1:5 56.39



6.0 DISCUSSION

6.1 General

This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project

based on our interpretation of the available subsurface information described herein and our understanding of

the project requirements. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of

the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the factual information for construction, and make

their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety,

and equipment capabilities.

The foundation engineering guidelines presented in this section have been developed in a manner consistent

with the procedures outlined in Part 4 of the 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) for Limit States Design.

6.2 Seismic Design Considerations

This Site falls within the Western Québec Seismic Zone (WQSZ) according to the Geological Survey of Canada.

The WQSZ constitutes a large area that extends from Montréal to Témiscaming, and which encompasses the

Ottawa area. Within the WQSZ recent seismic activity has been concentrated in two subzones; one along the

Ottawa River and another more active subzone along the Montréal-Maniwaki axis. Historical seismicity within

the WQSZ from 1900 to 2000 includes the 1935 Témiscaming event which had a magnitude of 6.2 and the 1944

Cornwall Massena event which had a magnitude 5.6. There was also a 2010 event in Val-des-Bois, Québec,

which was a magnitude 5.0. In comparison to other seismically active areas in the world (e.g., California, Japan,

New Zealand), the frequency of earthquake activity within the WQSZ is significantly lower but there still exists

the potential for significant earthquake events to be generated.

Based on the review of Ontario Geological Survey maps, the project Site is not underlain by known faults.

Under the 2012 Ontario Building Code, a seismic hazard with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years

has been retained for design of the building structure. The design earthquake magnitude retained for this event

is 6.1 and represents the mean magnitude of the de-aggregation of the PGA seismic hazard for Ottawa

(mean distance of 32 kilometres).

6.2.1 Liquefaction Assessment

Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby seismically-induced shaking generates shear stresses within the soil

under undrained conditions. These stresses tend to densify the soil (i.e., leading to potentially large surface

settlements) and under undrained conditions generate excess pore pressures. The excess pore pressures also

lead to sudden temporary losses in strength. Where existing static shear stresses are present (e.g., presence of

existing slopes), the loss of strength can lead to significant lateral movements (i.e., analogous to a slope failure)

often referred to as “lateral spreading” or under certain conditions even catastrophic failure of the slope often

referred to as “flow slides”. Lateral spreading and flow slides often accompany liquefaction along rivers and

other shorelines.

Based on the plasticity of the silty clay and the density of the glacial till, these materials are not considered to be

liquefiable under the design earthquake at this site.



The potential for liquefaction of the loose silt deposit was assessed using the methodology proposed by Youd

et al. (2001)1 whereby the normalized shear wave velocities are used to assess the liquefaction potential.

Based on this method, a soil with a fines content greater than 35 percent and a shear wave velocity greater than

190 metres per second is unlikely to liquefy during the design earthquake. Data from the 2008 Golder

geophysical study carried out in Borehole 08-9 (immediately west of the site) indicates the normalized shear

wave velocities were found to be higher than 220 metres per second throughout the silt layer which was

encountered at a similar depth and had a similar thickness to the silt deposit encountered at the Lamoreux Hall

site. Therefore, the silt deposit present at the site is not considered to be potentially liquefiable under the

design earthquake.

6.2.2 Shear Wave Velocity and Site Class

The seismic design provisions of Section 4.1.8.4 of the 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) related to Site

Classification depend, in part, on the shear wave velocity of the upper 30 metres of soil and/or rock below

founding level.

Shear wave velocities of the subsurface materials were previously measured in Borehole 08-9 and a technical

memorandum giving details of the study is included in Appendix D of this report. Table 1 in the Technical

Memorandum shows a tabular presentation of shear wave velocities (at 1 metre intervals) over the depth of

testing. The harmonic mean shear wave velocity of the subsurface soil was calculated by the following equation:

Vs = total thickness of all layers/ ∑ (each layer thickness/each layer shear wave velocity).

Based on the bedrock surface elevation (varies between elevations 54.7 to 57.3 metres) and expected lowest

floor elevation of 63.3 metres, there would be more than 3 metres of soil between the rock surface and bottom of

pile caps and, hence, Site Classes A and B cannot be used. The harmonic mean shear wave velocity in the

soils above the bedrock surface at Borehole 08-9 was calculated to be approximately 230 metres per second.

As such, the use of Site Class D is deemed appropriate for this site.

6.3 Foundations

It is understood that the proposed addition to Lamoureux Hall will be located on the east side of the building.

The addition will be up to a 6 storey structure with 6 metre deep basement level.

The elevation of the bedrock surface, at the location of the proposed addition, varies between 54.7 to

57.3 metres. It is understood that deep foundations and rock anchors are proposed to be used as the primary

lateral force resisting system for the new addition. Lateral load resistance, particularly during the design

earthquake event, can be generated using a combination of: sliding resistance along the base of shallow

foundations; lateral soil resistance acting on deep foundation elements; battered piles; inclined rock anchors

acting in tension; and passive resistance against foundation walls. The structural engineer should consider that

at a serviceability level, the relative stiffness of these lateral resistance components will be quite different, with

the battered piles and inclined anchors in tension offering a high relative stiffness, the sliding resistance offering

a medium relative stiffness, and the lateral soil resistance on deep foundations and passive resistance on

foundation walls offering a low relative stiffness.

1 Youd, T.L., et al., (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817-833



The existing building is founded on pile foundations. These pile foundations are mostly battered at a 1H:5V angle

and may interfere with the placement and construction of the new foundations. The foundation designer should

confirm that the proposed structure (including new deep foundations) will not encounter or impact the existing

inclined piles. Similarly, the contractor should be made aware that existing pile foundations exist and they will

have to take care to avoid damaging any of the existing pile foundations.

6.3.1 Pile foundations

Consideration should be given to supporting the addition on a driven, end bearing piles. End bearing piles will

transfer the foundation loads through the sensitive silty clay, clayey silt, silt and glacial till to the competent

bedrock located at about 6 to 9 metres below the proposed basement level.

Both thick-walled concrete filled pipe piles (fitted with a thick end plate) and high capacity steel H-piles could be

considered for this project. It is to be noted that the piles would be driven through glacial till containing boulders

and rock blocks and hence pile driving operations may require pre-drilling to reduce potential for pile damage.

Based on our experience on other sites on campus underlain by bouldery glacial till over shale and limestone

bedrock, it is recommended that pipe piles be used to support the proposed building addition as pipe piles can

be more readily inspected (by visual examination of the pile interiors) after driving and therefore damaged piles

can be easily identified. On other hand, H-pile cannot be visually inspected for integrity after driving.

Based on PDA test results carried out on piles at other sites on campus, a factored Ultimate Limit States (ULS)

capacity of 1,200 kilonewtons can be considered for 245 millimetres diameter pipe piles (14 millimetres wall

thickness) driven to refusal on/in the bedrock. This capacity assumes steel with a yield stress of 350 megapascals

and concrete with a compressive strength of 30 megapascals are used.

For piles end-bearing on or within bedrock, Serviceability Limit States (SLS) generally do not govern the design

since the stresses required to induce 25 millimetre of movement (i.e., the typical SLS criteria) exceed those

at ULS. Accordingly, the post-construction settlement of structural elements which derive their support from

piles bearing on bedrock is expected to be nominal.

The recommended design load is based on our experience from installing pile foundation in shale and limestone

bedrock in the University of Ottawa campus. A phenomenon of relaxation of the pile tip has occurred on

University of Ottawa construction sites underlain by shale or shaley limestone bedrock. Relaxation decreases

the load carrying capacity of pile and thus could result in reduced pile design load. As such, if isolated piles

cannot achieve design loading, additional piles will be required. We note that the above design load has been

achieved within the University of Ottawa campus.

6.3.1.1 Pile Installation Considerations

Driven pipe piles should be equipped with a base plate having a thickness of at least 35 millimetres to limit

damage to the pile tip during driving. Driven H-piles, if used, should be equipped with a suitable toe protection

shoe (such as Oslo Points). Also, vertically driven H-piles should be equipped with Type I flange reinforcement

as per OPSD 3301.00. Furthermore, any battered piles should be equipped with suitable driving points (such as

Titus SK-6140 rock injector points for pipe piles or Titus Ejector or equivalent for H piles) to ensure adequate

seating of the piles on/in the bedrock surface.



Even with suitable flange reinforcement and toe protection shoes, there is a risk of damage to piles and/or

misalignment of the piles driven to bedrock. It is expected that some piles will be damaged and/or move out of

alignment when driven through the bouldery till, and the damaged or misaligned piles should be removed and a

new pile re-driven. Alternatively, the pile cap design (i.e., size) will have to be flexible enough to allow for the

installation of extra piles, if considered necessary during the installation. The project should carry a cost

allowance for this item.

During the pile driving for the existing Lamoureux Hall building, some of the piles encountered boulders pushing

some of the piles out of tolerance. In some locations, additional piles were added because the original piles

were significantly out of tolerance.

It is difficult to be certain regarding the elevation at which piles would be driven to achieve the design capacities.

For this reason, we would suggest that the piling contract contain provisions for adjustment of compensation,

depending on the actual lengths found necessary.

A phenomenon of relaxation of the pile tip has occurred on some construction sites in Ottawa underlain by glacial till

and shale and limestone bedrock. Relaxation decreases the load carrying capacity of the pile. Relaxation of the

piles following the initial set could result from several processes, including:

Softening/weakening of the bedrock into which the piles are driven;

The dissipation of negative excess pore water pressures in the overburden material above the bedrock

surface; and,

The driving of adjacent piles.

Provision should therefore be made for restriking all of the piles at least once to confirm the design set and/or the

permanence of the set and to check for upward displacement due to driving of adjacent piles. Piles that do not

meet the design set criteria on the first restrike should receive additional restriking until the design set is met on

the next restrike. All restriking should be carried out after 24 hours of the previous set.

It is recommended that dynamic monitoring and capacity testing (i.e., PDA testing) be carried out (by the

contractor) at an early stage in the piling operation to verify both the transferred energy from the pile driving

equipment and the load carrying capacity of the piles. Further guidelines can be provided on the testing frequency

to be included in the specifications once the foundation design has been finalized. However, as a preliminary

guideline, the specifications should require that at least 10 percent of the piles be included in the dynamic testing

program. CASE method estimates of the capacities should be provided for all piles tested. These estimates

should be provided by means of a field report on the day of testing. As well, CAPWAP analyses should be carried

out for at least one third of the piles tested, with the results provided no later than one week following testing.

The final report should be stamped by an engineer licensed in the province of Ontario.

The foundation and piling specifications should be reviewed by Golder prior to tender and the contractor’s

submission (i.e., shop drawings, equipment, procedures, and set criteria) should be reviewed by Golder prior to

the start of piling.

Piling operations should be inspected on a full-time basis by geotechnical personnel to monitor the pile locations,

lengths and plumbness, initial sets, penetrations on restrike, and to check the integrity of the piles following

installation.



Vibration monitoring should be carried out during pile installation to ensure that the vibration levels at the existing

structure are maintained below tolerable levels. A Non Standard Special Provision for vibration monitoring

should be included in the contract documents. The piles furthest from the existing structure should be driven

first, in order to check the vibration level at the existing structures and, if necessary, alter the pile driving

procedures for the remaining piles.

Freshly poured concrete is susceptible to vibration after its initial set, and before the concrete has reached a

strength of about 7.0 megapascals (i.e., between about 3.5 to 7.0 megapascals). Within this critical period, the

concrete should not be subjected to any vibrations from pile driving if possible. If this is not possible, then the

vibrations should be kept below 10 millimetres per second. Beyond 7.0 megapascals, the concrete should be

strong enough to resist vibrations up to about 35 millimetres per second.

The time to reach upper and lower limits of the critical set stage of the concrete is dependent on a number of

factors, but the two most critical are the ambient air temperature and concrete admixtures that affect strength gain.

Therefore, the contractor should obtain from the concrete supplier the time required for the concrete strength to

reach both 3.5 and 7.0 megapascals at the curing temperatures on site. These times should be used in

conjunction with the pile driving schedule to reduce the risk of fresh concrete damage from pile driving operations.

6.3.1.2 Resistance to Lateral Loads

The lateral resistance developed using pile foundations can originate from the resistance offered by the

overburden as the piles are pushed into the soil, or by the use of battered piles. Battered piles will provide a

much stiffer resistance to lateral loads than the soil resistance against the piles, which might offer insufficient

resistance to lateral loading.

If vertical piles are used, the resistance to lateral loading will have to be derived from the soil in front of the piles.

The resistance to lateral loading in front of the piles may be calculated using subgrade reaction theory where the

coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh, is based on the equations given below.

For cohesionless soils:

B

znk

h

h Where: Z = The depth (m);

B = The pile diameter/width (m); and,

nh = The constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, as given below.

For cohesive soils:

B

sk u

h

67

Where: su = The undrained shear strength of the soil (kPa); and,

B = The pile diameter/width (m).

The constant of horizontal subgrade reaction depends on the soil type and the soil density/consistency around

the pile shaft. For the design of resistance to lateral loads, the values indicated in the table below may be used.

All values quoted are unfactored geotechnical parameters.



Soil Type nh

(MPa/m) Su

(kPa)

Silty Clay - 40

Silt 1.3 -

Glacial Till 11.0 -

Group action for lateral loading should be considered when the pile spacing in the direction of loading is less

than eight pile diameters. Group action can be evaluated by reducing the coefficient of horizontal subgrade

reaction in the direction of loading using a reduction factor, R, as follows:

Pile Spacing in Direction of Loading

d = Pile Diameter or Width

Subgrade Reaction Reduction Factor, R

8d 1.00

6d 0.70

4d 0.40

3d 0.25

The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction values calculated as described above may then be used to

calculate the lateral deflection of the pile (i.e., the SLS response of the pile), taking into the account the

soil-structure interaction.

6.3.2 Rock Anchors

It is expected that the foundations may be required to resist uplift forces related to unbalanced lateral loads

(i.e., resulting from seismic forces on the building) on foundations or to increase the sliding resistance of the

foundations. The uplift resistance of the piles (derived by shaft resistance in the silty clay) would be quite limited.

These uplift forces may therefore be resisted using grouted anchors in the bedrock. The presence of fractured

rock conditions and groundwater should be considered carefully by the specialty contractor and may require

post-grouting to ensure adequate anchor resistance is obtained.

The anchors should consist of grouted rock anchors.

In designing grouted rock anchors, consideration should be given to four possible anchor failure modes.

i) Failure of the steel tendon or top anchorage;

ii) Failure of the grout/tendon bond;

iii) Failure of the rock/grout bond; and,

iv) Failure within the rock mass, or rock cone pull-out.

Potential failure modes i) and ii) are structural and are best addressed by the structural engineer. Adequate

corrosion protection of the steel components should be provided to prevent potential premature failure due to

steel corrosion.



For potential failure mode iii), the unfactored ULS bond strength at the concrete/rock interface may be taken as

1,200 kilopascals. Using a resistance factor of 0.6, based on static test in tension during construction (as per

OBC 2012), the factored ULS bond strength is 720 kPa.

For potential failure mode iv), the resistance should be calculated based on the buoyant weight of the potential

mass of rock which could be mobilised by the anchor. This is typically considered as the mass of rock and

surface shear resistance within a cone (or wedge for a line of closely spaced anchors) having an apex at the

tip of the anchor and having an apex angle of 60 degrees. For a group of anchors or for a line of closely

spaced anchors the resistance must consider the potential overlap between the rock masses mobilized by

individual anchors.

Further guidelines by the geotechnical engineer can and must be provided for assessing the anchor resistance

once the final anchor layout and loads have been established.

It is recommended that pull-out tests be carried out on anchors to confirm their pull-out capacity (required by

OBC 2012 for the use of a resistance factor of 0.6). The pull-out tests should be carried out to 1.33 times the

anchor service loads, and at least 10 percent of the anchors should be tested in this manner. The testing

procedures should be in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute’s Recommendations for Prestressed

Rock and Soil Anchors.

Given the high potential for corrosion to buried steel elements (see Section 6.15), rock anchors intended

as permanent structural elements should be provided with double corrosion protection (in accordance with

OPSS 942).

The installation and testing of the anchors should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. Care must be

taken during grouting to ensure that the grouting is injected from the bottom of the anchor hole to bond the entire

length of the grout area with a minimum of voids. It is also suggested that the anchor holes be thoroughly

flushed with water to remove all debris, scum/sludge, and rock flour prior to grouting. It is essential that scum

and rock flour be completely removed from the holes to be grouted to ensure an adequate bond between the

grout and the rock.

Prestressing of the anchors prior to loading will reduce anchor movement due to service loads.

6.4 Link Tunnel

A tunnel is proposed to link a portion of the basement in the existing Lamoureux Hall to the basement in the

new addition.

The link tunnel from the existing building to the new addition will be approximately 10 to 11 metres in length and

is expected to be founded at an elevation of about 63 metres. Final details on the tunnel geometry and the

methods planned to construct the tunnel are not known at this time but could include open cut (if the overlying

floor slab can be removed) or tunnelling methods. Adequate sloping of the side slopes of the excavation or the

use of appropriate temporary shoring systems will be required to support the sidewalls of the excavation area.

The existing building and proposed new addition are/will be supported on pile foundations. In order to provide

consistent settlement performance between the link tunnel and remaining structures, the link tunnel should be

supported on deep foundations founded on the limestone bedrock. Micropile foundations could be considered if

the existing floor slab will not be removed above the link tunnel.



If some differential settlement is considered acceptable, the link tunnel could be founded on the undisturbed firm

to stiff silty clay using a raft type foundation (similar to a box culvert configuration) at a SLS resistance of

85 kilopascals, and a ULS of 150 kilopascals. The use of individual pad/strip footings is not recommended.

To reduce the impact of potential differential movements between the new and existing structures founded on deep

foundations and the tunnel link, flexible structural connections at both ends of the tunnel should be provided.

The lateral earth pressures acting on the sides of the link tunnel should be reviewed once backfill types and

configurations are determined.

6.5 Basement Excavation and Groundwater Control

It is understood that the basement level will have a design floor elevation of about 64.7 metres, which is about 5 to

6 metres below the existing ground surface. Accordingly, excavation to these depths will be through surficial fill

materials and into silty clay stratum. Measurements taken during the current investigation suggest that the

groundwater level is generally at about elevation 62.2 to 63.4 metres within the silty clay stratum. The excavation

for the pile caps at about 63.3 metres will therefore be at or slightly above the measured groundwater level in the

silty clay, acknowledging that higher groundwater levels could exist during wet periods of the year.

Some groundwater inflow will occur into the excavation. However, it is expected that it should be possible to

handle this inflow by pumping from the well filtered sumps in the floor of the excavation. The contractor is

responsible for the design of the temporary groundwater control system, including assessing the appropriate

type of pump(s) and its arrangement, and should be required to submit a detailed work plan for review.

Any pumping should be kept below a rate of 50 m3/day (50,000 L/day). A Ministry of Environment (MOE)

permit-to-take water (PTTW) would be required for this project if this pumping rate is exceeded.

No unusual problems are anticipated in excavating the overburden using conventional hydraulic excavating

equipment. Above the groundwater level and within the fill material and silty clay, side slopes should be stable in

the short term at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical; these soils would be classified as Type 3 soils in accordance with the

Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario (OHSA). However, if excavations extend below the groundwater

level, the silty clay would need to be cut back at a flatter angle. The OHSA could require unsupported slopes as

flat as 3 horizontal to 1 vertical in these materials. Where site conditions (such as presence of weak soils,

proximity of existing structures and utilities, or space restrictions) do not allow side slopes then suitable safety

and support measures must be undertaken according to the requirements of the OSHA. These measures

include installation of a suitable shoring system to create and maintain positive support to the sidewalls of the

excavated trenches.

The silty clay soils that will form the floor of the foundation excavations are highly sensitive to disturbance.

Consideration should therefore be given to protecting the subgrade in foundation areas with a mud slab of lean

concrete or layer of compacted granular fill materials. Any disturbed soil will need to be removed prior to placing

the protective layer. That mud slab/granular fill materials should be placed immediately following inspection and

approval of the subgrade. The period of time between exposure of the subgrade and covering with the protective

layer should be limited to as brief as possible and, in the interim, no construction traffic should be permitted on

the subgrade. The excavation should also be made using an excavator bucket without teeth; i.e., a smooth

blade should be used.



Excavations for the basement level of the new addition may be carried out in open cut excavation with side

slopes recommended as above or using a shoring system. However, it will likely be necessary to provide

a suitable shoring system for the excavation. Guidelines on excavation shoring are provided in Section 6.8 of

this report.

6.6 Excavation Shoring

The excavation for the building addition will be developed adjacent to the existing building and will extend to the

full limits of the property and, as such, vertical (or near vertical) excavation walls are expected to be required.

The contractor is fully responsible for the detailed design and performance of the temporary shoring systems.

However, this section of the report provides some general guidelines on possible concepts for the shoring, to be

used by the designers for assessing the possible impacts of the shoring design and site works as well as to

evaluate, at the design stage, the potential for impacts of this shoring on the adjacent properties. Temporary

shoring can be used in combination with open cuts above the top of shoring, however, the earth pressure

distribution must take into account the effects of the soil pressures from the upper open cut section.

The shoring method(s) chosen to support the excavation sides must take into account the soil and bedrock

stratigraphy, the permissible movement of the shoring, the groundwater conditions, the methods adopted to

manage the groundwater and construct the shoring systems, the potential ground movements associated with

the excavation and construction of the shoring system, and their impact on adjacent structures and utilities.

It is understood that the excavation floor level will, at its deepest point, generally be at about elevation

63.3 metres, which is about 6 to 7 metres below the existing ground surface. It is further understood that the

existing Lamoureux Hall Building is supported on battered pile foundations end bearing on the bedrock. As such

the pile foundations of the existing building could be affected by the excavation. The existing floor slab and

underslab services may also be at risk from the potential ground movements and therefore, the design of the

shoring system must take into account the potential effects on the adjacent structure .

The following potential shoring methods may be considered for a deep excavation at the site: steel soldier piles

and timber lagging, driven interlocking steel sheet piles or a contiguous caisson (secant pile) wall. Each system

must be provided with appropriate lateral support.

Where foundations or settlement sensitive infrastructure lie within the zone of influence of the shoring, such as

the side abutting the existing Lamoureux Hall Building, the deflections need to be greatly limited and interlocked

steel sheet piling or a secant pile wall with pre-stressed tie backs should be considered. These proposed shoring

systems also serve to maintain groundwater levels at existing elevations as well as minimize the loss of soil.

Soldier pile and lagging walls are considered suitable for all other sides of the deep excavations (provided that

settlement-sensitive structures or utilities are not present in the zone of influence of the walls) where the objective is

to maintain an essentially vertical excavation wall and the movements above and behind the wall need only be

sufficiently limited so that relatively flexible features (such as roadways) will not be adversely affected.

For all of the above systems, some form of lateral support to the wall is required for excavation depths greater

than about 3 to 4 metres, which is the case for this site. Lateral restraint could be provided by means of

tie-backs consisting of grouted bedrock anchors. However the use of rock anchor tie-backs would require the

permission of the adjacent property owners (including the City, if they own the adjacent roadways) since the

anchors would be installed beneath their properties. The presence of utilities beneath the adjacent streets and



the pile foundations of the existing Lamoureux Hall, which could interfere with the tie-backs, should also be

considered. Alternatively, interior struts can be considered, connected either to the opposite side of the

excavation (if not too distant) or to raker piles and/or footings within the excavation. However, internal struts

could interfere with the construction of the foundations and new addition.

6.7 Ground Movements

Some unavoidable inward horizontal deformation and vertical settlement of the adjacent ground will occur as a

result of excavation, installation of shoring, deflection of the ground support system (including bending of the

walls, compression of the struts and/or extension of the tie-backs) as well as deformation of the soil/rock in which

the toes of the walls are embedded. The ground movements induced could affect the performance of surface

structures or underground utilities adjacent to the excavation.

As a preliminary guideline, typical settlements behind soldier pile and lagging shoring systems are less than

about 0.3 percent of the excavation depth, provided good construction practices are used, voids are not left

behind the lagging, and also provided that large foundation loads from existing buildings are not applied behind

the shoring. This guideline would suggest that less than about 10 to 15 millimetres of ground settlement would

occur for shoring systems installed through the overburden and weathered bedrock to about 5 metres depth.

Movements behind a properly constructed steel sheet pile or contiguous caisson wall would be less than what

would be expected for a soldier pile and lagging wall. However, this is only preliminary guideline and is provided

only to assist the owner’s designers in carrying out an initial assessment of the expected settlements and the

potential impacts of these settlements. A more detailed assessment of the expected settlements should be

undertaken by the contractor. However, should the preliminary assessment carried out using these estimated

settlement indicate unacceptably large settlements to adjacent building, roadways or utilities, then a more

detailed assessment should be carried out at the design stage (prior to tender) to better assess the shoring

requirements, or a more rigid form of shoring should be selected.

The magnitude of these movements should be monitored during the construction period. The expected levels of

deformation should be established by the contractor and alert levels should be set at which the designers should

review the deformation and consider modifications to the design and/or construction procedures. The threshold

alert level for movement adjacent to the existing building should be determined by the structural engineer.

Along the new lower basement wall adjoining the existing Lamoureux Hall, it is envisioned that the new foundation

wall would be poured directly against the interlocking sheet pile and tie backs due to space restrictions.

A preconstruction survey of all of these structures should be carried out prior to commencement of the excavation.

6.8 Foundation Wall Backfill

Foundation/basement walls should be backfilled with free draining non-frost susceptible granular fill meeting

the requirements of OPSS Granular B Type I or II. The backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of standard

Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. To reduce compaction induced stresses

only light compaction rollers or plate tampers should be used within 1.0 metre of the wall.

In any areas where the temporary shoring wall serves as the outside form for the foundation wall, vertical

drainage must be installed against the shoring wall. The drainage channels could consist of filtered drainage

wick such as Miradrain.



Water flow from either the granular backfill or drainage wicks should be collected by means of a perforated drain

line located at the base of the wall. This drain line should be provided with a granular surround and should lead

to a sump pit form which water can be pumped.

Beneath hard surfacing (e.g., pavements or walkways), the wall excavation should be provided with a frost taper

at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical to limit the severity of differential heaving that could occur between areas backfilled

with non-frost susceptible engineered fill and the adjacent areas underlain by the existing frost susceptible fill.

6.9 Lateral Earth Pressures for Design

The lateral earth pressures acting on the foundation walls will depend on the existing soil conditions, on the

magnitude of surcharge including construction loadings, on the freedom of lateral movement of the structure,

and on the drainage conditions behind the walls. Seismic (earthquake) loading must also be taken into account

in the design.

The details on the wall backfill drainage are provided in Section 6.10 of this report.

The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the foundation walls.

Where the wall support and structure allow lateral yielding, (e.g., for unrestrained retaining walls), active earth

pressures may be used in the geotechnical design of the wall. Where the support does not allow lateral yielding,

(i.e., for the proposed basement walls) at-rest earth pressures should be assumed for geotechnical design.

If a shored excavation (in overburden) is used as part of the formwork for the wall, the lateral earth pressures for

foundation walls are based on the existing retained soils (i.e., silty clay) and the following parameters (unfactored)

may be used:

Parameter Values

Soil, Unit Weight

Silty Clay

17.0 kN/m3

Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure:

Active, Ka

At rest, Ko

0.31

0.47

If the foundation wall is backfilled with granular free draining fill either in a zone with width equal to at least

50 percent of the height of the wall or within the wedge-shaped zone defined by a line drawn at 1 horizontal to

1 vertical (1.5H:1V) extending up and back from the rear face of the footing/pile cap/grade beam, the following

parameters (unfactored) may be used:

Parameter Values

Unit Weight for Granular B Type II 21.0 kN/m3

Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure:

Active, Ka

At rest, Ko

0.27

0.43



Seismic loading will result in increased lateral earth pressures acting on the walls. The walls should be designed

to withstand the combined lateral loading for the appropriate static pressure conditions given above, plus the

earthquake-induced dynamic earth pressure.

The horizontal seismic coefficient, kh, used in the calculation of the seismic active pressure coefficient is taken

as 1.0 times the design PGA (i.e., kh = 0.32). For structures which allow lateral yielding, kh is taken as 0.5 times

the design PGA (i.e., kh = 0.16).

The following seismic active pressure coefficients (KAE) may be used in design; these coefficients reflect the KAE

obtained using the kh values described above and assumed no vertical acceleration and wall to soil friction.

These seismic earth pressure coefficients assume that the back of the wall is vertical and the ground surface

behind the wall is flat. Where sloping backfill is present above the top of the wall, the lateral earth pressures

under seismic loading conditions should be calculated by treating the weight of the backfill located above the top

of the wall as a surcharge.

Type of Wall Seismic Active Pressure

Coefficients, KAE (PGA=0.32)

Non-yielding wall 0.80

The above KAE values for yielding walls are applicable provided that the wall can move up to 250A (mm), where A

is the design PGA of 0.32. This corresponds to displacements of up to approximately 80 millimetres at this Site.

The earthquake-induced dynamic pressure distribution, which is to be added to the static earth pressure

distribution, is a linear distribution with maximum pressure at the top of the wall and minimum pressure at its toe

(i.e., an inverted triangular pressure distribution).

A minimum surcharge pressure of 12 kilopascals due to traffic and compaction induced pressure should be

included in the total lateral earth pressures for the structural design of the wall.

The total pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows:

h(d) = Ko γ d + (KAE – Ka) γ (H-d) + q

Where: h(d) = Lateral earth pressure at depth, d, (kPa);

Ko = Coefficient of static earth pressure;

γ = Unit weight of the backfill soil (kN/m3); as given previously;

d = Depth below the top of the wall (m);

KAE = Seismic active earth pressure coefficient;

q = Surcharge to account for traffic and compaction pressure, where applicable; and,

H = Total height of the wall (m).



All of the lateral earth pressure equations are given in an unfactored format and will need to be factored for

Ultimate Limit States design purposes.

6.10 Basement Floor Slab

In preparation for the construction of the basement floor slab, all fill and, all loose, wet, and disturbed material

should be removed from beneath the floor slab down to the undisturbed native soil. Provision should be made

for at least 225 millimetres of Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular A to form the base of

the floor slab. Any bulk fill required to raise the grade up to the underside of the Granular A should consist of

OPSS Granular B Type II. The underslab fill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should

be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory

compaction equipment.

The existing concrete filled steel pipe piles within the new addition footprint should be cut off at least

500 millimetres below the underside of basement slab elevation. The excavation to remove the piles should

then be backfilled with compacted OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type II. During pile removal, care must be

taken to not sway/rock the pile back and forth, which could cause the formation of voids beside it. If voids are

created, then they should be grouted using a low viscosity grout.

To prevent hydrostatic pressure build up beneath the floor slab, it is suggested that drainage be provided for the

granular base beneath the floor slab. This could be achieved by installing 100 millimetre diameter rigid

perforated pipes under the floor slab granular base layer at 6 metre centres and around the basement perimeter.

The perforated pipes should discharge to a positive outlet such as a storm sewer or a sump from which the

water is pumped.

6.11 Frost Protection

All perimeter and exterior foundation elements or interior foundation elements in unheated areas should be

provided with a minimum of 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated, unheated exterior

footings adjacent to surfaces which are cleared of snow cover during winter months should be provided with a

minimum of 1.8 metres of earth cover.

It is expected that these requirements will be satisfied for all of the structure footings due to the deep founding

levels required.

6.12 Site Servicing

Excavation for the installation of site services will be primarily through the fill material and silty clay.

No unusual problems are anticipated in trenching in the overburden using conventional hydraulic excavating

equipment. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) of Ontario indicate that side slopes in the

overburden to depths of about 4 metres be sloped at a minimum of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (i.e., Type 3 soils).

Deeper excavations or steeper side slopes should be carried out within a fully braced, steel trench box.

Some groundwater inflow into the trenches should be expected. However, it should be possible to handle the

groundwater inflow by pumping from well filtered sumps in the excavations.



At least 150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A should be used as pipe bedding for sewer and water pipes. Where

unavoidable disturbance to the subgrade surface does occur, it may be necessary to place a sub-bedding layer

consisting of compacted OPSS Granular B Type II beneath the Granular A or to thicken the Granular A bedding.

The bedding material should in all cases extend to the spring line of the pipe and should be compacted to at

least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The use of clear crushed stone as a bedding

layer should not be permitted anywhere on this project since fine particles from the sandy backfill materials could

potentially migrate into the voids in the clear crushed stone and cause loss of lateral pipe support.

Cover material, from spring line of the pipe to at least 300 millimetres above the top of pipe, should consist of

OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type I with a maximum particle size of 25 millimetres. The cover material

should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density.

It should generally be possible to re-use the grey brown weathered crust as trench backfill. Where the trench will

be covered with hard surfaced areas, the type of native material placed in the frost zone (between subgrade

level and 1.8 metres depth) should match the soil exposed on the trench walls for frost heave compatibility.

Trench backfill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least

95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment.

The high water content of the grey silty clay makes this soil difficult to handle and compact. If grey silty clay is

excavated during installation of the site services, this material should be wasted or should only be used as

backfill in the lower portion of the trenches to limit the amount of long term settlement of the pavement surface.

It could also be used as landscape fill.

Long term groundwater level lowering at this site could lead to overstressing of the silty clay and the settlement

of overlying structures. Impervious dykes or cut-offs should therefore be constructed in the service trenches

near the street connection just inside the property to reduce groundwater lowering at the site due to the “french

drain” effect of the granular bedding and surround for the service pipes. It is important that these barriers extend

from trench wall to trench wall and that they fully penetrate the granular materials to the trench bottom.

The dykes should be at least 1.5 metres wide and could be constructed using relatively dry (i.e., compactable)

grey brown weathered silty clay.

6.13 Corrosion and Cement Type

One sample of soil from Borehole 14-2 was submitted to EXOVA Laboratories Ltd. for chemical analysis related

to potential corrosion of exposed buried steel and concrete elements (corrosion and sulphate attack).

The results of this testing are provided in Appendix C. The results indicate that concrete made with Type GU

Portland cement should be acceptable for concrete substructures.

The results also indicate a high potential for corrosion of buried ferrous elements, which should be considered in

the design of substructures and pile foundations.



7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Piling operations should be inspected on a full time basis by geotechnical personnel to monitor the pile locations

and plumbness, initial sets, penetration on re-strike, and to check the integrity of the piles following installation.

All footing and subgrade areas should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel prior to placing of

concreting to ensure that strata having adequate bearing capacity have been reached and that the bearing

surfaces have been properly prepared. The placing and compaction of any engineered fill should be inspected

to ensure that the materials used conform to the specifications from both a grading and compaction view point.

Ontario Regulation 903 requires proper abandonment of the monitoring wells installed in Boreholes 14-01, 14-02

and 14-03. As such, the contract should include a monitoring well decommissioning item and the wells should

be decommissioned prior to the start of construction. Monitoring well decommissioning guidelines are provided

in Appendix F.

Prior to construction, it is recommended that a survey of Lamoureax Hall and existing buildings adjacent to

the site be carried out to determine their pre-construction condition and presence of any defects. Also, it is

recommended that vibration monitoring be carried out to monitor the effects of the pile driving on the

adjacent structures. The services of a vibration specialist should be retained during the pile driving to monitor

the effects of pile driving on adjacent structures.

Prior to construction of the lowest floor slab and pile caps, all the existing structures (both above and below

ground elements) should completely be removed from within the footprint of the building, and if required the

subgrade level should be raised by using an approved engineered fill.

Some of the guidelines in this report are preliminary in nature and additional consultation will be required as the

project moves to the final design stage. Golder Associates should be retained to review the final drawings and

specifications for this project prior to tendering to ensure that the guidelines in this report have been

adequately interpreted.



8.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

This geotechnical investigation report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the University of Ottawa,

Physical Resources Service and their agents for specific application to the proposed Lamoureux Hall expansion

at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario.

At the time of writing this report, only conceptual details on the design (i.e., it is known that the project will consist

of a six storey addition with a full basement) were available.

Golder Associates Ltd. Page 1 of 2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that

level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently

practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time

limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development

and purpose described to Golder by the Client, University of Ottawa. The factual data, interpretations and

recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other

project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated

within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible

for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the

Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express

written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then the

client may authorize the use of this report for such purpose by the regulatory agency as an Approved User

for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process, provided this report is not

noted to be a draft or preliminary report, and is specifically relevant to the project for which the application is

being made. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The

report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are

considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes

only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are

reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give,

lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express

written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized

modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media

versions of Golder's report or other work products.

The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions

given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports

prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly

understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be

made to the whole of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of portions of the report without

reference to the entire report.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended

only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of

investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions

which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design

purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as

their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect

their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment

capabilities.

Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic

units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering

and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units

involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be

transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the

descriptions.

Golder Associates Ltd. Page 2 of 2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT (cont'd)

Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions

and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface

conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder

interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to

soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on

adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of

the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence

or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the

site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of

reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.

Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions

at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the

recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and

can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater

may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile

driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to

wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during

construction.

Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of

this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's

expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be

present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.

Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of

Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to

construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report.

During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered

conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted

conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction

activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report.

Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide

letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this

recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information

encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the

preparation of the Report.

Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from

those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities,

it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review

or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires

experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if

conditions have changed significantly.

Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project.

Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no

responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction

monitoring of the system.

SITE

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

445000

445000

446000

446000

447000

447000

448000

448000

5028

000

5028

000

5029

000

5029

000

5030

000

5030

000

5031

000

5031

000

5032

000

5032

000

Path:

N:\A

ctive

\Spati

al_IM

\Univ

ersity

ofOtta

wa\La

moure

uxHa

llAdd

ition\9

9_PR

OJ\14

0182

74_U

oO_S

iteInv

estig

ation

\40_P

ROD\

Phas

e100

0_Ge

otech

\1418

274-1

000-0

1.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SHO

WN, T

HE SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)

1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDERASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT NO. 1418274/1000

1. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18 VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28

1:25,000 METRES

1000 0 1PROJECT NO. PHASE FIGURE

CLIENTUNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

PROJECTDETAILED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED EXPANSION TO LAMOUREUX HALL, OTTAWA, ONTITLEKEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

REV.

2015-02-27----JEM--------

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

1418274

0 500 1,000250

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

66

[

[

@A

@A

@A

@A

051120011BH 05-2

051120011BH 05-3

SF1455BH 85

SF1455BH 86

SF1455BH 87

SF1455BH 88

SF1455BH 89

SF2680403

SF2680408

SF2680411

SF2680412

0911210036TP 09-1 0911210036

TP 09-2

SF1307BH 57

07112102102000BH 08-9 MARIE CURIE PVT

GEORGES GLINSKI PVT

UNIVERSITE PVT

LOUIS PASTEUR PVT

KING EDWARD AVE

JEAN JACQUES LUSSIER PVT

14-04

14-03

14-02

14-01

446750

446750

5030

000

5030

000

Path:

N:\A

ctive

\Spati

al_IM

\Univ

ersity

ofOtta

wa\La

moure

uxHa

llAdd

ition\9

9_PR

OJ\14

0182

74_U

oO_S

iteInv

estig

ation

\40_P

ROD\

Phas

e100

0_Ge

otech

\1418

274-1

000-0

2.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SHO

WN, T

HE SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1:750 METRES

CLIENTUNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)

1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDERASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT NO. 1418274/1000

1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDERLICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20142. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18 VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28

PROJECTDETAILED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED EXPANSION TO LAMOUREUX HALL, OTTAWA, ONTITLETOPOGRAPHIC MAP

1418274 1000 0 2

2015-02-27----JEM--------

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

LEGEND

@A APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION, CURRENT INVESTIGATION

[ APPROXIAMTE BOREHOLE LOCATION, PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION6 APPROXIAMTE TEST PIT LOCATION, PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION

ROADWAYBUILDING FOOTPRINTWOODED AREAPROPOSED EXPANSION

0 20 4010


March 2015 Report No. 1418274 Rev-0

APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets – Current Investigation

METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

January 2013 G-1

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group Type of Soil Gradation

or Plasticity 𝑪𝒖 =𝑫𝟔𝟎

𝑫𝟏𝟎 𝑪𝒄 =

(𝑫𝟑𝟎)𝟐

𝑫𝟏𝟎𝒙𝑫𝟔𝟎 Organic

Content USCS Group

Symbol Group Name

INO

RG

ANIC

(O

rgan

ic C

onte

nt ≤

30%

by

mas

s)

CO

ARSE

-GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

(˃50

% b

y m

ass

is la

rger

than

0.0

75 m

m)

GR

AVEL

S

(>50

% b

y m

ass

of

coar

se fr

actio

n is

la

rger

than

4.7

5 m

m) Gravels

with ≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded <4 ≤1 or ≥3

≤30%

GP GRAVEL

Well Graded ≥4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL

Gravels with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line n/a GM SILTY

GRAVEL

Above A Line n/a GC CLAYEY

GRAVEL

SAN

DS

(≥

50%

by

mas

s of

co

arse

frac

tion

is

smal

ler t

han

4.75

mm

) Sands with

≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded <6 ≤1 or ≥3 SP SAND

Well Graded ≥6 1 to 3 SW SAND

Sands with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line n/a SM SILTY SAND

Above A Line n/a SC CLAYEY

SAND

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group Type of Soil Laboratory

Tests

Field Indicators Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Primary Name Dilatancy Dry

Strength Shine Test

Thread Diameter

Toughness (of 3 mm thread)

INO

RG

ANIC

(Org

anic

Con

tent

≤30

% b

y m

ass)

FIN

E-G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

(≥50

% b

y m

ass

is s

mal

ler t

han

0.07

5 m

m)

SILT

S

(N

on-P

last

ic o

r PI a

nd L

L pl

ot

belo

w A

-Lin

e

on P

last

icity

C

hart

bel

ow)

Liquid Limit

<50

Rapid None None >6 mm N/A (can’t roll 3 mm thread)

<5% ML SILT

Slow None to Low Dull 3mm to

6 mm None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Dull to slight

3mm to 6 mm Low 5% to

30% OL ORGANIC SILT

Liquid Limit ≥50

Slow to very slow

Low to medium Slight 3mm to

6 mm Low to

medium <5% MH CLAYEY SILT

None Medium to high

Dull to slight

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium to high

5% to 30% OH ORGANIC

SILT

CLA

YS

(P

I and

LL

plot

ab

ove

A-Li

ne o

n Pl

astic

ity C

hart

be

low

)

Liquid Limit <30 None Low to

medium Slight

to shiny ~ 3 mm Low to medium 0%

to 30%

(see

Note 2)

CL SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit 30 to 50 None Medium

to high Slight

to shiny 1 mm to

3 mm Medium

CI SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit ≥50 None High Shiny <1 mm High CH CLAY

HIG

HLY

O

RG

ANIC

SO

ILS

(Org

anic

C

onte

nt >

30%

by

mas

s) Peat and mineral soil

mixtures 30%

to 75%

PT

SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT

Predominantly peat, may contain some

mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat

75%

to 100%

PEAT

Note 1 – Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 – For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor “trace organics” for soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix “organic” before the Primary name.

Dual Symbol — A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between “clean” and “dirty” sand or gravel. For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to or indicates a range of similar soil types within a stratum.

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS

January 2013 G-2

PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soil

Constituent Particle Size Description Millimetres Inches

(US Std. Sieve Size)

BOULDERS Not Applicable >300 >12

COBBLES Not Applicable 75 to 300 3 to 12

GRAVEL Coarse Fine

19 to 75 4.75 to 19

0.75 to 3 (4) to 0.75

SAND Coarse Medium

Fine

2.00 to 4.75 0.425 to 2.00 0.075 to 0.425

(10) to (4) (40) to (10) (200) to (40)

SILT/CLAY Classified by plasticity <0.075 < (200)

SAMPLES AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample

DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler – note size

DS Denison type sample FS Foil sample RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Split spoon sampler – note size ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open – note size TP Thin-walled, piston – note size WS Wash sample

MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage

by Mass Modifier

>35 Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY)

> 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable

> 5 to 12 some

≤ 5 trace

SOIL TESTS w water content PL , wp plastic limit LL , wL liquid limit C consolidation (oedometer) test CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text) CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1

CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement1

DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS direct shear test GS specific gravity M sieve analysis for particle size MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified Proctor compaction test SPC Standard Proctor compaction test OC organic content test SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates UC unconfined compression test UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) γ unit weight 1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are

shown as CAD, CAU.

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod

NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

Compactness2 Consistency Term SPT ‘N’ (blows/0.3m)1

Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 4 to 10

Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50

Very Dense >50 1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden

pressure effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT ‘N’ ranges from

Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N60 values.

Term Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

SPT ‘N’1 (blows/0.3m)

Very Soft <12 0 to 2 Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15

Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard >200 >30

1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only.

Field Moisture Condition Water Content Term Description

Dry Soil flows freely through fingers.

Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool.

Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled.

Term Description

w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit.

w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit.

w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

January 2013 G-3

Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:

I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content π 3.1416 wl or LL liquid limit ln x natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit log10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 lp or PI plasticity index = (wl – wp) g acceleration due to gravity ws shrinkage limit t time IL liquidity index = (w – wp) / Ip IC consistency index = (wl – w) / Ip emax void ratio in loosest state emin void ratio in densest state ID density index = (emax – e) / (emax - emin) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties ∆ change in, e.g. in stress: ∆ σ h hydraulic head or potential ε linear strain q rate of flow εv volumetric strain v velocity of flow η coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient υ Poisson’s ratio k hydraulic conductivity σ total stress (coefficient of permeability) σ′ effective stress (σ′ = σ - u) j seepage force per unit volume σ′vo initial effective overburden stress σ1, σ2, σ3

principal stress (major, intermediate, minor)

(c) Consolidation (one-dimensional)

Cc compression index σoct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 Cr recompression index τ shear stress (over-consolidated range) u porewater pressure Cs swelling index E modulus of deformation Cα secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation mv coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical

direction) ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal

direction) Tv time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation σ′p pre-consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water τp, τr peak and residual shear strength ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ′ effective angle of internal friction γ′ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction (γ′ = γ - γw) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c′ effective cohesion particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) cu, su undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2 n porosity p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ1 - σ3)/2 or (σ′1 - σ′3)/2 qu compressive strength (σ1 - σ3) St sensitivity * Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ

where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity)

Notes: 1 2

τ = c′ + σ′ tan φ′ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2

LITHOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ROCK DESCRIPTION TERMINOLOGY

WEATHERINGS STATE

Fresh: no visible sign of weathering

Faintly weathered: weathering limited to the surface of major discontinuities. Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering developed on open discontinuity surfaces but only slight weathering of rock material. Moderately weathered: weathering extends throughout the rock mass but the rock material is not friable. Highly weathered: weathering extends throughout rock mass and the rock material is partly friable. Completely weathered: rock is wholly decomposed and in a friable condition but the rock and structure are preserved.

BEDDING THICKNESS

Description Bedding Plane Spacing

Very thickly bedded Greater than 2 m

Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m

Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m

Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m

Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm

Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm

Thinly laminated Less than 6 mm

JOINT OR FOLIATION SPACING

Description Spacing

Very wide Greater than 3 m

Wide 1 m to 3 m

Moderately close 0.3 m to 1 m

Close 50 mm to 300 mm

Very close Less than 50 mm

GRAIN SIZE

Term Size*

Very Coarse Grained Greater than 60 mm

Coarse Grained 2 mm to 60 mm

Medium Grained 60 microns to 2 mm

Fine Grained 2 microns to 60 microns

Very Fine Grained Less than 2 microns

Note: * Grains greater than 60 microns diameter are visible to the

naked eye.

CORE CONDITION

Total Core Recovery (TCR) The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run.

Solid Core Recovery (SCR) The percentage of solid drill core, regardless of length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) The percentage of solid drill core, greater than 100 mm length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run. RQD varied from 0% for completely broken core to 100% for core in solid sticks.

DISCONTINUITY DATA

Fracture Index A count of the number of discontinuities (physical separations) in the rock core, including both naturally occurring fractures and mechanically induced breaks caused by drilling.

Dip with Respect to Core Axis The angle of the discontinuity relative to the axis (length) of the core. In a vertical borehole a discontinuity with a 90o angle is horizontal.

Description and Notes An abbreviation description of the discontinuities, whether

naturally occurring separations such as fractures, bedding planes

and foliation planes or mechanically induced features caused by

drilling such as ground or shattered core and mechanically

separated bedding or foliation surfaces. Additional information

concerning the nature of fracture surfaces and infillings are also

noted.

Abbreviations JN Joint PL Planar

FLT Fault CU Curved

SH Shear UN Undulating

VN Vein IR Irregular

FR Fracture K Slickensided

SY Stylolite PO Polished

BD Bedding SM Smooth

FO Foliation SR Slightly Rough

CO Contact RO Rough

AXJ Axial Joint VR Very Rough

KV Karstic Void

MB Mechanical Break

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

DC

PT

16

6

8

5

WH

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

>96

Portland Cement ConcreteFILL - (SM) SILTY SAND; brown,contains organic matter; non-cohesive,moist

FILL - (SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, compact

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY, tracesand; brown (Weathered Crust);cohesive, w>PL, stiff to very stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey;cohesive, w>PL, firm to stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace fines; grey;wet, compact

Probable SILTY SAND, with cobbles andboulders (GLACIAL TILL)

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

69.76

69.15

66.10

63.05

62.44

0.15

0.91

1.52

4.57

7.62

8.23

Flush MountProtective Casing

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand

51 mm Diam.(PVC #10 SlotScreen)

Silica Sand

W.L. in Screen atElev. 63.11 m onFeb. 11, 2015

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

W

WATER CONTENT PERCENT

PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm

NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp

BORING DATE: February 10, 2015

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s

SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE

SHEET 1 OF 2RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 14-01

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DD

GROUND SURFACE 70.67

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.00

PROJECT: 1418274-1000

LOCATION: See Site PlanM

IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

nat V.rem V.

Q -U -

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

DC

PT

Probable SILTY SAND, with cobbles andboulders (GLACIAL TILL)

End of Borehole56.1914.48

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DD

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


200

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

16

9

5

3

PH

1

2

3

4

5

6

Portland Cement ConcreteFILL - (SW) gravelly SAND, angular;brown; non-cohesiveFILL - (SM) SILTY SAND; brown,contains topsoil, possible ash;non-cohesive, moistFILL - (SM-SP) SILTY SAND to SAND,some fines; brown; non-cohesive, moist(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY, tracesand; brown, friable (Weathered Crust);cohesive, w>PL, very stiff to stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY, browngrey, cohesive, w>PL, firm

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; grey; cohesive,w>PL, stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; grey,contains cobbles and boulders(GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, wet,dense

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

69.42

68.96

65.46

64.24

61.30

0.15

0.30

0.61

1.07

4.57

5.79

8.73


Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand


Silica Sand

Bentonite Seal

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM


CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.00

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

NQRC

NQRC

Pow

er A

uger

Rot

ary

Dril

l

35

>50

DD

DD

7

8

C1

C2

(SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; grey,contains cobbles and boulders(GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, wet,dense

Probable (SM) SILTY SAND, somegravel; grey, contains cobbles (GLACIALTILL); non-cohesive

Fresh, slightly weathered, thinly tomedium bedded, brown grey, finegrained, non-porous, nodularLIMESTONE BEDROCK, with shalepartings

End of Borehole

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

NQ

Cor

e

56.11

54.69

52.96

13.92

15.34

17.07

Bentonite Seal


PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


Rot

ary

Dril

l

1

2

Fresh, slightly weathered, thinly tomedium bedded, brown grey, finegrained, non-porous, nodularLIMESTONE BEDROCK, with shalepartings

End of Drillhole 17.07

NQ

Cor

e

52.96

Bentonite Seal


BR- Polished- Slickensided- Smooth- Rough- Mechanical Break

POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 14-02

5 10 15 20

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

- Planar- Curved- Undulating- Stepped- Irregular

- Bedding- Foliation- Contact- Orthogonal- Cleavage C

OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080

DISCONTINUITY DATADESCRIPTION

0 30 60 90

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%

20406080

TYPE AND SURFACEDESCRIPTION Ja

INCLINATION: -90° AZIMUTH: ---

FRACT.INDEXPER0.3 m

DIP w.r.t.COREAXIS

B AngleJcon Jr

DRILLING DATE: February 6, 2015

DRILL RIG: CME-75

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 3 OF 3

NOTE: For additionalabbreviations refer to listof abbreviations &symbols.

SOLIDCORE %

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

- Joint- Fault- Shear- Vein- Conjugate

BDFOCOORCL

1 : 50

DWMLOGGED:

CHECKED: NRL

PROJECT: 1418274-1000

LOCATION: See Site Plan

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BEDROCK SURFACE

15.3454.69

MIS

-RC

K 0

04

1418

274

-100

0.G

PJ

GA

L-M

ISS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

K, cm/secRMC-Q'

AVG.

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

2 4 6

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

14

12

10

6

3

PH

PH

PH

PH

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Portland Cement ConcreteFILL - (SW) gravelly SAND, trace fines;brown; non-cohesiveFILL - (SW) SAND, some fines; brown;non-cohesive, dry, compact

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; brown,friable (Weathered Crust); cohesive,w>PL, very stiff to stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; browngrey; cohesive, w>PL, stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey,contains silt seams; cohesive, w>PL,firm to stiff

(ML) CLAYEY SILT; grey, contains sandseams (layered); cohesive, w>PL, stiff

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

70.08

68.86

65.81

64.28

61.24

60.48

0.09

0.30

1.52

4.57

6.10

9.14

9.90


Native Backfill andBentonite

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand


Silica Sand

Native Backfill

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM


CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.00

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

NQRC

NQRC

Pow

er A

uger

Rot

ary

Dril

l

3

9

51

73

64

>50

DD

DD

11

12

13

14

15

16

C1

C2

(ML) SILT; grey, contains sand seams(layered); non-cohesive, wet, very looseto loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey (GLACIAL TILL);non-cohesive, moist, dense to verydense

Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey,fine grained, non-porous, nodularLIMESTONE BEDROCK, with shalepartings

End of Borehole

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

NQ

Cor

e

58.80

56.46

54.07

11.58

13.92

16.31

Native Backfill

Bentonite Seal


PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


Rot

ary

Dril

l

1

Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey,fine grained, non-porous, nodularLIMESTONE BEDROCK, with shalepartings

End of Drillhole 16.31

NQ

Cor

e

54.07

Bentonite Seal


BR- Polished- Slickensided- Smooth- Rough- Mechanical Break

POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 14-03

5 10 15 20

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

- Planar- Curved- Undulating- Stepped- Irregular

- Bedding- Foliation- Contact- Orthogonal- Cleavage C

OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080

DISCONTINUITY DATADESCRIPTION

0 30 60 90

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%

20406080

TYPE AND SURFACEDESCRIPTION Ja

INCLINATION: -90° AZIMUTH: ---

FRACT.INDEXPER0.3 m

DIP w.r.t.COREAXIS

B AngleJcon Jr

DRILLING DATE: February 4, 2015

DRILL RIG: CME-75

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 3 OF 3

NOTE: For additionalabbreviations refer to listof abbreviations &symbols.

SOLIDCORE %

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

- Joint- Fault- Shear- Vein- Conjugate

BDFOCOORCL

1 : 50

DWMLOGGED:

CHECKED: NRL

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

BEDROCK SURFACE

13.9256.46

MIS

-RC

K 0

04

1418

274

-100

0.G

PJ

GA

L-M

ISS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

K, cm/secRMC-Q'

AVG.

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

2 4 6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

185

62

16

10

6

3

PH

PH

PH

PH

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FILL - (SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown,some organics, possible wood, ash;non-cohesive, moist

FILL - (SP) SAND, some fines; lightbrown; non-cohesive, moistFILL - (SM-SP) SILTY SAND to SAND,some fines; dark to light brown, containsorganics; non-cohesive, moist

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; brown,fissured, contains rootlets (WeatheredCrust); cohesive, w>PL, very stiff to stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; browngrey; cohesive, w>PL, stiff

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey;cohesive, w>PL, firm to stiff

(ML-CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEYSILT, trace gravel; grey; non-cohesive,wet, very loose

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

69.90

69.14

66.55

64.26

61.22

60.45

0.46

0.61

1.22

3.81

6.10

9.14

9.91

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM


CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.00

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

Pow

er A

uger

DC

PT

211

(ML) SILT, trace sand and gravel; grey,some silty clay seams (layered);non-cohesive, wet, very loose

Probable grey GLACIAL TILL

End of Borehole

59.08

57.33

11.28

13.03

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NRL

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM

PROJECT: 1418274-1000


IS-B

HS

001

14

182

74-1

000.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 0

3/11

/15

JE

M

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


110

130

230



APPENDIX B Record of Borehole and Test Pit – Previous Investigations

TP 09-1 and TP 09-2 (09-1121-0036)

BH 08-9 (07-1121-0210)

BH 05-2 and BH 05-3 (05-1120-011)

BH 403, 408, 411 and 412 (SF-2680)

BH 85 to BH 89 (SF-1455)

BH 57 (SF-1307)

50DO

10

50DO

50DO

50DO

50DO

50DO

50DO

50DO

50DO

NQRCNQRC

NQRC

Pow

er

Auger

Rota

ry D

rill

50DO

24

4

4

WH

WH

WH

50DO

3

22

111

DD

DD

DD

50DO

50DO

PM

Loose red brown to light brown fine sand(FILL)

13.62

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

NQ

Core

10.19

Stiff grey SILTY CLAY with occasionalgrey thinly bedded fine sand seams atdepth

Loose grey SILT, some fine sand, traceclay

Loose grey fine SAND, some gravel andcobbles (GLACIAL TILL)Compact to dense grey SILTY SAND andshale fragments (gravel to cobble size)(GLACIAL TILL)

Fresh, grey to dark grey, occasionallymottled, very thinly to medium bedded,medium strong LIMESTONE BEDROCKwith occasional thin shale partings

Grey crushed stone (ENGINEEREDFILL)

Grout

5

11.43

Bentonite Seal

11.07

63mm I.D. Sch.40 Riser

Grout

0.10

0.56

1.88

4.57

Silica Sand andGravel mix

6

70.48

69.01

66.32

60.70

59.82

59.46

57.27

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

7

Stiff to very stiff grey brown SILTY CLAY(Weathered Crust)

RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 08-9

DESCRIPTION

SHEET 1 OF 2

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LA

B. T

ES

TIN

G

BL

OW

S/0

.3m



DEPTH SCALE

PROJECT: 07-1121-0210


ELEV.

Dark brown silty sand (FILL)

10-6

10-5

10-3

DATUM: Geodetic

SOIL PROFILE

WlNU

MB

ER

10-4

1 : 75

70.89

BO

RE

HO

LE

0

7-1

12

1-0

21

0.G

PJ

HY

DR

OG

EO

.GD

T

10

/20

/08

nat V.rem V.

20 40 60 80


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Q -U -


20 40 60 80

TY

PE

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

ME

TR

ES

Ground Surface

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

H.E.C.

_______

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0

31

86

31

0100

100

100 R.Q

.D.

(%)

96

200m

m D

iam

. (H

ollow

Ste

m)


SAMPLES

Wp W

PIEZOMETER

OR

STANDPIPE

INSTALLATION

S.C

.R.

(%)

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

20 40 60 80


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

DEPTH

(m)

BORING DATE: August 21, 2008

T.C

.R.

(%)

100


R.Q

.D.

(%)

100

100

100

75

98

100

T.C

.R.

(%)

DEPTH

(m)

NQ

Core

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

20 40 60 80

86

S.C

.R.

(%)

DD

DD

20

19

18

17

16

67

DD

51.74

19.15

BORING DATE: August 21, 2008

83

98

87

94

96

End of Borehole

Fresh, grey to dark grey, occasionallymottled, very thinly to medium bedded,medium strong LIMESTONE BEDROCKwith occasional thin shale partings(continued)

DD

DD

Grout

Rota

ry D

rill

NQRC

NQRC

NQRC

NQRC

NQRC

75

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DE

PT

H S

CA

LE

ME

TR

ES

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 07-1121-0210


DEPTH SCALE


BL

OW

S/0

.3m 20 40 60 80


Q -U -


H.E.C.

_______

20 40 60 80

nat V.rem V.

BO

RE

HO

LE

0

7-1

12

1-0

21

0.G

PJ

HY

DR

OG

EO

.GD

T

10

/20

/08

1 : 75

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LA

B. T

ES

TIN

G

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,k, cm/s

TY

PE

ST

RA

TA

PL

OT

SAMPLES

10-5

10-4

W

PIEZOMETER

OR

STANDPIPE

INSTALLATION


Wp

DESCRIPTION

RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 08-9 SHEET 2 OF 2

10-6

NU

MB

ER

Wl

SOIL PROFILE

ELEV.

10-3



APPENDIX C Results of Chemical Analysis – EXOVA Laboratories Report 1502771

EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis

Client: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa) 1931 Robertson Road Ottawa, ON K2H 5B7Attention: Mr. Alex MeacoePO#: Invoice to: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa)

Report Number: 1502771 Date Submitted: 2015-02-24Date Reported: 2015-02-26Project: 1418274COC #: 794180

Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

8.5

0.008

0.35

2860

0.02 %0.01 SO4

General Chemistry

ohm-cm1 Resistivity mS/cm0.05 Electrical Conductivity %0.002 Cl 2.0 pHAgri. - Soil

1161294Soil

2015-02-06BH 142sab/25-27'

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Page 2 of 3146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1

All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario).Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted.Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request.

Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range



APPENDIX D Geophysical Testing – Previous Investigation

OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA, AUSTRALIA

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Golder Associates Ltd. 2390 Argentia Road Telephone: 905-567-4444 Mississauga, ON, Canada L5N 5Z7 Fax Access: 905-567-6561

TO: Michel St. Louis, GAL – Ottawa DATE: September 9, 2008

FROM: Christopher Phillips, GAL – Mississauga

Tom Flynn, GAL – Mississauga JOB NO: 07-1121-0175

EMAIL: [email protected]

RE: Vertical Seismic Profile Data Processing and Results –

Ottawa University

This memorandum presents the processing and results of the vertical seismic profile (VSP)

testing performed in a borehole located in a parking lot in the vicinity of Vanier Hall, on the

Ottawa University campus by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder Associates) on August 28, 2008.

1.0 METHODOLOGY

Vertical seismic profiling is a single borehole geophysical method. Seismic energy is generated

at the ground surface by an active seismic source and recorded by a geophone located in the

borehole at a known depth below ground surface. The active seismic source can be either

compression or shear-wave. The time required for the energy to travel from the source to the

receiver (geophone) provides a measurement of the average compression or shear-wave seismic

velocity of the medium between the source and the receiver. Data obtained from different

geophone depths are used to calculate a detailed vertical seismic velocity profile of the subsurface

in the immediate vicinity of the test borehole.

The high resolution results of a VSP survey are often used for earthquake engineering site

classification, as per the National Building Code of Canada, 2005.

Michel St-Louis September 2008

Golder Associates Ltd. - 2 - 07-1121-0210

Golder Associates

Example 1: Layout and resulting time traces from a VSP survey.

2.0 FIELD WORK

The field work was conducted on August 28, 2008, by Golder Associates personnel.

Both compression and shear-wave seismic sources were used and both were located in close

vicinity to the borehole. The compression seismic source consisted of a 5.5 kilogram sledge

hammer vertically impacted on a metal plate. The plate was located 1 metre from the borehole.

The shear-wave seismic source used consisted of a 2.4 metre long, 150 millimetres by 150

millimetre wooden beam, weighted on the ground by a vehicle and horizontally struck with a 5.5

kilogram sledge hammer on alternate ends of the beam to induce polarized shear waves. The

shear source was located 1 metre from the borehole.

Tests were conducted with the borehole geophone at 1m intervals, beginning at a depth of 1 metre

below ground surface, to the maximum depth of the borehole (18.6 metres). A three component

borehole geophone configuration was used to record the induced seismic events.



Golder Associates

Data collected for each source were stacked a minimum of five times to minimize the effects of

ambient background seismic noise on the collected data. Data was sampled at 0.020833

millisecond intervals and a total time window of 0.341 second window of data was collected for

each seismic shot.

3.0 DATA PROCESSING

Processing of the VSP test results consisted of the following main steps:

1. Combination of seismic records to present seismic traces for all depth intervals

on a single plot for each seismic source and for each component;

2. Low Pass Filtering (250 Hz) of data to remove spurious high frequency noise;

3. First break picking of the shear-wave arrivals;

4. Calculation of the average shear-wave velocity to each tested depth interval.

Processing of the VSP data was completed using the SeisImager/SW software package

(Geometrics Inc.). The quality of collected seismic data and the shear wave event ‘first break’

picks are presented on Figure 1 (below).

4.0 RESULTS

The VSP results are summarized in Table 1. Layer velocities, at 1 meter intervals, were calculated

by best fitting a theoretical travel time model to the field collected data at 1 metre intervals. A

plot of the match of the field to model data is presented in Figure 2. The depths presented on the

tables are relative to ground surface.

The estimated dynamic engineering moduli, based on the calculated wave velocities, are also

presented on Table 1. The engineering moduli were calculated using an estimated bulk density,

based on the borehole logs. We estimated a bulk density of 1750 kg/m3 from the surface down to

a depth of 13 mbgs which is the approximate depth of the limestone bedrock as indicated in the

borehole log. Below this depth we estimated the bulk density to be 2000 kg/m3. The shear-wave

average velocities show an increase at 11 mbgs. This change in velocity correlates with the

borehole log which indicates a shift from silt to glacial till.



Golder Associates

Figure 1: First break picking of S wave arrivals (red) along the seismic traces recorded at each receiver depth

Average Shear Wave Velocity

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Depth (m)

Tra

vel T

ime

(s)

Field Shear

Model Shear

Figure 2: Comparison of Field and Model Calculated Shear Wave Travetimes



Golder Associates

Table 1: Model Shear Wave Velocity Results

Layer Depth (m) Top Bottom Shear Wave

Estimated Bulk Density (kg/m3)

Shear Modulus (MPa)

0.0 1.0 85 1750 13 1.0 2.0 170 1750 51 2.0 3.0 240 1750 101 3.0 4.0 200 1750 70 4.0 5.0 130 1750 30 5.0 6.0 140 1750 34 6.0 7.0 155 1750 42 7.0 8.0 150 1750 39 8.0 9.0 180 1750 57 9.0 10.0 180 1750 57 10.0 11.0 220 1750 85 11.0 12.0 410 1750 294 12.0 13.0 950 1750 1579 13.0 14.0 2400 2000 11520 14.0 15.0 2400 2000 11520 15.0 16.0 2400 2000 11520 16.0 17.0 2400 2000 11520 17.0 18.0 2400 2000 11520 18.0 19.0 2400 2000 11520

The VSP results indicate an average shear-wave velocity, calculated from the time taken for the

shear-wave to travel from the surface to a depth of 30 metres, of 370 m/s. The average velocity

was calculated assuming that the velocity from 19 to 30 metres was the same as the velocity

calculated at the bottom of the borehole (2400 m/s).

5.0 CLOSURE

We trust that these results meet your current needs. If you have any questions or require

clarification, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

CRP/TF/crp



APPENDIX E Existing Lamoureux Hall Pile Location Plan



APPENDIX F Monitoring Well Decommissioning

1 of 1

WELL ABANDONMENT

Special Provision

General Requirements

Three wells (i.e., standpipe piezometers) are located around the work area and shall be properly

decommissioned prior to any construction activities being undertaken. The wells are located at

boreholes 14-1, 14-2 and 14-3. The construction details of those wells are provided on the

Record of Borehole Sheets in the geotechnical investigation report (1418274).

The well abandonment method must satisfy the minimum requirements of Ontario Regulation

903. Approval of the proposed abandonment methodology, including plugging material used,

depth of plugging material and limit of the casing removal, must be obtained from the Contract

Administrator before proceeding. In addition, the Contractor shall provide a copy of the well

record (for the abandonment) to the Contract Administrator.

Without superseding the full scope of Ontario Regulation 903, the abandonment of the wells

should at least include plugging the wells using an abandonment barrier, starting from the bottom,

up to approximately two metres from the ground surface.

Basis of Payment

Payment at the Contract price for the tender item “Well Abandonment” shall be on a per well

basis, the price of which shall include full compensation for all labour, equipment, and materials

required to properly abandon each monitoring well including reporting and documentation.

END OF SECTION

Golder Associates Ltd.

1931 Robertson Road

Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 5B7

Canada

T: +1 (613) 592 9600

Caption Text

report on detailed design geotechnical investigation

Documents