Submitted to: Michael Walters Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd Power Road Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3N4

Transcription

1 REPORT REPORT ON Geotechnical Investigation Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. Resource Recovery Centre - Carp, Ontario Submitted to: Michael Walters Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd Power Road Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3N4 Report Number: Distribution: 9 copies - Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. 1 copy - McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. 2 copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE PROCEDURE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Fill Material and Topsoil Sand and Silt Glacial Till Refusal Groundwater DISCUSSION General Seismic Considerations Liquefaction Assessment Site Classification for Seismic Site Response Site Preparation and Grading Building Pad Preparation for Seismic Improvement Densification Excavation and Replacement Permanent Drainage System Extended Foundation Systems General Site and Pavement Preparation Foundations Frost Protection Floor Slabs Foundation Walls and Backfill Interior Loading Dock Retaining Wall Exterior Load Out Area Retaining Walls Excavations Report No i

3 5.11 Site Servicing Pavement Design Corrosion and Cement Type ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Important Information and Limitations of This Report TABLE Table 1 Record of Test Pits FIGURES Figure 1 Key Plan Figure 2 Site Plan Figures 3 to 6 Grain Size Distribution Test Results APPENDICES APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets APPENDIX B Results of Chemical Analysis EXOVA Accutest Laboratories Report No Report No ii

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for a proposed new waste transfer station to be located on a parcel of land on Westhunt Road in Ottawa, Ontario. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface and groundwater conditions within the area of the proposed transfer station by means of five test pits and five boreholes. Based on an interpretation of the factual information obtained, along with the existing subsurface information available for the area, a general description of the subsurface conditions is presented. These interpreted subsurface conditions and available project details were used to prepare engineering guidelines 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 but forms an integral part of this document. Report No

5 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE Plans are being prepared to construct a new waste transfer station on Westhunt Road in Ottawa, Ontario (for location see Key Plan, Figure 1). The site is located on the north side of Westhunt Road, about 100 metres east of Carp Road. The overall site is rectangular in shape and measures about 120 metres by 260 metres in plan area. The eastern of the site is currently undeveloped. A scale house and scales are located at the south-central portion of the site. The topography of the site generally slopes downward from northeast to southwest with ground surface elevation ranging from about to metres. The following is known about the proposed waste transfer station: The waste transfer building will be located at the northeast portion of the site; The building will measure about 50 metres by 50 metres in plan area; The building will be one-storey in height and will be of slab-on-grade construction (i.e., no basement level); A loading dock will be located at the northeast side of the structure. The elevation of the loading dock surface will be at metres; and, The building will have a finished floor at about elevation metres. Based on previous subsurface investigations carried out within the general area of the site, and a review of published geology mapping, the native subsurface conditions on this site are expected to consist of sand overlying glacial till, with the bedrock surface at about 3 to 5 metres depth. Published bedrock geology maps indicate that the bedrock at this site to consist of limestone bedrock of Bobcaygeon Formation. Report No

6 3.0 PROCEDURE The field work for this investigation was carried out in three phases, as follows: First Phase: The first phase of the investigation was carried out on May 2, 2011, and included excavating 5 test pits (numbered TP 11-1 to 11-5, inclusive). The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about 1.5 to 3.0 metres below the existing ground surface. It was planned to excavate the test pits to at least 5 metres depth, but the test pits had to be terminated at these shallower depths due to severe caving and sloughing of the test pit side slopes (i.e., the test pits could not be extended deeper without disturbing a significant amount of area). Second Phase: The second phase of the investigation was carried out on May 6, 2011, and included 3 boreholes (numbered BH to 11-03, inclusive) located on the centre portion of the site. The boreholes were advanced to practical refusal to augering at depths ranging from about 4.8 to 5.5 metres below the existing ground surface. Third Phase: The third phase of the investigation was carried out on January 19, 2012, and included 2 additional boreholes (numbered BH and 12-02, inclusive) located on the northeast portion of the site. The boreholes were advanced to refusal to sampling at depths ranging from about 4.9 to 5.1 metres below the existing ground surface. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The test pits were excavated using a track-mounted hydraulic excavator supplied and operated by Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario. The soils exposed on the sides of the test pits were classified by visual and tactile examination. Chunk samples were obtained from the major soil strata encountered in the test pits. The groundwater seepage conditions were observed in the open test pits and the test pits were loosely backfilled upon completion of excavating and sampling. The boreholes were advanced using a track-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig supplied and operated by Marathon Drilling Company of Ottawa, Ontario. Standard Penetration Tests were carried out at regular intervals of depth within the boreholes and samples of the soils encountered were recovered using drive open sampling equipment. Standpipe piezometers were sealed into boreholes BH and to allow subsequent measurement of the groundwater level on the site. The groundwater levels in the piezometers were measured on May 19, 2011 and January 27, The field work was supervised by an experienced technician from our staff who located the test pits and boreholes, directed the excavating and drilling operations, directed the in-situ testing, logged the test pits, boreholes and samples, and took custody of the soil samples retrieved. On completion of the test pitting and drilling operations, samples of the soils encountered in the test pits and boreholes were transported to our laboratory for examination by the project engineer and for laboratory testing. Grain size distribution testing was carried out on selected samples of soils. A sample of soil from BH 10-3 was submitted to EXOVA Accutest Laboratories Ltd. for basic chemical analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous elements. Report No

7 The test pit locations were selected by Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. personnel and the borehole locations were selected by Golder Associates personnel. All of the test hole locations were surveyed by Golder Associates personnel. The elevations at the borehole locations were measured using laser level surveying equipment and are referenced to a local datum. The concrete floor slab located at the northeast corner of the existing scale building was used as the local benchmark and was assumed to have an elevation of metres. Report No

8 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 General The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits are shown on the Record of Test Pits, Table 1. The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are shown on the Record of Borehole Sheets in Appendix A. The results of the basic chemical analyses carried out on a sample of soil from BH are provided in Appendix B. The results of the grain size distribution testing carried out on selected samples of soil are provided on Figures 3 to 6. In general, the subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed building consist of variable deposits of sand and silt, overlying glacial till. The following sections present a more detailed overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes and test pits. 4.2 Fill Material and Topsoil Fill material exists at the ground surface in TP and BH to The fill material generally consists of grey crushed stone and varies from about 150 to 300 millimetres in thickness. A surficial layer of topsoil exists in all of the test pits, with the exception of TP 11-04, and is about 100 to 300 millimetres thick. 4.3 Sand and Silt Variable deposits of sand and silt exist either beneath the fill material and topsoil or at the ground surface. These deposits generally consist of fine to coarse sand, sand and gravel, silty sand, and/or sandy silt, with variable amounts of gravel and cobbles. The sand and silt deposits extend to depth of about 2 metres in the northeast portion of the site to about 4 to 5 metres in the southwest portion of the site. Standard penetration test N values for these materials, ranging from 5 to 28 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicate a loose to compact state of packing. The results of grain size distribution testing carried out on three samples from the sand and silt deposits are provided on Figures 3 to Glacial Till The sandy and silty soils are underlain by a deposit of glacial till in all boreholes. Within the boreholes, the glacial till deposit was encountered at depth of about 2 metres in the northeast portion of the site and about 4 to 5 metres depth in the southwest portion of the site. The glacial till generally consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of silty sand with a trace of clay. The glacial till was proven to extend to depths of about 4.8 to 5.5 metres, prior to the boreholes encountering practical refusal to sampling or auger advancement. Standard penetration test N values for this material, ranging from 31 to greater than 50 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicate a dense to very dense state of packing. However these higher N values likely reflect the presence of cobbles and boulders in the glacial till, rather than the state of packing of the soil matrix. Report No

9 The results of grain size distribution testing carried out on one sample from the glacial till are provided on Figure Refusal Practical refusal to sampling or augering was encountered in all of boreholes at depths varying from about 4.8 to 5.5 metres below the existing ground surface. Sampler or auger refusal may indicate the bedrock surface; however, it could also represent cobbles or boulders within the glacial till. 4.6 Groundwater The groundwater conditions were observed in the test pits during the short time that they remained opened. At that time, the groundwater was observed to be at depths of approximately 0.3 to 1.2 metres below the existing ground surface. The groundwater levels in the piezometers sealed in BH and were measured on May 19, 2011 and January 27, The observed groundwater levels are summarized in the table below: Borehole Number Stratigraphic Unit Water Level Depth (m) May 19, 2011 January 27, Sand Glacial Till NA Note: 1. Standpipe piezometer in BH was installed on January 19, It should be noted that groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are expected during wet periods of the year, such as spring. Report No

10 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the available information and project requirements, and is subject to the Important Information and Limitations of This Report which follows the text but forms an integral part of this document. The foundation engineering guidelines presented in this section have been developed in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined in Part 4 of the 2006 Ontario Building Code (OBC) for Limit States Design. 5.2 Seismic Considerations The area of the proposed building is underlain by loose saturated sandy and silty soils. The potential for seismic liquefaction of these materials therefore needs to be assessed Liquefaction Assessment Seismic liquefaction occurs when earthquake vibrations cause an increase in pore water pressures within the soil. The presence of excess pore water pressures reduces the effective stress between the soil particles, and the soil s frictional resistance to shearing. This phenomenon, which leads to a temporary reduction in the shear strength of the soil, may cause: Large lateral movements of even gently sloping ground, referred to as lateral spreading ; Reduced shear resistance (i.e., bearing capacity) of soils which support foundations, as well as reduced resistance to sliding; and, Reduced shaft resistance for deep foundations as well as reduced resistance to lateral loading. In addition, seismic settlements may occur once the vibrations and shear stresses have ceased. Seismic settlement is the process whereby the soils stabilize into a denser arrangement after an earthquake, causing potentially large surface settlements. The following conditions are more prone to experiencing seismic liquefaction: Coarse grained soils (i.e., more probable for sands than for silts); Soils having a loose state of packing; and, Soils located below the groundwater level. An assessment of the liquefaction potential of the sandy deposits was carried out using the Seed and Idriss (1971) simplified procedure based on SPT N 60 values from the boreholes. The SPT N values reported on the borehole records were corrected for the overburden stress, rod length during sampling, and hammer energy efficiencies. The assessment was carried out using an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.2 (Ottawa area specified design value) and a peak firm ground acceleration of 0.42 g. The results of the assessment suggest that portions of the submerged sandy soils could be classified as liquefiable during a seismic event. The anticipated settlement of the liquefiable native sands and silts in the area of the proposed building under the analyzed earthquake event could be up to about 25 to 40 millimetres. Report No

11 The amount of settlement is highly dependant on the earthquake event, the thickness of the deposit and its liquefaction potential, and therefore could be highly variable. If the foundations of the proposed building are founded above or within these materials, then the structure should be designed to accept this differential settlement without experiencing collapse. Note: Guarding against collapse (i.e., allowing for safe exit ) is considered to be the objective of design for earthquake conditions (recognizing that the design earthquake has a return period of 2,475 years), although the structure may be damaged and rendered unserviceable. The seismic settlements would be in addition to the anticipated settlements under static loading, which are discussed in Section 5.4 of this report. Alternatively, the proposed building could be founded on the underlying non-liquefiable glacial till, or the liquefiable soils could be improved (i.e., densified) to reduce their liquefaction potential. The underlying liquefiable sandy deposits cannot be fully densified by means of surface proof rolling Site Classification for Seismic Site Response The seismic design provisions of the 2006 OBC depend, in part, on the shear wave velocity of the upper 30 metres of soil and/or rock below the founding level. The OBC also permits the Site Class to be estimated using the SPT N values. Based on the above, it is considered that a Site Class C can be used for the design of the proposed building at this site, provided that the structure will have a fundamental period of vibration of less than or equal to 0.5 seconds. This assessment is based solely on the stratigraphy and in-situ test results obtained in the boreholes. A more favourable Site Class (A or B) is not considered possible for this site, since the bedrock surface will be more than 3 metres below the founding level. 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading Building Pad Preparation for Seismic Improvement Based on the subsurface conditions encountered on this site, no restrictions apply to the thickness of grade raise fill which may be placed. However, with regards to the site grading, it should be noted that excavations for the foundations and the installation of the site services will extend below the groundwater level in the layered silts and sands. Therefore, there would be some advantage to limiting the required depth of excavation since the groundwater management requirements (and costs) increase with excavation depth below the groundwater level. To this end, it would be preferred, from a geotechnical perspective, to limit the depth of excavation for foundation construction to no more than about 1.0 metre below the existing ground surface. As previously discussed, the calculated settlements of the liquefiable native sandy and silty soils during earthquake event could be about 25 to 40 millimetres. Depending on the structural tolerances of the proposed building and if the building can be designed to resist collapse under the anticipated 25 to 40 millimetres of differential settlement, the native sands and silts may not need subgrade improvements. Report No

12 If the structure is not capable of handling the anticipated seismic settlements, then the subgrade within the building footprint requires conditioning to reduce or eliminate this liquefaction potential. Based on preliminary analyses, there are several options, listed below, to reduce or eliminate this liquefaction potential: Densify the existing native sands and silts by in-situ means; Excavate and replace the native sands and silts with non-liquefiable materials; Install a permanent drainage system at the bottom of the liquefiable soils; and, Extend the foundations below the liquefiable soils. These options should be considered as preliminary and will need to be evaluated further for their feasibility and cost implications. The selected option may require further geotechnical analysis and Golder Associates should be notified of the selected option Densification Densification of the native sands can be accomplished by three in-situ methods: Traditional surface compaction (such as a smooth drum vibratory roller or hoe pack); Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC); and, Dynamic Compaction (DC). Traditional surface compaction may be used to densify the sands, but the effective treatment may be limited to only the upper one metre due to the limited amount of energy. This option would reduce the potential seismic settlements to less than about 30 millimetres. Temporary groundwater level lowering will be needed to make this option feasible; the sand and silt deposits are currently too wet to compact in this manner. Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) uses dynamic energy imparted by dropping a 7.5 ton weight from a controlled height onto a foot plate, at a rate of about 40 to 60 blows per minute, which is all mounted to a track mounted excavator. The influence depth of RIC would be typically about 5 to 6 metres below the ground surface, which is considered sufficient for this site (i.e., the sands and silts extend to depths of up to about 5 metres). Dynamic compaction (DC) involves using a crane to drop a heavy tamper onto the ground surface. The tamper typically weighs between 5 and 32 tonnes and is dropped from heights of 12 to 25 metres. Depths of treatment with dynamic compaction typically range from 3 to 10 metres. RIC or DC could apply sufficient energy to densify the entire sand and silt deposits and therefore eliminate the potential seismic differential settlements. As part of the subgrade improvement process, soil testing should be carried out prior to and after the treatment to measure the effectiveness of improvement. Due to the shallow required treatment depth, these methods should not be carried out during winter months where frost can penetrate the treatment zone. During winter construction, temporary frost cover consisting of engineered fill can be placed above the native sands to protect the treatment depth from frost (though that protection would interfere with traditional surface compaction). Report No

13 Densification of the sands and silts can be restricted to only the foundation areas. Densification of only those areas would not therefore eliminate the potential of the floor slab to settle and/or crack following an earthquake because the soils supporting the slab will still liquefy, however this arrangement would guard against building collapse, which is considered to be the objective of the seismic design provisions under the building code Excavation and Replacement An alternative to in-situ densification methods is to excavate the potentially liquefiable native sands and silts to expose the underlying glacial till and replace the liquefiable soils with compacted non-liquefiable soils. The nonliquefiable soils can be either engineered structural fill, or potentially parts of the native sands (i.e., those that do not have too high of a fines content) provided the sand is protected during excavation and storage from cross contamination with other soils and materials, especially soils containing a significant amount of fines. Some draining/drying of the native sands could be required to make them compactable. The backfill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and be uniformly compacted to 98 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density. If the native sands are reused, provisions should be made for additional engineered fill; it is likely that additional fill will be required to compensate for the volume change of the native sands, which will be compacted from a loose to dense state of packing. This work will require excavation below the groundwater level. The groundwater inflow will need to be controlled to allow for the excavation and compaction to occur in dry conditions. Temporary perimeter and interior ditching will most likely be needed to control the groundwater. Once the compaction is complete, the ditches can be filled with compacted engineered fill. A Ministry of Environment (MOE) Permit-To-Take-Water may be necessary for this work. Replacement of the sands and silts could be limited to only the foundation areas. Replacement of only those areas would not therefore eliminate the potential of the floor slab to settle and/or crack following an earthquake because the soils supporting the slab will still liquefy, however this arrangement would guard against building collapse, which is the objective to the seismic design provisions under the building code Permanent Drainage System In order for liquefaction to occur, excess porewater pressure needs to be generated in the sandy and silty soils. If the sands and silts are not saturated, then liquefaction will not occur. Installing a permanent drainage system near the bottom of the liquefiable layers throughout the building footprint would drain the sand/silt and make them non-liquefiable. This drainage system would need a frost free outlet, day-lighting to the ground surface or to a storm drain system. However, a drainage system at this depth is likely not feasible at this site since no outlet is available, and therefore this option has not been further considered Extended Foundation Systems Extending the foundations of the building below the liquefiable zone is an alternative to the above subgrade improvement options. For example, small diameter piers (i.e., helical piers) or spread footing foundations supported on the underlying glacial till may be viable foundation systems. Piles or large diameter drilled shaft foundations (though technically feasible) are not considered necessary. Report No

14 Extending the foundations down to the native glacial till will require excavation below the groundwater level. The groundwater inflow will need to be controlled to allow for the excavation and compaction to occur in dry conditions. Temporary perimeter and interior ditching will most likely be needed to control the groundwater. Once the compaction is complete, the ditches can be filled with compacted engineered fill. A MOE Permit-To- Take-Water may be necessary for this work General Site and Pavement Preparation The existing topsoil is not suitable for supporting underground services and new pavements. This material will need to be completely removed from the development area. At the completion of the stripping and prior to any placement of new fill, the subgrade within the pavement areas should be proof-rolled. The purpose of the proofrolling is to provide surficial densification and to locate any isolated areas of soft or loose soils. Unsuitable areas should be subexcavated and replaced with compacted controlled fill meeting the requirements described later in this report. Both stripping and proof-rolling operations should be observed and carried out to the satisfaction of geotechnical personnel. All stripping and earthwork activities should be carried out in a manner consistent with good erosion and sediment control practices. The exposed subgrade may be wet and soft. It should be planned to actively drain the surficial soils, prior to stripping of the site. 5.4 Foundations Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed building can be founded on shallow footings (square or strip) placed on or within the native undisturbed soils. The foundation design parameters for the proposed building are dependant on the founding materials and if any ground improvement is carried out. The net bearing resistance values for the spread footings at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and the factored bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) may be taken as follows: Static Conditions Post Liquefaction Founding Material SLS Net Bearing Resistance (kilopascals) Factored ULS Bearing Resistance (kilopascals) Factored ULS Bearing Resistance for Seismic Loading (kilopascals) Liquefiable Sandy Soils Improved Liquefiable Sandy Soils Glacial Till Notes: 1 For the design earthquake event, footings would experience seismic settlements, which are estimated to result in an additional 25 to 40 millimetres of differential settlement. 2 The lower ULS resistance for seismic conditions corresponds to liquefaction of the sandy and silty soils. Report No

15 The post-construction total and differential settlements of footings sized using the above SLS net bearing resistance values (for non-seismic loading conditions) should be less than about 25 and 15 millimetres, respectively, provided that the soil at or below the founding level is not disturbed during construction. The ULS bearing resistances include a resistance factor of 0.5. The proposed building will need to accommodate up to 25 to 40 millimetres of additional differential settlement, during/following an earthquake event (see Section 5.2). Alternatively, the liquefiable soils could be improved (i.e., densified) to reduce their liquefaction potential. If the native sands and silts are not improved to resist liquefaction, and the above ULS bearing resistance for liquefiable soils is not acceptable, then the foundations could be extended below these soils and be founded on the underlying non-liquefiable soils. Consideration could be given to using helical pier foundations to transfer the foundation loads through the liquefiable soils to more competent bearing at depth. Helical piers (typically proprietary to each supplier) consist of one or more large auger helixes mounted on a steel bar which would be augered into the ground and advanced through the native sands to the underlying glacial till. A typical capacity of a helical pier is about 100 to 150 kilonewtons. An alternative to increase the ULS value would be to replace some of the liquefiable materials with engineered fill, and place the footings on this engineered pad. Our assessment indicates that if the footings are placed on at least 1.2 metres of compacted engineered fill, the ULS bearing resistance can be increase from about 60 to 130 kilopascals. The engineered fill should be replaced within the zone of influence of the foundations to a depth of at least 1.2 metres below the founding level. The zone of influence is considered to extend out and down from the edge of the footings at a slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. The engineered fill should consist of Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular B Type II, placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts, and compacted to at least 100 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. However, as discussed above, the depth of excavations on this site should be limited since the groundwater management requirements (and costs) increase with excavation depth below the groundwater level. Therefore, this alternative would be considered practical if the grade on this site is raised and the engineered pad could be constructed above the groundwater table. Compacted aggregate piers (i.e., Geopiers) could also be considered. Further geotechnical guidance would need to be provided if one of these options is to be considered further. 5.5 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. Insulating the bearing surface with high density insulation could be considered as an alternative to earth cover for frost protection. Further details can be provided if and when required. 5.6 Floor Slabs It is considered that conventional slab-on-grade construction can be used for this building. Report No

16 For predictable performance of the floor slabs, the existing topsoil and surficial fill materials should be removed from within the proposed building area. Provision should be made for at least 200 millimetres of OPSS Granular A to form the base for the floor slab. Any bulk fill required to raise the grade to the underside of the Granular A should consist of OPSS Granular B Type II (or an acceptable rock fill). The underslab fill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. It should be noted that the potential seismic settlements (see Section 5.2) could result in floor slab settlements, cracking, or heaving during/following an earthquake event. However, this level of damage is considered to be consistent with the objectives of seismic design in accordance with the OBC, which has the objective of allowing for safe exit of the building, and recognizing that the design earthquake has a return period of 2,475 years, as previously discussed in section Foundation Walls and Backfill The foundation walls should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel conforming to the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I. To avoid ground settlements around the foundations, which could affect site grading and drainage, all of the backfill materials should be placed in maximum 0.3 metre thick lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing will abut the building, differential frost heaving could occur between the granular fill and other areas. To reduce this differential heaving, the backfill adjacent to the wall should be placed to form a frost taper. The frost taper should be brought up to pavement subgrade level from 1.5 metres below finished exterior grade at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter, away from the wall. The fill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Exterior grades should be sloped away from the structure to prevent ponding of water around the building. The pavement could be expected to perform better in the long term if the granular backfill against the foundation walls is drained by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of 19 millimetre clear stone, fully wrapped in geotextile, which leads by gravity drainage to a positive outlet. 5.8 Interior Loading Dock Retaining Wall This section of the report pertains to the design of the interior loading dock retaining walls which will also serve as the foundation walls for the proposed waste transfer building. Guidelines on the design of the retaining walls which are not integral to the waste transfer structure are provided in Section 5.9 of this report. It has been assumed that the interior loading dock retaining walls will be designed as restrained structures. If these walls will be designed as unrestrained structures, then the walls should be designed using the lateral earth pressure equations provided in Section 5.9 of this report. The interior loading dock walls should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel conforming to the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I or II. The backfill materials should be placed in 300 millimetre thick lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry Report No

17 density. The wall backfill should be drained by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of 19 millimetre clear stone, fully wrapped in a geotextile, which leads by positive drainage to a storm sewer or to a sump from which the water is pumped. The walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures calculated using a triangular distribution of the stress, which may be determined as follows: Where: h (z) = K o ( z + q) h (z) = Lateral earth pressure on the wall at depth z, kilopascals; K o = At-rest earth pressure coefficient, use 0.5; = Unit weight of retained soil, use 22 kilonewtons per cubic metre; z = Depth below top of wall, metres; and, q = Uniform surcharge at ground surface behind the wall to account for traffic, equipment, or stockpiled soil (use 15 kilopascals). These lateral earth pressures would increase under seismic loading conditions. 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). The combined pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows: Where: h (z) = K o γ z + (K AE K o ) γ (H-z) K AE = The seismic earth pressure coefficient, use 0.8; and, H = The total depth to the bottom of the foundation wall, metres. According to the National Building Code of Canada, the site-specific zonal acceleration ratio for Ottawa is Since the structure walls would be essentially un-yielding, the horizontal seismic coefficient, k h, used in the calculation of the seismic pressure coefficient is taken as 1.5 times the zonal acceleration ratio (i.e., k h = 0.63). The corresponding value of the seismic earth pressure coefficient (K AE ) would therefore be 0.8. It should be noted that all of the lateral earth pressure equations are given in unfactored format and will need to be factored for Limit States Design purposes. 5.9 Exterior Load Out Area Retaining Walls Retaining walls may be needed for this structure. The foundation parameters provided in Section 5.4 of this report are also applicable to the design of the retaining wall foundations. The retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel meeting the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I or II. The granular fill should be placed within the wedge-shaped zone defined by a line drawn at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical extending up and back from the rear face of the wall Report No

18 footing. Where that backfill will underlie paved surfacing above/behind the wall, the backfill within the depth of frost penetration (1.8 metres) should be provided with a frost taper which slopes up to the pavement subgrade level at an inclination of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The frost taper will help limit the severity of the differential heaving between the pavement surface above the non-frost susceptible backfill and areas underlain with more frost susceptible subgrade soils. The backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density. Small vibratory equipment should be used within about 0.5 metres of the wall to minimize compaction induced stresses. Filtered longitudinal drains should be installed to provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. longitudinal drains should be provided with positive drainage to weep holes or collection sumps. The The retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures calculated using a triangular distribution of the stress, which may be determined as follows: h (z) = K a (γ z + q) Where: h (z) = Lateral earth pressure at depth z, kilopascals; z = Depth below the top of the wall, metres; K a = Active pressure coefficient, use 0.32; γ = Unit weight of backfill soil (kn/m 3 ); use 22 kilonewtons per cubic metre; and, q = The surcharge due to live loads on the ground surface above the wall, kilopascals. The value of the surcharge due to live loading (q) should consider the potential traffic loading above the wall and also the potential construction loads from equipment or materials. A value of no less than 15 kilopascals could be reasonable. These lateral earth pressures would increase under seismic loading conditions. 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). The combined pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows: h (z) = K a γ z + (K AE K a ) γ (H-z) Where: K AE = Seismic earth pressure coefficient; and, H = Total depth to the bottom of the foundation wall, metres. If the walls are to be designed in accordance with the current version of the Ontario Building Code, a K AE value of 0.38 should be used. All of the above lateral earth pressure equations are given in an unfactored format. Report No

19 The above seismic design parameters are consistent with the retaining walls being unrestrained structures. For a retaining wall to be considered as an unrestrained structure under seismic conditions, the wall should be capable of displacing 50 millimetres outward under seismic conditions Excavations Excavation for foundations and site services will be made through the existing fill, topsoil, native sands and silts, and possibly into glacial till. No unusual problems are anticipated in trenching in the overburden using conventional hydraulic excavating equipment (i.e., track mounted shovel), recognizing that large boulders may be encountered within the glacial till. Sloughing of the excavation side slopes (which may be severe) should be expected if excavations extend below the water level. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) of Ontario indicates that side slopes in the overburden above the water table could be sloped at a minimum of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (i.e., Type 3 soils). However, given the high water table on this site (i.e., typically within about 0.5 to 1.0 metre of the existing ground surface), the side slopes will likely have to be flattened to as shallow as 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (i.e., Type 4 soils). Excavations deeper than about 1 metre will extend below the groundwater level. Where this is the case, the excavations will be subject to time dependent disturbance to the granular soils caused by the upward flow of groundwater, resulting in disturbance of the excavation subgrade and potential instability of the excavation side slopes. Provided that the excavations are no more than about 1 metre deep, it is considered that the rate of groundwater inflow should be modest and it should be feasible to handle the groundwater inflow by pumping from well filtered sumps in the floor of the excavations. Where the subgrade is found to be wet and sensitive to disturbance, consideration should be given to placing a mud slab of lean concrete over the subgrade (following inspection and approval by geotechnical personnel) or a 150 millimetre thick layer of OPSS Granular A to protect the subgrade from construction traffic. Some pre-drainage of the site using ditching to lower the groundwater level below the floor of the excavation would assist in avoiding subgrade disturbance. Where excavations extend more than about 1.0 metre below ground surface, more active groundwater control (such as pumping from wells or well points in the overburden) could be required. Consideration should also be given to constructing the foundations at times of the year when the groundwater levels are expected to be lower (i.e., summer/fall) If deeper excavations or steeper side slopes are required, or space restrictions exist, the excavations could be carried out within closed sheeting which is fully braced to resist lateral earth pressure Site Servicing Excavations for the installation of site services are addressed above in Section 5.8. Excavations within the layered sands and silts below the water table should be carried out within a protective trench box. The stand up time for exposed side slopes will be extremely short and the subgrade will be disturbed Report No

20 if left exposed for any length of time. Construction of the site services should be planned to be carried out in short sections which can be fully completed in a minimal amount of time. The rate of groundwater inflow from the overburden could be significant. Based on past experience with similar ground conditions and particularly where the excavations are deeper and/or where the overburden is coarser, some pre-drainage of the overburden will be required. For example, several sumps could be constructed and pre-pumping of the overburden carried out. Excavation of the dense to very dense glacial till with cobbles and boulders may require the use of heavier excavation equipment. Boulders larger than 0.3 metres in size should be removed from the excavation side slopes, for worker safety. The anticipated pumping rates for this work will likely exceed 50,000 Litres per day and a Permit-to-Take-Water would therefore be required from the MOE. 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 material s 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 material s standard Proctor maximum dry density. It should generally be possible to re-use the excavated soil from above the groundwater level 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 metes 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 material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. Backfilling operations during cold weather should avoid inclusions of frozen lumps of material, snow and ice Pavement Design In preparation for pavement construction, all topsoil and unsuitable fill materials (i.e. fill containing organic matter or deleterious materials) should be excavated from all pavement areas. Those portions of the fill material not containing organic matter may be left in place provided that some limited long term settlement of the pavement surface can be tolerated. However, the surface of the fill material at subgrade level should be proof rolled with a heavy smooth drum roller under the supervision of qualified geotechnical personnel to compact the existing fill and to identify soft areas requiring sub-excavation and replacement with more suitable fill. Report No

21 Sections requiring grade raising to the proposed subgrade level should be filled using acceptable (compactable and inorganic) earth borrow or OPSS Select Subgrade Material. These materials should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. The surface of the subgrade or fill should be crowned to promote drainage of the pavement granular structure. Perforated pipe subdrains should be provided at subgrade level extending from the catch basins for a distance of at least 3 metres in four orthogonal directions, or longitudinally where parallel to a curb. The pavement structure for car parking areas should consist of: Pavement Component Asphaltic Concrete OPSS Granular A Base OPSS Granular B Type II Subbase Thickness (millimetres) The pavement structure for access roadways and truck traffic areas should consist of: Pavement Component Asphaltic Concrete OPSS Granular A Base OPSS Granular B Type II Subbase Thickness (millimetres) The granular base and subbase materials should be uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted in accordance with Table 10 of OPSS 310. The composition of the asphaltic concrete pavement in car parking areas should be as follows: Superpave 12.5 or HL 3 Surface Course 50 millimetres The composition of the asphaltic concrete pavement in access roadways and truck traffic areas should be as follows: Superpave 12.5 or HL 3 Surface Course 40 millimetres Superpave 19.0 or HL 8 Binder Course 50 millimetres The above pavement designs are based on the assumption that the pavement subgrade has been acceptably prepared (i.e., where the trench backfill and grade raise fill have been adequately compacted to the required density and the subgrade surface not disturbed by construction operations or precipitation). Depending on the actual conditions of the pavement subgrade at the time of construction, it could be necessary to increase the thickness of the subbase and/or to place a woven geotextile beneath the granular materials. Report No

22 5.13 Corrosion and Cement Type One sample of soil from BH was submitted to EXOVA Accutest Laboratories Ltd. for chemical analysis related to potential corrosion of buried ferrous elements and sulphate attack on buried concrete elements. The results of the testing are provided in Appendix B. The results indicate a moderate potential for corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The results also indicate that GU (Type 10) cement should be acceptable for substructures. Report No

23

24 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, Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. 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 1 of 2

25 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. Golder Associates Ltd. Page 2 of 2

26 Test Pit Number Depth (m) Description TABLE 1 RECORD OF TEST PITS TP TOPSOIL Brown coarse SAND, some gravel, with cobbles Grey brown coarse SAND, some gravel, with cobbles 2.5 End of test pit Notes: Water inflow at 1.2 m depth. Test pit could not be extended beyond 2.5 m depth due to sever side wall sloughing. Sample Depth (m) TP TOPSOIL Brown SAND Grey brown SAND Grey fine SAND 3.0 End of test pit Notes: Water inflow at 1.2 m depth. Test pit could not be extended beyond 3.0 m depth due to sever side wall sloughing. Sample Depth (m) TP TOPSOIL Brown fine to medium SAND Grey brown fine SAND 2.0 End of test pit Notes: Water inflow at 1.0 m depth. Test pit could not be extended beyond 2.0 m depth due to sever side wall sloughing. Sample Depth (m) June

27 Test Pit Number Depth (m) Description TABLE 1 RECORD OF TEST PITS TP Grey crushed stone (FILL) Brown SAND 1.5 End of test pit Notes: Water inflow at 0.3 m depth. Test pit could not be extended beyond 1.5 m depth due to sever side wall sloughing. TP TOPSOIL Brown SAND Grey brown SAND Grey SAND 3.0 End of test pit Notes: Test pit dry upon completion Test pit could not be extended beyond 3.0 m depth due to sever side wall sloughing. June

28

29

30 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3 SAND PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine Size GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY Borehole Sample Depth (m) Created by: CW Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CNM

31 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4 SILTY SAND PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine Size GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY Borehole Sample Depth (m) Created by: CNM Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CW

32 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 5 SANDY SILT PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine Size GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY Borehole Sample Depth (m) Created by: CNM Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CW

33 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 6 GLACIAL TILL PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine Size GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY Borehole Sample Depth (m) Created by: CNM Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CW

34 APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets Report No

35 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations commonly employed on Records of Boreholes, on figures and in the text of the report are as follows: I. SAMPLE TYPE III. SOIL DESCRIPTION AS Auger sample (a) Cohesionless Soils BS Block sample CS Chunk sample Density Index N DO Drive open (Relative Density) Blows/300 mm DS Denison type sample Or Blows/ft. FS Foil sample Very loose 0 to 4 RC Rock core Loose 4 to 10 SC Soil core Compact 10 to 30 ST Slotted tube Dense 30 to 50 TO Thin-walled, open Very dense over 50 TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample (b) Cohesive Soils DT Dual Tube sample Consistency C u or S u II. PENETRATION RESISTANCE Kpa Psf Very soft 0 to 12 0 to 250 Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: Soft 12 to to 500 The number of blows by a 63.5 kg. (140 lb.) Firm 25 to to 1,000 hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required Stiff 50 to 100 1,000 to 2,000 to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) drive open Very stiff 100 to 200 2,000 to 4,000 Sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.) Hard Over 200 Over 4,000 DD- Diamond Drilling Dynamic Penetration Resistance; N d : IV. SOIL TESTS The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb.) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive w water content Uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60 0 cone w p plastic limited attached to A size drill rods for a distance w 1 liquid limit of 300 mm (12 in.). C consolidaiton (oedometer) test CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text) PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test 1 PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer with porewater pressure measurement 1 WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and D R relative density (specific gravity, G s ) rod DS direct shear test M sieve analysis for particle size Peizo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT): MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis An electronic cone penetrometer with MPC modified Proctor compaction test a 60 0 conical tip and a projected end area SPC standard Proctor compaction test of 10 cm 2 pushed through ground OC organic content test at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements SO 4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates of tip resistance (Q t ), porewater pressure UC unconfined compression test (PWP) and friction along a sleeve are recorded UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test Electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. V field vane test (LV-laboratory vane test) unit weight Note: 1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior shear are shown as CAD, CAU. Golder Associates

36 LIST OF SYMBOLS Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows: I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (cont d.) = w water content ln x, natural logarithm of x w 1 liquid limit log 10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 w p plastic limit g Acceleration due to gravity I p plasticity Index=(w 1 -w p ) t time w s shrinkage limit F factor of safety I L liquidity index=(w-w p )/I p V volume I c consistency index=(w 1 -w)/i p W weight e max void ratio in loosest state e min void ratio in densest state II. STRESS AND STRAIN I D density index-(e max -e)/(e max -e min ) (formerly relative density) shear strain change in, e.g. in stress: ' (b) Hydraulic Properties linear strain v volumetric strain h hydraulic head or potential coefficient of viscosity q rate of flow Poisson s ratio v velocity of flow total stress i hydraulic gradient ' effective stress ( ' = ''-u) k hydraulic conductivity (coefficient of permeability) ' vo initial effective overburden stress j seepage force per unit volume principal stresses (major, intermediate, minor) (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) oct mean stress or octahedral stress = ( )/3 C c compression index (normally consolidated range) shear stress C r recompression index (overconsolidated range) u porewater pressure C s swelling index E modulus of deformation C a coefficient of secondary consolidation G shear modulus of deformation m v coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility c v coefficient of consolidation T v time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation ' p pre-consolidation pressure (a) Index Properties OCR Overconsolidation ratio= ' p / ' vo ( ) bulk density (bulk unit weight*) (d) Shear Strength d ( d ) dry density (dry unit weight) w ( w ) density (unit weight) of water p r peak and residual shear strength s ( s ) density (unit weight) of solid particles ' effective angle of internal friction ' unit weight of submerged soil ( '= - w ) angle of interface friction D R relative density (specific gravity) of coefficient of friction=tan solid particles (D R = p s /p w ) formerly (G s ) c' effective cohesion e void ratio c u, s u undrained shear strength ( =0 analysis) n porosity p mean total stress ( )/2 S degree of saturation p' mean effective stress ( ' 1 + ' 3 )/2 q ( 1-3 )/2 or ( ' 1-3 )/2 * Density symbol is p. Unit weight q u compressive strength ( 1-3 ) symbol is where =pg(i.e. mass S t sensitivity density x acceleration due to gravity) Notes: 1. =c' ' tan ' 2. Shear strength=(compressive strength)/2 Golder Associates

37 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH BORING DATE: January 19, 2012 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: Local PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Red brown SILTY SAND STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 1 Loose to compact grey brown SILTY SAND, trace clay and gravel, with cobbles DO Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) Dense to very dense grey brown SILTY SAND, trace to some gravel, trace clay, with cobbles and boulders (GLACIAL TILL) DO 50 DO MH Native Backfill and Bentonite 4 50 DO DO 31 Bentonite Seal Silica Sand 5 End of Broehole Spoon Refusal DO 38 Standpipe W.L. at Elev m on January 27, MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 03/02/12 JEM/PLG DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: CHECKED: HC CK

38 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH BORING DATE: January 19, 2012 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: Local PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Red brown SILTY SAND STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 1 Loose to compact red brown to grey SILTY SAND, trace gravel and clay, with cobbles DO Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) Very dense grey brown SILTY SAND, some gravel, trace clay, with cobbles and boulders (GLACIAL TILL) DO 50 DO 50 DO 28 >50 > DO 86 MH 5 End of Borehole Spoon Refusal DO >50 Borehole dry upon completion of drilling 6 7 MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 03/02/12 JEM/PLG DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: CHECKED: HC CK

39

40

41

42 APPENDIX B Results of Chemical Analysis EXOVA Accutest Laboratories Report No Report No

43

44 Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2K 2A9 Canada T: +1 (613)