GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. Submitted to: Mr. Paul Bruyns, P.Eng. Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin Avenue, Suite 1400 London, Ontario N6A 5R2

Transcription

1 February 2013 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 Infrastructure Life Cycle Renewal Program Contract No.9 - Burbrook Place Reconstruction City of London, Ontario Submitted to: Mr. Paul Bruyns, P.Eng. Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin Avenue, Suite 1400 London, Ontario N6A 5R2 REPORT Report Number: R01 Distribution: 4 Copies - Dillon Consulting Limited 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION February 5, 2013 Project No R01 Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin Avenue, Suite 1400 London, Ontario N6A 5R2 Attention: Mr. Paul Bruyns, P.Eng. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFE CYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION CITY OF LONDON, ONTARIO Dear Mr. Bruyns: This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation carried out for the design of Contract No.9 of the 2013 Infrastructure Life Cycle Renewal Program in London, Ontario. Contract No.9 consists of replacing the sanitary and storm sewers, watermain and all services on Burbrook Place from Dundas Street to Princess Avenue. A trenchless crossing may be necessary to connect the sewers and watermain from Princess Avenue to Elias Street. The location of the site is shown on the Key Plan, Figure INTRODUCTION The purpose of the investigation was to determine the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions along the alignments of the proposed sewers and watermain and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the design of the proposed works including pavement restoration/reconstruction. Confirmation of authorization to proceed with the investigation in accordance with our April 18, 2012 proposal was provided by Mr. P. Bruyns, of Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon). Important information on the limitations of this report is attached. February 2013 Report No R01 1

3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION 2.0 PROCEDURE The field work for this investigation was carried out between September 13 and 14, 2012 during which time six boreholes were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Location Plan, Figure 1. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has previously carried out a geotechnical investigation in the immediate area of the proposed works and the results were provided in Golder Report No entitled Geotechnical Investigation, Burbrook Trunk Storm Sewer, Phase IV, ES 3054, London, Ontario dated July 6, Record of Borehole 10 from that investigation is provided in Appendix A and the approximate borehole location is shown on the Location Plan, Figure 1. The current boreholes were drilled with a truck mounted power auger supplied and operated by a specialist drilling contractor. Standard penetration testing and sampling was carried out in the boreholes at suitable intervals of depth using 35 millimetre inside diameter split spoon sampling equipment. All of the samples obtained during the investigation were placed in sealed glass jars and brought to our laboratory for further examination, and laboratory testing. The soil stratigraphy encountered in the boreholes and the results of the field and laboratory testing are shown in detail on the attached Record of Borehole sheets and on Figures 2 to 6. Groundwater levels were observed in the boreholes during drilling and a standpipe was installed in boreholes 1 and 4 as detailed on the Record of Borehole sheets. The encountered and subsequently measured groundwater levels are shown on the Records of Boreholes and are summarized in Table I. Upon completion of drilling, sampling and standpipe installation, the boreholes were backfilled in accordance with Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 903, as amended. The borehole locations were designated in the field by members of our geotechnical engineering staff who also obtained underground utility locates, supervised the drilling, logged the boreholes, cared for the samples obtained and provided temporary traffic control in accordance with Book 7. The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations have been referenced to a benchmark from the City of London database. The benchmark was described as a nail in the northeast corner of a concrete base of a light standard (light standard is gone), 9.8m west of Burbrook Place and 10.5m north of Dundas Street and is understood to be at elevation metres. February 2013 Report No R01 2

4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 General The subsurface conditions encountered in the previous and current boreholes drilled at the site are shown in detail on the attached Record of Borehole sheets and in Appendix A. The following discussion has been simplified in terms of major soil strata for the purposes of geotechnical design. The soil boundaries indicated are inferred from non-continuous samples and observations of drilling resistance. They may represent a transition from one soil type to another and should not necessarily be interpreted to represent exact planes of geological change. Further, subsurface conditions may vary significantly between and beyond the borehole locations. It should also be noted that post investigation construction activities may have modified the subsurface conditions encountered in the previous borehole. 3.2 Soil Conditions The soil conditions encountered in the boreholes generally consisted of the existing pavement structure and granular fill materials which overly sands, silt, silty clay, sandy silt till, sandy clayey silt till and silty clay till Pavement Structure Asphalt was encountered at the pavement surface in all boreholes. The asphalt was 90 to 120 millimetres thick at the borehole locations on Burbrook Place and 60 millimetres thick at the borehole location on Elias Street. Beneath the asphalt, all boreholes drilled on Burbrook Place encountered pavement granulars with thicknesses ranging from 120 to 520 millimetres. The borehole drilled on Elias Street encountered 210 millimetres of pavement granulars beneath the asphalt. Cobbles were noted in the pavement granulars. Previous borehole 10 ( ) drilled on Kellogg Lane, just south of Dundas Street, encountered 80 millimetres of asphalt underlain by 430 millimetres of pavement granulars. Topsoil was encountered beneath the pavement structure in borehole 10 ( ). The topsoil was 200 millimetres thick. February 2013 Report No R01 3

5 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION Fill Fill was encountered beneath the pavement structure in borehole 6. The fill material consisted of gravelly sand and was about 2.6 metres thick. The fill had N values, as determined in the standard penetration testing, of 1 to 16 blows per 0.3 metres with in situ water contents of 7 to 10 per cent. Fill materials associated with the existing underground services should be expected throughout the project Silt Layers of silt were encountered beneath the pavement structure in borehole 2, beneath the silty clay and silty clay till in borehole 3 and beneath the silty clay till and gravelly sand in borehole 4. Where fully penetrated, the silt was 0.3 to 1.2 metres thick with an average thickness of 0.7 metres. Borehole 4 was terminated in the silt layer after exploring it for 1.7 metres. The silt had N values of 19 to 64 blows per 0.3 metres with an average N value of 43 blows. The silt had natural water contents of 14 to 18 per cent with an average water content of about 16 per cent. A grain size distribution curve for a sample of the silt recovered from the standard penetration testing is shown on Figure Sand Layers of dense sand were encountered beneath the silt in boreholes 3 and 4. The sand layers were 1.1 and 1.5 metres thick, respectively. The sand had N values of 37 to 47 per 0.3 metres with an average N value of 43 blows. The natural water contents of the sand below the groundwater level were 12 to 19 per cent with an average water content of about 16 per cent Gravelly Sand A layer of dense gravelly sand was encountered beneath the sand in borehole 4. The gravelly sand layer was 0.4 metres thick. The gravelly sand had an N value of 46 per 0.3 metres and a natural water content of 11 per cent. A grain size distribution curve for a sample of the gravelly sand recovered from the standard penetration testing is shown on Figure 3. February 2013 Report No R01 4

6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION Sandy Clayey Silt Till Layers of sandy clayey silt till were encountered beneath the pavement structure in borehole 5 and beneath the gravelly sand fill in borehole 6. Where fully penetrated, the sandy clayey silt till had a thickness of 3.0 metres. Borehole 6 was terminated in the sandy clayey silt till layer after exploring it for 3.5 metres. The sandy clayey silt till had N values of 17 to over 100 blows per 0.3 metres with an average N value of about 65 blows. The sandy clayey silt till had water contents of 4 to 11 per cent with an average water content of about 7 per cent. The sandy clayey silt till had a liquid limit of 15 per cent, a plastic limit of 10 per cent and a plasticity index of 5. The results of the Atterberg limits testing are shown on Figure 6. A grain size distribution curve for a sample of the sandy clayey silt till recovered from the standard penetration testing is shown on Figure Silty Clay A layer of silty clay was encountered beneath the sand in borehole 3. The silty clay had a thickness of 0.5 metres. The silty clay had an N value of over 100 blows per 0.3 metres and a natural water content of 11 per cent Silty Clay Till Layers of silty clay till were encountered beneath the pavement structure in boreholes 1, 3 and 4, beneath the silt in boreholes 2 and 3 and beneath the sandy clayey silt till in borehole 5. Where fully penetrated, the silty clay till layers were about 0.4 to 4.0 metres thick with an average thickness of 2.3 metres. Boreholes 3 and 5 were terminated in the silty clay till after exploring it for 0.6 and 2.9 metres, respectively. The silty clay till had N values of 12 to over 100 blows per 0.3 metres with the majority of N values being less than 60 blows. The silty clay till had natural water contents of 7 to 14 per cent with an average natural water content of about 9 per cent. The silty clay till had liquid limits of 18 to 20 per cent, plastic limits of 11 to 13 per cent and plasticity index ranging from 7 to 9 per cent. Grain size distribution curves for samples of the silty clay till recovered from the standard penetration testing are shown on Figure 5. A summary of the Atterberg limits are shown on the plasticity chart on Figure 6. February 2013 Report No R01 5

7 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION Sandy Silt Till Layer of sandy silt till were encountered beneath the silty clay till in boreholes 1 and 2 and beneath the topsoil in borehole 10 ( ). All of these boreholes were terminated in the sandy silt till after exploring the layer for 1.2 to 8.7 metres. The sandy silt till had N values of 18 to over 100 blows per 0.3 metres with the majority of values being greater than 50. The sandy silt till had natural water contents of 4 to 13 per cent with an average natural water content of about 7 per cent. 3.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater levels were observed in the boreholes during drilling. Following completion of drilling and sampling, a standpipe was installed in boreholes 1 and 4 to measure the groundwater level. The encountered groundwater levels, together with the installation details, are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets. The encountered and measured groundwater levels are summarized in Table I. During the investigation, groundwater was encountered in the boreholes at depths ranging between 2.3 and 5.9 metres below existing ground surface or between elevations and metres. Boreholes 1 and 5 were dry upon completion of drilling. The groundwater level measured in the standpipe in borehole 4 on November 2, 2012 was about 3.0 metres below the pavement surface or at about elevation metres. The standpipe in borehole 1 was damaged at the time of a site visit on October 16, Both standpipes were abandoned following the November 2, 2012 measurement. Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and in response to significant precipitation events. 3.4 Analytical Testing Two soil samples collected from the boreholes, sample 1 from borehole 2 (BH2 SA1) and sample 2 from borehole 5 (BH5 SA2) were submitted to a specialist analytical laboratory for analyses for Table 1 metals and inorganics. These samples represented the native silt (BH2 SA1) and sandy clayey silt till (BH5 SA2) materials. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table II. The Table 1 Standards of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2011 Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (the Standards) are included in the summary table for comparison purposes. A copy of the Certificate of Analysis from the analytical laboratory is provided in Appendix B. February 2013 Report No R01 6

8 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION The test results indicated that the two soil samples were below the Table 1 Standards for the parameters analyzed. Based on the results of the soil analysis, excess soils generated during the project, represented by the samples submitted for chemical analysis, will not be subject to disposal restrictions. 4.0 DISCUION 4.1 General Based on the information provided, it is understood that new sewers, watermain and services along Burbrook Place will be installed as part of Contract No.9 of the 2013 Infrastructure Life Cycle Renewal Program. It is understood that the sewer inverts will be about 4 metres deep. A trenchless crossing between Princess Avenue and Elias Street may also be necessary. Roadway pavement restoration and/or reconstruction, where required, is included in the proposed works. This section of the report provides our recommendations based on our interpretation of the factual information obtained during the investigation. It should be noted that the interpretation and recommendations are intended for use only by the design engineer. Where comments are made on construction, they are provided only in order to highlight those aspects which could affect the design of the project. Those requiring information on aspects of construction should make their own interpretation of the factual information provided as it may affect equipment selection, proposed construction methods and scheduling. 4.2 Excavations Based on the results of the boreholes and the anticipated depths of the installations, it is considered that the proposed watermain, sewers and services can be installed using conventional open cut techniques. Depending on the timing of construction, seasonal variation resulting in groundwater levels higher than those encountered during the investigation should be anticipated. Based on the results of this investigation, the excavations for the installation of the proposed sewers, watermain services or other excavations, such as sending and receiving pits for trenchless work, will encounter the existing pavement structures, topsoil, fill (including the existing trench backfill), sandy clayey silt till, silty clay, silt, sandy silt till, silty clay till and sand. For classification purposes, the fill materials would be classified as Type 3 soils as would any granular materials, including silts, below the water level. The sandy clayey silt till, sandy silt till and silty clay till materials as well as the silt and sand above the groundwater level would be classified as Type 2 soils. It is considered that the sewers, watermain and services can be installed using conventional open cut trenches, vertically shored trenches and/or properly designed trench liner boxes. All unsupported excavations should be carried out in accordance with the current Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Unsupported excavation February 2013 Report No R01 7

9 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION side slopes should not exceed an inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. In some areas, it may be necessary to flatten and/or blanket the excavation side slopes with clear stone for stability. Care will be required to ensure that adequate support is provided for all existing utilities located within the zone of influence of the excavation as defined by a line drawn upwards and outwards from the base of the excavation at an inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. In accordance with current Occupational Health and Safety Act, properly designed shoring systems would be required for any working pits for trenchless crossings. Should a trench liner box be used to minimize the extent of the excavation, it should be noted that the box only provides protection for the workmen once in place. The liner box does not restrict movement of the excavation walls. Any voids between the excavation wall and the trench liner box should be filled immediately to minimize the potential for loss of ground and support for adjacent buried utilities, roadway pavements, and the like. Further, it is suggested that the trench excavation be carried out in short sections with the support system installed immediately upon completion of excavation. The presence of existing services will create some difficulty in the use of a trench liner box. Care should be taken to direct all surface water away from open excavations. A public digging should be carried out during the tender stage of the project so that contractors bidding on the work may observe the site conditions. 4.3 Dewatering It is anticipated that groundwater seepage into the excavation can be adequately handled by using properly constructed and filtered sumps located in the base of the excavation. However, based on the subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes 3 and 4 and the proposed invert levels, the potential for large flows during periods of prolonged precipitation or elevated groundwater levels during construction may result in more aggressive pumping and a Permit to Take Water being required. 4.4 Bedding Bedding for the sewers and watermain should consist of properly graded granular material consistent with the size, type and class of pipe and the City of London specifications. All bedding materials should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 300 millimetres and uniformly compacted to 95 per cent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). Should a trench liner box be employed, care should be taken to ensure that the compacted pipe bedding is not disturbed when the liner box is moved. Should groundwater seepage be of sufficient volume that the bedding material cannot be adequately compacted, it may be necessary to use 19 millimetre clear/crushed stone with a non-woven geotextile surround. A complete geotextile surround is considered necessary for the clear stone bedding to prevent migration of fines into the February 2013 Report No R01 8

10 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION bedding and the subsequent loss of support for the pipe. The clear stone bedding would also facilitate pumping from the sumps, as required. 4.5 Trench Backfill Based on the results of this investigation, the excavated materials will generally consist of the existing pavement granulars, variable fill materials, sandy clayey silt till, silty clay till, silt, sandy silt till and sand. Provided that all deleterious materials such as the existing asphalt, any topsoil, organics or silts are wasted, the excavated materials are considered suitable for reuse as trench backfill provided that some minor postconstruction settlements can be tolerated. Where post construction settlements cannot be tolerated, only imported granular backfill should be used. The backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 300 millimetres in thickness and uniformly compacted at least 95 per cent of SPMDD. Care will be required to ensure that sufficient effort is put into placement and compaction of the trench backfill in order to minimize settlement, especially if a trench liner box is used. The upper one metre of the trench backfill that will form the roadway subgrade should be placed in maximum 200 millimetre loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 98 per cent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. Alternatively, the use of non-shrink backfill could be considered where space restrictions preclude the effective use of suitable compaction equipment. 4.6 Pavements It is anticipated that all of the roadway pavements will require reconstruction following installation of the sewers and watermain. Based on traffic data provided on the City of London website, it is understood that the volumes of traffic on the section of Dundas Street adjacent to Burbrook Place is about 10,500 vehicles per lane per day and about 1,000 vehicles per lane per day for Elias Street. No traffic data was available for Burbrook Place. Assuming about 5 per cent truck traffic, it is recommended that any pavement restoration for Dundas Street be designed based on a Benkelman Beam spring design rebound of 0.65 millimetres which is consistent with a major arterial roadway. Elias Street and Burbrook Place can be classified as a secondary collector roadways and the pavement structure can be designed using a spring design rebound of 1.5 millimetres. Based on the soil conditions encountered in the boreholes and the anticipated subgrade conditions, the following pavement component thicknesses are recommended for pavement reconstruction on a properly prepared and shaped subgrade: February 2013 Report No R01 9

11 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION Pavement Component Thickness (mm) Roadway City of London Select HL3 Surface Asphalt HL8 Binder Asphalt Granular A Base Granular B Subbase Dundas Street 40 2@ Burbrook Place Elias Street The Granular A base and Granular B subbase should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 100 and 98 per cent of SPMDD, respectively. Short, perforated stub drains should be provided at subgrade level at all catch basin locations. The asphaltic materials should be produced, placed and compacted in accordance with the current Ontario Provincial Standard Specification requirements for medium duty pavements. Milled notches the depth of the surface course and 500 millimetres wide should be provided where the new pavement abuts existing pavements and care should be taken to properly tack coat all butt joints and milled surfaces. In order to minimize the effects of long-term settlement(s) of the trench backfill, consideration should be given to placing the sheet asphalt about one year after the binder asphalt is placed. Care should be taken to ensure that construction and/or through traffic does not adversely impact the roadway subgrades, roadway granulars and placement of the asphaltic materials. 4.7 Trenchless Crossing Based on the information provided, a 375 millimetre diameter sanitary sewer between Princess Avenue and Elias Street is to be replaced by a 450 millimetre diameter sewer using trenchless techniques. The existing sewer alignment crosses under the eastern portion of the existing building at 1025 Elias Street. The proposed sanitary sewer invert elevation is at metres or about 3.5 metres below ground surface. The results of the boreholes indicate that the undercrossing window will be in the very stiff to hard sandy clayey silt till and the presence of cobbles and boulders should be anticipated. The following trenchless techniques have been considered for the proposed trenchless installation: Horizontal directional drilling (HDD); Jack and bore; and Pipe bursting. It is understood that pipe bursting is currently the preferred method of installation for the undercrossing. However, the contractor should be fully responsible for the selection of the trenchless technology which best fits the contract requirements, his equipment availability, staff capabilities and experience. February 2013 Report No R01 10

12 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION All trenchless work must be carried out by an experienced specialist contractor employing only qualified workers skilled in their trade under the direction of an experienced foreman. The contractor s work plan should include a method of sealing the ends of the bore/casing at the end of each work day or in case of an emergency. It should also include a procedure for compensation grouting should uncontrolled loss of ground or drilling fluid occur. It is recommended that the geotechnical aspects of the contractor s work plan for the proposed undercrossing be reviewed by this office prior to construction. The trenchless contractor is advised to carefully expose any underground utilities which cross the undercrossing path to confirm their elevations prior to commencement of the work HDD HDD is considered to be a feasible alternative for installing the sanitary sewer beneath the existing building between Princess Avenue and Elias Street. With HDD, a small rotating and steerable bit is launched from the surface at a shallow angle and is used to drill a pilot hole supported with drilling fluid. Once the pilot bore is complete, the drill head is replaced with a backreamer or expander which enlarges the drill hole. It is adaptable to a range of drilling conditions through selection of compatible drilling fluids, downhole tools and equipment. Based on the consistency of the very stiff to hard sandy clayey silt till, it is considered that installation of the sanitary sewer casing using directional drilling techniques is feasible, but would be difficult due to the potential for encountering cobbles and/or boulders Jack and Bore With the jack and bore method, entry and receiving pits are first excavated to accommodate the jacking equipment at the entry pit and connections to the main pipe at the receiving pit. The casing is advanced by jacking with simultaneous removal of spoils using helical augers within the casing. Successive lengths of casing are welded together prior to each advance. The lead casing is generally equipped with a shield or thickened leading end to create a minor amount of overbreak to reduce shear stress. The main advantage of this system is that, with suitable soil conditions and good workmanship, minimal settlement generally occurs due to the simultaneous installation of the casing. However, based on the presence of very stiff to hard clayey silt till, to permit excavation to minimize over excavation and loss of ground with resultant post construction settlements, the auger head should be kept 0.5 metres behind the end of the casing at all times. The use of an injected bentonite lubricant will probably be required to minimize casing friction and jacking loads. Care will be required to maintain alignment and grade during the casing installations. Based on the consistency of the very stiff to hard sandy clayey silt till and the potential for encountering cobbles and/or boulders, it is considered that installation of the sanitary sewer casing using jack and bore techniques would be very difficult. February 2013 Report No R01 11

13 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION Pipe Bursting Pipe bursting utilizes a bursting tool to drive the new pipe through the existing pipe. The new pipe is advanced by either a soil displacement hammer driven by compressed air or a static pull system operated hydraulically. The existing pipe is destroyed as the new pipe is placed. Pipe bursting is considered to be a geotechnically feasible method of installation, but this technique will be difficult based on the very stiff to hard sandy clayey silt till found in the undercrossing window. A combination of pipe bursting and directional drilling may be necessary to construct the new sanitary sewer under the existing building Settlements The potential for some settlement or heaving exists with each method of installation, even with careful workmanship. With proper construction procedures, ground surface deformations should be less than 15 millimetres. Settlement/heave monitoring of the undercrossing should be carried out prior to, during and after the sanitary sewer installation as detailed below. In addition, the trenchless installation should be monitored by qualified geotechnical personnel Settlement/Heave Monitoring A monitoring program consisting of settlement/heave monitors located strategically in and around the building along the proposed alignment is recommended. Also, a building condition survey should be performed prior to commencing the undercrossing. The trenchless installation should be carried out by qualified personnel and the survey monitoring carried out by the Contract Administrator with the results being promptly reviewed by Golder on an ongoing basis. A baseline survey should be carried out at least twice prior to construction with the monitoring points referenced to two independent benchmarks. During construction, monitoring should be carried out daily and, depending on the magnitude of any movements detected during construction, for a period of two to six months following the crossing installation. February 2013 Report No R01 12

14 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION 4.8 Geotechnical Inspections and Testing A regular program of geotechnical inspections, testing and monitoring should be carried out during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with the results of the boreholes, to ensure that the intent of the design recommendations provided are being met and that the various project and material specifications are being consistently achieved. We trust that this report provides sufficient geotechnical information for your current requirements. Should any point require clarification, or when we can be of additional assistance, please contact this office. GOLDER AOCIATES LTD. Brett Thorner, E.I.T. Azmi M. Hammoud, P.Eng. Associate BT/AMH/cr Attachments: Limitations Tables I and II Method of Soil Classification Symbols and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols Records of Boreholes Figures 1 to 6 Appendices A and B Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation. n:\active\2012\ geo\ \ dillon-geo ser-burbrook place-london\rpts\ r01 feb 5 13 (final) geo inv - burbrook pl.docx February 2013 Report No R01 13

15 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. 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 can not 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 upon the reasonable request of the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. 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 can not 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 can not 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 Page 1 of 2

16 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 Page 2 of 2

17 February 2013 TABLE I SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS R01 Page 1 of Infrastructure Life Cycle Renewal Program Contract No.9 - Burbrook Place Reconstruction City of London, Ontario GROUND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (m) SURFACE DRILLING Encountered Measured Measured Measured BOREHOLE ELEVATION DATE INSTALLATION During Drilling September 13, 2012 October 16, 2012 November 2, 2012 (m) (2012) September 13 Standpipe Dry to Dry to Damaged September September September 13 Standpipe September 13 - Dry to September NOTES: 1. See Record of Borehole sheets for installation details. 2. For borehole locations, see Location Plan, Figure Standpipes were abandoned on November 2, 2012 in accordance with the current regulations. 4. Table to be read in conjunction with accompanying report. Prepared By: BT Checked By: AMH Golder Associates

18 February 2013 TABLE II ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR METALS AND INORGANICS IN SOIL 2013 Infrastructure Life Cycle Renewal Program Contract No. 9 - Burbrook Place Reconstruction London, Ontario R01 Page 1 of 1 Borehole Number: BH 2 BH 5 Sample Number: SA 1 SA 2 Soil Type: SILT SANDY CLAYEY SILT TILL MOE TABLE 1 Depth Range (m): 0.8 to to 2.0 STANDARDS 2 PARAMETER UNITS METALS Antimony µg/g <0.20 < Arsenic µg/g Barium µg/g Beryllium µg/g Boron µg/g < Hot Water Soluble Boron µg/g Cadmium µg/g <0.10 < Chromium µg/g Hexavalent Chromium µg/g <0.2 < Cobalt µg/g Copper µg/g Lead µg/g Mercury µg/g <0.050 < Molybdenum µg/g <0.50 < Nickel µg/g Selenium µg/g <0.50 < Silver µg/g <0.20 < Thallium µg/g Uranium µg/g Vanadium µg/g Zinc µg/g INORGANICS Electrical Conductivity ms/cm Free Cyanide µg/g <0.01 < ph ph units NOTES: 1. See Golder Report No R01 for borehole locations and soil stratigraphy. 2. Table 1 Standard as listed in the MOE 'Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act' (April 2011), residential, parkland, institutional, industrial, commercial and community property use. 3. "<" Below method detection limit. 4. "-" No applicable standard. 5. Values in BOLD indicate exceedance of applicable standard. Prepared By: BT 6. Table to be read in conjunction with accompanying report. Checked By: AMH Golder Associates

19 METHOD OF SOIL CLAIFICATION Organic or Inorganic Soil Group Type of Soil Gradation or Plasticity Organic Content USCS Group Symbol Group Name INORGANIC (Organic Content <30% by mass) COARSE GRAINED SOILS (>50% by mass is larger than mm) GRAVELS (>50% by mass is larger than 4.75 mm) SANDS (>50% by mass is smaller than 4.75 mm) Gravels with <12% fines (by mass) Gravels with >12% fines (by mass) Sands with <12% fines (by mass) Sands with >12% fines (by mass) Poorly Graded <4 1 or 3 <30% GP GRAVEL Well Graded 4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL Below A Line n/a GM Above A Line n/a GC SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL Poorly Graded <6 1 or 3 SP SAND Well Graded 6 1 to 3 SW SAND 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 Dilatancy Dry Strength Field Indicators Thread Diameter Rapid None >6 mm Toughness (of 3 mm thread) N/A (can t roll 3 mm thread) Organic Content USCS Group Symbol Group Name <5% ML SILT INORGANIC (Organic Content <30% by mass) FINE GRAINED SOILS (>50% by mass is smaller than mm) SILTS CLAYS (PI and LL plot below A-Line on Plasticity Chart) (PI and LL plot above A-Line on Plasticity Chart) Liquid Limit <50 Liquid Limit >50 Liquid Limit <35 Liquid Limit 35 to 50 Slow Slow to very slow Slow to very slow None None None None to Low Low to medium Low to medium Medium to High Low to medium Medium to High 3mm to 6 mm 3mm to 6 mm 3mm to 6 mm 1 mm to 3 mm None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT Low 5% to 30% OL ORGANIC SILT Low to medium <5% MH CLAYEY SILT Medium to High 5% to 30% OH ORGANIC SILT ~ 3 mm Low to medium CL SILTY CLAY 0% 1 mm to to Medium 3 mm 30% CI SILTY CLAY Liquid Limit >50 None High <1 mm High CH CLAY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS (Organic Content >30% by mass) Peat and mineral soil mixtures Predominantly peat, may contain some mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat PLASTICITY CHART 30% to 75% PT SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT >75% PEAT Dual Symbol A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC, CL-ML used when the soil has between 5 and 12% fines (i.e. between clean sand and dirty sand) or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Borderline Symbol A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. Note 1 Fine grained materials which are Non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. November 4, /2

20 SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soil Constituent BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT/CLAY Particle Size Description Not Applicable Not Applicable Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Classified by plasticity Millimetres Inches (US Std. Sieve Size) >300 >12 75 to to to to to to to to 3 (4) to 0.75 (10) to (4) (40) to (10) (200) to (40) <0.075 < (200) SAMPLES AS BS CS DS FS RC SC ST TO TP WS Auger sample Block sample Chunk sample Split-spoon Denison type sample Foil sample Rock core Soil core Slotted tube Thin-walled, open Thin-walled, piston Wash sample MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage Modifier by Mass 5 trace 5 to 12 some 12 to 35 >35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY) 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.) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Piezo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm 2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (q t ), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance; N d : 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 (COHESIONLE) SOILS Compactness Term SPT N (blows/0.3m) * 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 D 1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects or energy transfer. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT N ranges from Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N 60 values. SOIL TESTS w water content PL plastic limit LL liquid limit C consolidation (oedometer) test CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text) CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test 1 CIU D R DS GS M MH MPC SPC OC SO 4 UC UU V (FV) γ Note: 1 consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement 1 relative density (specific gravity, Gs) direct shear test specific gravity sieve analysis for particle size combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis Modified Proctor compaction test Standard Proctor compaction test organic content test concentration of water-soluble sulphates unconfined compression test unconsolidated undrained triaxial test field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) unit weight Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU. COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Term Undrained Shear SPT N Strength (kpa) (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 to 15 Very Stiff 100 to to 30 Hard >200 >30 1. SPT N in accordance with ASTM D 1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects or energy transfer. Term Dry Field Moisture Condition Description Soil flows freely through fingers. Term w < PL Water Content Description Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit. Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool. w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit. Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled. w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit. November 4, /2

21 LIST OF SYMBOLS Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows: I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content w l liquid limit in x, natural logarithm of x w p plastic limit log 10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 l p plasticity index = (w l w p ) g acceleration due to gravity w s shrinkage limit t time I L liquidity index = (w w p ) / I p F factor of safety I C consistency index = (w l w) / I p V volume e max void ratio in loosest state W weight e min void ratio in densest state I D density index = (e max e) / (e max - e min ) II. STRE AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties change in, e.g. in stress: h hydraulic head or potential linear strain q rate of flow v volumetric strain v velocity of flow coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient poisson s ratio k hydraulic conductivity total stress (coefficient of permeability) effective stress ( = - ) j seepage force per unit volume vo initial effective overburden stress 1, 2, principal stress (major, intermediate, 3 (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) minor) C c compression index oct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = ( )/3 C r recompression index shear stress (over-consolidated range) 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 stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = p / vo ( ) bulk density (bulk unit weight*) d ( d ) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength w ( w ) density (unit weight) of water τ p, τ r peak and residual shear strength s ( s ) density (unit weight) of solid particles effective angle of internal friction unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction ( = - (w) ) coefficient of friction = tan δ D R relative density (specific gravity) of solid c effective cohesion particles (D R = ρ s / ρ w ) (formerly G s ) c u, s u undrained shear strength ( = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress ( )/2 n porosity p mean effective stress ( )/2 S degree of saturation q ( )/2 or ( )/2 q u compressive strength ( ) S t sensitivity * Density symbol is. Unit weight symbol is where = g (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity) Notes: 1 2 = c + tan shear strength = (compressive strength)/2 November 4, 2011 Golder Associates

22 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 13, 2012 BH-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 0 PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SW-GW) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt; brown; (FILL); non-cohesive Back Fill (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace to some gravel, with cobbles; brown to grey at about elev m; (TILL); cohesive, very stiff to hard POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM MH /200mm Granular Bentonite (ML) SANDY SILT, some gravel, with cobbles; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive, very dense Standpipe LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK END OF BOREHOLE DEPTH SCALE 1 : Filter Sand Borehole dry during drilling on September 13, Standpipe damaged on October 16, Standpipe abandoned on November 2, LOGGED: BT CHECKED:

23 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 13, 2012 BH-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 0 PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SW-GW) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive (ML) SILT, trace sand, trace gravel; brown; non-cohesive, compact POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel; brown to grey at about elev m; (TILL); cohesive, very stiff to hard MH /250mm LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 (ML) SANDY SILT, some gravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive, very dense END OF BOREHOLE Groundwater encountered at about elev m during drilling on September 13, LOGGED: BT CHECKED:

24 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 13, 2012 BH-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SW-GW) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive (SP-GP) SAND AND GRAVEL some silt; with cobbles; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel; brown, (TILL); cohesive, very stiff (ML) SILT, trace clay; brown, layered; non-cohesive, compact (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel; grey, (TILL); cohesive, very stiff POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM (ML) SILT, some sand, with sandy silt and clayey silt seams and layers; grey; non-cohesive, dense (SP) SAND, fine to medium, some silt; grey; non-cohesive, dense MH Groundwater encountered at about elev m during drilling on September 13, (SW) SAND, fine to coarse, some gravel, some silt; grey; non-cohesive, dense (CL) SILTY CLAY, with silt seams and layers; grey; cohesive, hard (ML) SILT, with silty clay seams and layers; grey, layered; non-cohesive, very dense (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel; grey, (TILL); cohesive, hard 8 45 LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 END OF BOREHOLE LOGGED: CHECKED: BT

25 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 13, 2012 BH-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 0 1 PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SW-GW) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive (SP-GP) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt, with cobbles; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive Back Fill 2 (CL) SILTY CLAY, trace to some sand, trace to some gravel, with silt seams and layers; grey, (TILL); cohesive, stiff to very stiff MH Granular Bentonite 3 4 POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM (ML) SILT, trace to some sand; grey; non-cohesive, dense (SW) SAND, fine to coarse, trace gravel, trace silt; brown; non-cohesive, dense Nov. 2/12 Oct. 16/12 Enc. WL 5 (SW) Gravelly SAND, trace silt; grey; non-cohesive, dense Sept. 13/12 Filter Sand 6 (ML) SILT, trace to some sand; grey; non-cohesive, very dense Standpipe LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK END OF BOREHOLE DEPTH SCALE 1 : Caved Material Groundwater encountered at about elev m during drilling on September 13, Water level measured at elev m on September 13, Water level measured at elev m on October 16, Water level measured at elev m on November 2, Standpipe abandoned on November 2, LOGGED: BT CHECKED:

26 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 13, 2012 BH-5 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 0 PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SP-GP) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt, with cobbles; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive Borehole dry during drilling on September 13, (ML) Sandy CLAYEY SILT, some gravel; brown, (TILL); cohesive, very stiff to hard MH 3 POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM MH 5 (CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel; grey, (TILL); cohesive, hard LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK END OF BOREHOLE DEPTH SCALE 1 : LOGGED: CHECKED: BT

27 PROJECT: LOCATION: REFER TO LOCATION PLAN RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: September 14, 2012 BH-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: GEODETIC SAMPLER HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 63.5 kg; DROP, 760 mm DEPTH SCALE METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m ELEVATION 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 INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS PAVEMENT SURFACE ASPHALT (SW-GW) SAND AND GRAVEL, some silt; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive (SW) Gravelly SAND, some silt, with silty and silty clay deposits; brown, (FILL); non-cohesive, very loose to compact M 2 3 POWER AUGER 83mm ID HOLLOW STEM Groundwater encountered at about elev m during drilling on September 14, (ML) Sandy CLAYEY SILT, some gravel; grey, (TILL); cohesive, hard END OF BOREHOLE LDN_BHS_ GPJ GLDR_LON.GDT 16/11/12 DATA INPUT: AMG/LMK DEPTH SCALE 1 : LOGGED: CHECKED: BT

28 RKE CLA H HIG. RD VE. YA BUR HM RIC D ON. N. RD AND ERL ND WO D OR E. ST. F OX T. E A ND. DU ST.. NK BA G IN DR AREA OF PLAN R SP WELL RD. N RD. INGTO CITY OF LONDON NERS IIO COMM KEY PLAN LEGEND BOREHOLE BOREHOLE (Previous Golder Investigation ) REFERENCE DRAWING BASED ON 2011 ORTHOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE LONDON CITY CD V Drawing file: R01001.dwg Nov 16, :33pm NOTES THIS DRAWING IS SCHEMATIC ONLY AND IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LOCATION PLAN R01001 AS SHOWN AMG/LMK Nov. 16/12 FIGURE 1

29 Size of openings, inches U.S.S. Sieve Size, meshes/inch /4 1/2 3/ PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble Size coarse fine GRAVEL SIZE coarse medium SAND SIZE fine SILT AND CLAY LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE BH-3 SAMPLE ELEV (m) PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LDN_GSD GLDR_LDN.GDT TITLE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SILT PROJECT No FILE No R01002 SCALE N/A REV. DRAWN LMK NOV 16/12 CHECK FIGURE 2 LONDON, ONTARIO

30 Size of openings, inches U.S.S. Sieve Size, meshes/inch /4 1/2 3/ PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble Size coarse fine GRAVEL SIZE coarse medium SAND SIZE fine SILT AND CLAY LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE BH-6 SAMPLE ELEV (m) PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LDN_GSD GLDR_LDN.GDT TITLE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAVELLY SAND PROJECT No FILE No R01003 SCALE N/A REV. DRAWN LMK NOV 16/12 CHECK FIGURE 3 LONDON, ONTARIO

31 Size of openings, inches U.S.S. Sieve Size, meshes/inch /4 1/2 3/ PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble Size coarse fine GRAVEL SIZE coarse medium SAND SIZE fine SILT AND CLAY LEGEND SYMBOL SOURCE BH-5 SAMPLE ELEV (m) PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LDN_GSD_01 GLDR_LDN.GDT TITLE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SANDY CLAYEY SILT TILL PROJECT No FILE No R01004 SCALE N/A REV. DRAWN LMK NOV 16/12 CHECK LONDON, ONTARIO FIGURE 4

32 Size of openings, inches U.S.S. Sieve Size, meshes/inch /4 1/2 3/ PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble Size coarse fine GRAVEL SIZE coarse medium SAND SIZE fine SILT AND CLAY LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE BH-1 BH-2 BH-4 BH-5 SAMPLE ELEV (m) PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LDN_GSD GLDR_LDN.GDT TITLE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SILTY CLAY TILL PROJECT No FILE No R01005 SCALE N/A REV. DRAWN LMK NOV 16/12 CHECK LONDON, ONTARIO FIGURE 5

33 70 60 PLASTICITY INDEX (Percent) CL CI CH "A" LINE 20 OH-MH 10 ML-CL OL-ML LIQUID LIMIT (Percent) SOIL TYPE C = Clay M = Silt O = Organic PLASTICITY L = Low I = Intermediate H = High LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE LL(%) PL(%) PI BH-1 BH-2 BH-4 BH PROJECT TITLE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE RENEWAL PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 9 - BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION LONDON, ONTARIO LDN_PI GLDR_LON.GDT PLASTICITY CHART PROJECT No FILE No R01006 SCALE N/A REV. DRAWN LMK NOV 16/12 CHECK LONDON, ONTARIO FIGURE 6

34 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION APPENDIX A Records of Previous Boreholes Golder Associates Ltd. Report No February 2013 Report No R01

35

36

37 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BURBROOK PLACE RECONSTRUCTION APPENDIX B Certificate of Analysis February 2013 Report No R01

38 Your Project #: Site#: Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Your C.O.C. #: Attention: Brett Thorner Golder Associates Ltd 309 Exeter Rd Unit 1 London, ON N6L 1C1 Report Date: 2012/11/12 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B2H2935 Received: 2012/11/05, 11:55 Sample Matrix: Soil # Samples Received: 2 Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Hot Water Extractable Boron /11/ /11/09 CAM SOP R153 Ana. Prot Free (WAD) Cyanide 2 N/A 2012/11/07 CAM SOP Ontario MOE CN-E3015 Conductivity 2 N/A 2012/11/09 CAM SOP APHA 2510 Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC (1) /11/ /11/09 CAM SOP EPA SW /7199 Acid Extr. Metals (aqua regia) by ICPMS /11/ /11/09 CAM SOP EPA 6020 Moisture 2 N/A 2012/11/08 CAM SOP R.Carter,1993 ph CaCl2 EXTRACT /11/ /11/09 CAM SOP SM 4500H+ B Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be an indication of analytical precision. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2-F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Maxxam Analytics is accredited by SCC (Lab ID 97) for all specific parameters as required by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Samples will be retained at Maxxam Analytics for three weeks from receipt of data or as per contract. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. * Results relate only to the items tested. (1) Soils are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise specified.../2 Page 1 of 8

39

40 Golder Associates Ltd Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 Client Project #: Report Date: 2012/11/12 Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Sampler Initials: BT O'REG 153 METALS PACKAGE (SOIL) Maxxam ID PM1541 PM1542 Sampling Date 2012/11/05 11: /11/05 11:10 Units BH2 SA1 BH5 SA2 RDL QC Batch Inorganics Chromium (VI) ug/g <0.2 < Moisture % Metals Hot Water Ext. Boron (B) ug/g Acid Extractable Antimony (Sb) ug/g <0.20 < Acid Extractable Arsenic (As) ug/g Acid Extractable Barium (Ba) ug/g Acid Extractable Beryllium (Be) ug/g Acid Extractable Boron (B) ug/g < Acid Extractable Cadmium (Cd) ug/g <0.10 < Acid Extractable Chromium (Cr) ug/g Acid Extractable Cobalt (Co) ug/g Acid Extractable Copper (Cu) ug/g Acid Extractable Lead (Pb) ug/g Acid Extractable Molybdenum (Mo) ug/g <0.50 < Acid Extractable Nickel (Ni) ug/g Acid Extractable Selenium (Se) ug/g <0.50 < Acid Extractable Silver (Ag) ug/g <0.20 < Acid Extractable Thallium (Tl) ug/g Acid Extractable Uranium (U) ug/g Acid Extractable Vanadium (V) ug/g Acid Extractable Zinc (Zn) ug/g Acid Extractable Mercury (Hg) ug/g <0.050 < RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 3 of 8

41 Golder Associates Ltd Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 Client Project #: Report Date: 2012/11/12 Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Sampler Initials: BT RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SOIL Maxxam ID PM1541 PM1542 Sampling Date 2012/11/05 11: /11/05 11:10 Units BH2 SA1 BH5 SA2 RDL QC Batch Inorganics Conductivity ms/cm Free Cyanide ug/g <0.01 < Available (CaCl2) ph ph RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 4 of 8

42 Golder Associates Ltd Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 Client Project #: Report Date: 2012/11/12 Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Sampler Initials: BT Test Summary Maxxam ID PM1541 Collected 2012/11/05 Sample ID BH2 SA1 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2012/11/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP /11/ /11/09 Azita Fazaeli Free (WAD) Cyanide TECH N/A 2012/11/07 Louise Harding Conductivity COND N/A 2012/11/09 Yogesh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC /11/ /11/09 Sally Coughlin Acid Extr. Metals (aqua regia) by ICPMS ICP/MS /11/ /11/09 Viviana Canzonieri Moisture BAL N/A 2012/11/08 Valentina Kaftani ph CaCl2 EXTRACT /11/ /11/09 Xuanhong Qiu Maxxam ID PM1542 Collected 2012/11/05 Sample ID BH5 SA2 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2012/11/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP /11/ /11/09 Azita Fazaeli Free (WAD) Cyanide TECH N/A 2012/11/07 Louise Harding Conductivity COND N/A 2012/11/09 Yogesh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC /11/ /11/09 Sally Coughlin Acid Extr. Metals (aqua regia) by ICPMS ICP/MS /11/ /11/09 Viviana Canzonieri Moisture BAL N/A 2012/11/08 Valentina Kaftani ph CaCl2 EXTRACT /11/ /11/09 Xuanhong Qiu Page 5 of 8

43 Golder Associates Ltd Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 Client Project #: Report Date: 2012/11/12 Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Sampler Initials: BT Package C Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt GENERAL COMMENTS Page 6 of 8

44 Golder Associates Ltd Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 Client Project #: Report Date: 2012/11/12 Site Location: BARBROOK PLACE Sampler Initials: BT QUALITY AURANCE REPORT Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC Standard QC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Free Cyanide 2012/11/ <0.01 ug/g Moisture 2012/11/ Chromium (VI) 2012/11/09 57(1, 2) <0.2 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Antimony (Sb) 2012/11/ <0.20 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Arsenic (As) 2012/11/ <1.0 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Barium (Ba) 2012/11/09 NC <0.50 ug/g Acid Extractable Beryllium (Be) 2012/11/ <0.20 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Boron (B) 2012/11/ <5.0 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Cadmium (Cd) 2012/11/ <0.10 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Chromium (Cr) 2012/11/ <1.0 ug/g Acid Extractable Cobalt (Co) 2012/11/ <0.10 ug/g Acid Extractable Copper (Cu) 2012/11/ <0.50 ug/g Acid Extractable Lead (Pb) 2012/11/ <1.0 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Molybdenum (Mo) 2012/11/ <0.50 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Nickel (Ni) 2012/11/ <0.50 ug/g Acid Extractable Selenium (Se) 2012/11/ <0.50 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Silver (Ag) 2012/11/ <0.20 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Thallium (Tl) 2012/11/ <0.050 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Uranium (U) 2012/11/ <0.050 ug/g Acid Extractable Vanadium (V) 2012/11/ <5.0 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Zinc (Zn) 2012/11/ <5.0 ug/g NC Acid Extractable Mercury (Hg) 2012/11/ <0.050 ug/g Conductivity 2012/11/09 <0.002 ms/cm Hot Water Ext. Boron (B) 2012/11/ <0.050 ug/g N/A = Not Applicable RPD = Relative Percent Difference Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. QC Standard: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recovery calculation. NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation. (1) - Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria. (2) - The matrix spike recovery was below the lower control limit. This may be due in part to the reducing environment of the sample. Page 7 of 8

45 Validation Signature Page Maxxam Job #: B2H2935 The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s). Cristina Carriere, Scientific Services ==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Page 8 of 8

46 Golder Associates Ltd. 309 Exeter Road, Unit #1 London, Ontario, N6L 1C1 Canada T: +1 (519)