GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 59 Russell Ave. Ottawa, Ontario

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 59 Russell Ave. Ottawa, Ontario Prepared For: Sam Himyary SPL Project No.: Report Date: December SPL Consultants Limited

2 Project Russell Ave., Ottawa, ON i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION PROJECT UNDERSTANDING & SITE DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF WORK INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES Desk Study Field Investigation Laboratory Testing SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Fill Silty Clay Bedrock/Auger Refusal Groundwater Conditions Summary DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Seismic Site Classification Frost Protection Site Grading Foundations Basement Floor Slab Lateral Earth Pressures Foundation Wall Backfill Permanent Groundwater Control and Basement Drainage Backfilling and Compaction Site Services Corrosion and Cement Type Pavements Construction Considerations Construction Dewatering Temporary Excavations Subgrade Preparation CLOSURE... 13

3 Project Russell Ave., Ottawa, ON ii Drawings Site Plan 1 Borehole Location Plan 2 Plasticity Chart 3 Appendices Appendix I: Borehole Logs (Record of Borehole Sheets) Appendix II: Chemical Test Results Appendix III: Explanation of Terms used in Report Appendix IV: Limitations of This Report No.

4 Project INTRODUCTION SPL Consultants Limited (SPL) was retained by Sam Himyary to conduct a geotechnical investigation at the property located at 59 Russell Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this geotechnical investigation are outlined in SPL s Proposal No. P dated November, 2014 and subsequent project correspondence. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface information at the site by means of exploratory boreholes. This report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the redevelopment of the site for residential use. 2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING & SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 59 Russell Avenue, in Ottawa, Ontario as show in Drawing No. 1. The site is currently developed and includes a low rise residential building (house). The building covers the majority of the lot with the remainder being made up of driveways, lawn, landscaping, etc. The surrounding area is developed with similar low-rise residential construction. It is understood that the site will be redeveloped for multi-unit residential use which will include a low rise residential building with one storey of underground parking/basement. Detailed plans for the proposed development were not available at the time of this investigation. 3. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this assignment included: A desk study and review of existing geotechnical information in the general area; Laying out the boreholes and obtaining utility locates at the project site; Drilling of two boreholes; In-situ soil sampling and testing, including Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and Shear Vane Testing; Obtaining soil samples for additional review and laboratory testing; Laboratory testing; Geotechnical analysis; and Preparation of this report which presents the results of the investigation and provides geotechnical recommendations related to the design of the foundation. 4. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES The geotechnical investigation was carried out in December 2014.

5 Project Desk Study Surficial geology maps indicate the site is in an area underlain by marine silt and clay as well as potentially stratified fluvial sand and silt to the north. Bedrock geology maps indicate the bedrock in the general area consists of limestone, dolostone, shale and sandstone of the Eastview Formation. 4.2 Field Investigation The field investigation was carried out on December 1 st and 4 th, 2014 and included the drilling of two boreholes (BH14-1 and BH14-2) at the site. The boreholes were advanced using equipment supplied and operated by George Downing Estate Drilling Limited of Hawkesbury, Ontario. Borehole BH14-1 was advanced using hollow stem augers to a depth of 10.4 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH14-2 was advanced using portable continuous sampling equipment to a depth of 6.1 m below the existing ground surface. In-situ tests including Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), shear vane testing and Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCPT) were carried out at regular intervals. For each borehole, soil samples and retrieved rock core were logged and visually classified in the field by a member of SPL s geotechnical staff who also supervised drilling and testing operations. A piezometer was installed in Borehole BH14-1. All boreholes were backfilled with bentonite and soil cuttings and were sealed at the ground surface with asphaltic concrete. The borehole locations are shown in Drawing No. 2. Borehole logs are included in Appendix I of this report. The borehole locations were selected by SPL. The ground surface elevations at each borehole were obtained from site surveys prepared by others. 4.3 Laboratory Testing Upon completion of drilling and in-situ testing, soil samples were returned to SPL s laboratory for further examination, classification and testing. The geotechnical laboratory testing program carried out on selected representative soil samples included the determination of natural water content, and Atterberg limits (plasticity). Chemical analyses for soil corrosivity were carried out on selected soil samples. The results of natural water content tests are included on the borehole logs in Appendix I. The results of the Atterberg limits (plasticity) are summarized on the individual borehole logs and presented in Drawing No. 3. Chemical testing to determine sulphate content, chloride content, ph and resistivity was also carried out on a selected soil sample obtained during the drilling. The results of these tests are included in Appendix II. 5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered during the drilling at the site are discussed in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered at each of the borehole locations are included in the individual borehole logs in Appendix I.

6 Project Soil Conditions Fill Borehole 14-1 was advanced on the existing driveway and encountered an asphalt pavement structure which included 25 mm of asphalt over approximately 275 mm of crushed sand and gravel. Borehole BH14-2 was advanced at the rear of the existing house and encountered approximately 240 mm of topsoil and organic soil. Underlying the asphalt and topsoil, the near-surface soils include a layer of fill material which extends to approximately 1.5 m depth at BH14-1 and 1.7 m depth at BH14-2. At both locations the fill material consisted of loose silty sand Silty Clay In both the boreholes the fill was underlain by silty clay. This deposit generally consists of interlayered clay, silty clay and silt. Sand lenses were also present. For simplicity this deposit is referred to in this report as silty clay (as this is the predominant soil type). The silty clay extended to the depth of drilling in both boreholes. At the borehole locations the upper portion of the silty clay has been weathered to form a stiff to very stiff grey brown crust. The weathered zone extended to a depth of 3.1 m and 3.7 m below the ground surface at the borehole locations. In- Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty clay gave N values generally ranging from 4 to 6 blows per 305 mm of penetration. The silty clay below the depth of weathering is grey in colour. Both boreholes were terminated within this silty clay layer. In-situ soil strength was measured during drilling through a combination of SPT testing and in-situ shear vane testing at regular intervals. Standard penetration tests N within the silty clay deposit ranged from 1 to 2 blows per 305 mm of penetration. Shear vane testing within the silty clay deposit yielded shear strengths ranging from approximately 40 kpa and greater than 100 kpa indicating a firm to very stiff consistency. The results of Atterberg limit testing carried out on one sample of the unweathered silty clay gave a plastic limit of 27 and a liquid limit of 65. These values indicate that the silty clay has high plasticity. The measured water content of the silty clay typically ranges from approximately 54 to Bedrock/Auger Refusal Neither bedrock nor auger refusal were encountered within the depth of drilling. 5.2 Groundwater Conditions A standpipe piezometer was installed in borehole BH14-1 during the field investigation. Due to time constraints, the water levels within the monitoring wells were measured 3 days after completion of

7 Project drilling (in December 2014) and were found to be at 5.5 m below the existing ground surface. Given that the soils are the site are silty clay, it is likely that the water level has not stabilized and the actual groundwater elevation is higher. Additional groundwater measurements should be obtained prior to completion of detailed design. It should also be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations as well as fluctuations in response to major weather events. 5.3 Summary A summary of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the site are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 Simplified Stratigraphy and Groundwater Elevations Borehole No. Fill Silty Clay Measured Groundwater Depth BH m to 1.5 m 1.5 m to 10.4 m 5.5 m BH m to 1.7 m 1.7 m to 6.1 m -- Notes BH terminated at 10.4 m BH terminated at 6.1 m 6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the available information described herein and project requirements. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the factual information for construction, and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety, and equipment capabilities. Reference should be made to the Limitations of Report, attached in Appendix IV, which follows the text but forms an integral part of this document. The general subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes include a layer of fill approximately 1.5 m to 1.7 m in thickness underlain by silty clay which extended to the depth of drilling. Bedrock or auger refusal was not encountered during drilling at either of the boreholes. 6.2 Seismic Site Classification As outlined in the 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC), building foundations must be designed to resist a minimum earthquake force. In accordance with Table A of the OBC, the seismic site response for the site would be Site Class D - Stiff Soil.

8 Project Frost Protection Foundations for heated structures should be protected against frost with a minimum of 1.5 m of earth cover or the thermal equivalent if insulation is used. Foundations for unheated structures should be provided with a minimum of 1.8 m of earth cover or the thermal equivalent if insulation is used. In the event that foundations are to be constructed during the winter months, foundation soils and side slopes of excavations are required to be protected from freezing temperatures immediately upon excavation and exposure to sub-zero temperatures until such time as heat can be applied to the building or the foundations have sufficient earth cover to prevent freezing of subgrade soils. 6.4 Site Grading The silty clay which is present at the site has the potential to settle if significant amounts of new fill are placed to raise the site grade. Details of the proposed development are not available at this time, however it is assumed (based on a review of the existing site) that significant site re-grading will not be required. If this is not the case and the final design involves placement of new fill to raise portions of the site, then SPL should review the proposed grading plans during design to ensure that the potential for settlement due to placement of new fill has been adequately accounted for in design of the foundations. 6.5 Foundations It is anticipated that the building will be a low-rise structure with one floor of underground parking or basement. The following foundation resistances may be assumed: The unfactored ultimate geotechnical bearing resistance can be taken as 300 kpa. A resistance factor of 0.5 should be applied to this value, yielding a factored bearing resistance of 150 kpa at ULS (Ultimate Limit States). The geotechnical resistance at the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) can be taken as 100 kpa. Provided that the foundation subgrade is properly prepared, and not unduly disturbed by construction activities, total and differential settlements associated with the above SLS resistance values are expected to be less than 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively. All bearing surfaces should be checked, evaluated and approved at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar projects prior to placement of any concrete, back fill, etc. Additional guidance related to bearing resistances can be provided based on preliminary designs. In particular, bearing resistances should be reviewed if the foundations are significantly lower (for example the final building includes more than one underground floor) than previously indicated.

9 Project Basement Floor Slab In preparation for the construction of the basement floor slab, all loose, wet, and disturbed material should be removed from beneath the floor slab. Provision should be made for at least 200 millimetres of Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular A to form the base of the floor slab. The Granular A should be compacted to 100% of the material s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Any bulk fill required below the underside of the Granular A should consist of OPSS Granular B Type II. The underslab fill should be placed in maximum 300-millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. All subgrades should be reviewed by SPL prior to placement of any geotextile, granular base, concrete, etc. Due to the time constraints imposed on completion of this report, the stabilized groundwater level is not known with certainty. It is likely however that it is in the general vicinity of a single-storey basement floor slab. Given the clayey nature of the site soils, permanent groundwater inflows are not expected to be significant, however, it may be necessary to provide sub-slab drainage to prevent hydrostatic pressures below the slab. This requirement should be re-visited once sufficient time has passed to obtain a stabilized groundwater level 6.7 Lateral Earth Pressures The lateral earth pressure acting on below-grade walls, retaining walls, etc. may be calculated using the following expression: P = K(gh+q) Where P = lateral earth pressure (kpa) acting at depth h K = earth pressure coefficient; for unrestrained walls and structures where some movement is acceptable (such as retaining walls) use a coefficient of active earth pressure (K a ) equal to 0.3, for restrained walls (such as basement walls) use the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K 0 ) equal to 0.5 g = the density of the backfill; use 21.5 kn/m 3 for compacted granular backfill h = the depth to the point of interest (m) q = the magnitude of any design surcharge at the ground surface; The above values assume free-draining granular backfill will be used. If this is not the case then the above values may need to be adjusted based on the soil type used, and water pressures should be considered in the calculation of lateral pressures. SPL can provide additional guidance based on actual building plans if required.

10 Project Earth pressures will be higher under seismic loading conditions. In order to account for seismic earth pressures the total earth pressure during a seismic event (including both the seismic and static components) may be assumed to be: s h (z) = K a g z + (K AE K a ) g (H-z) Where s h (z) = the total earth pressure at depth z (kpa); K a = the active earth pressure coefficient (0.3); g = the unit weight of soil (21.5 kn/m 3 for granular fill or 19 kn/m 3 for native soils); K AE = the combined active earth pressure and seismic earth pressure coefficient (use 0.8); H = the total height of the wall (m) z = the depth below the top of the wall (m) The above earth pressure values (both static and seismic) are unfactored values. 6.8 Foundation Wall Backfill The soils at this site are potentially frost susceptible and should not be used as backfill against exterior or unheated foundation elements (e.g., footing, foundation walls, pile caps, etc.). To avoid problems with frost adhesion and heaving, these foundation elements should be backfilled with one or more of the following: Non-frost-susceptible sand and/or gravel which meets that gradation requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I; Weathered silty clay, provided that a bond break consisting of 3 sheets of 10 mil polyethylene sheeting is placed between the backfill and the foundation elements. 19 millimetre clear crushed stone having a unit weight not exceeding 17 kn/m 3, which is separated from other soils with a Class II non-woven geotextile having an FOS not exceeding 100 microns to prevent loss of adjacent sand, or silty soils into the clear stone. It should be noted that the use of clear stone as foundation backfill may lead to unfavourable growing conditions for plant matter placed in overlying topsoil. In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing will be in contact the building, differential frost heaving could occur between the granular fill (if sand or crushed stone is used) 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. 6.9 Permanent Groundwater Control and Basement Drainage The groundwater level at the site was found to be at 5.5 m depth in December As discussed above, however, it is unlikely that this represents the stabilized groundwater level. It is likely that the

11 Project actual stabilized level is higher than measured. This should be confirmed prior to completion of the detailed design. It should be assumed that proposed basement will intercept the groundwater table and should be provided with adequate drainage. Basement drainage would typically include sub-drains below the basement floor and perimeter drains around the exterior of the basement Backfilling and Compaction Backfill for foundation excavations and any below grade structures should comprise free draining Granular A or B materials. Backfill should be placed in shallow lifts, not exceeding 200 mm loose thickness, and compacted to 98% SPMDD where it is supporting any structures or services, or 95% in other areas. The majority of the existing site materials do not meet the requirements for Granular A or B materials. The suitability of imported materials should be confirmed prior to placement from both a geotechnical and environmental perspective. Portions of the existing soils at the site are adequate for use as general earth fill, but may require moisture conditioning (either wetting or drying) prior to placement and compaction. To avoid damaging or laterally displacing the structures, care should be exercised when compacting fill adjacent to new structures. Heavy equipment should be kept a minimum of 1 m away from the structure during backfilling. The 1 m width adjacent to the wall should be compacted using handoperated equipment unless otherwise authorized Site Services Excavations up to approximately 3.1 m below the existing ground surface would be within the fill and weathered silty clay layer. Excavations deeper than this may extend into the unweathered grey silty clay. Details of the proposed site services are not available at this time; however it is assumed that they will include localized trenches throughout the site. Trenches can be temporarily supported using sloped excavations (see Section ) or trench boxes. Bedding for site services should be in accordance with the relevant OPSD standard drawing and would typically consist of Granular A compacted to 95% SPMDD. Where wet or disturbed conditions are encountered in the base of the trench it may be necessary to over-excavate and replace unsuitable soils with compacted granular fill to provide a stable sub-grade for the bedding. The use of clear stone as a bedding and cover material is not recommended as the finer particles of the native soils and backfill may migrate into the voids of the clear stone, resulting in loss of pipe support. Cover material above the spring line should consist of Granular A or Granular B material with a maximum particle size of 25 mm. Cover material should be compacted to a minimum of 95% SPMDD.

12 Project Backfill may consist of additional granular fill, or the stiff weathered silty clay and should be compacted to 95% SPMDD (98% if below structures). Where backfill is below paved areas (such as parking lots) and is within the frost depth, the backfill profile (above the minimum cover required) in the trench should be made to match the native soils on either side as much as is practical in order to minimize the potential for differential frost heave. As a result, portions of the weathered silty clay above the water table may be retained, moisture conditioned (if necessary) and re-used. Any service trenches which extend below the water table should have clay cut-offs installed across the trench at regular intervals (typically 100 m) to prevent the trench acting as a drain and lowering the groundwater table in the general area. These cut-offs should extend the full width of the trench and must completely penetrate the bedding, cover and any other granular materials in the trench. The above are general guidelines for typical site services. All services installations should be completed in accordance with the relevant OPSS s and OPSD s for the particular application and size. SPL can provide additional review during detailed design based on the actual services proposed if required. The designer of the site services (particularly gravity services) should be aware of the potential for settlement which could arise as a result of the excessive raising of the grade Corrosion and Cement Type Three samples were submitted to Exova Accutest for testing related to soil corrosivity and potential exposure of concrete elements to sulphate attack. The results of these tests are included in Appendix II and summarized in Table 2 below. Borehole/ Sample No. Soil Type Table 2 Results of Soil Corrosivity Testing Electrical Chloride Conductivity ph (%) (ms/cm) Resistivity (ohm-cm) Sulphate (%) BH14-1/SS3 Silty Clay <0.01 BH14-2/SS4 Silty Clay <0.01 The soil resistivity values measured in the native silty clay soils suggest a severely corrosive environment for buried steel elements. The soil resistivity values within the underlying native silty sand suggest a slightly corrosive environment for buried steel elements. These values must be taken into consideration during design of below-grade steel elements, such as piling and underground services. The test results indicate a low soluble sulphate content and sulphate resistant Portland cement is not required Pavements Detailed traffic loads have not been provided at this time, however based on the subsoil conditions encountered, conventional asphaltic (flexible) pavement designs are considered to be appropriate for

13 Project proposed paved parking areas and driveways. Based on the results of this investigation and experience, the following asphaltic pavement design is recommended for car and light weight trucks: Pavement Layer Asphaltic Concrete Granular Base Course Granular Sub- Base Course Table 3 Recommended Pavement Structures Light Duty Traffic Areas (Cars) Heavy Duty Traffic Areas (Delivery Trucks, Fire Routes, Access Roads, etc.) 40 mm HL-3 or SP 12.5, Surface Course 50 mm HL-3 or SP 12.5, Surface Course 50 mm HL-8 or SP 19.0, Base Course 70 mm HL-8 or SP 19.0, Base Course 150 mm OPSS Granular A 150 mm OPSS Granular A 300 mm OPSS Granular B 450 mm OPSS Granular B Asphalt materials and placement specifications should be in accordance with relevant City and Provincial standard specifications. The asphaltic cement should be PG A functional design life of eight to ten years has been used to establish the flexible pavement recommendations. This represents the number of years to the first rehabilitation, assuming regular maintenance is carried out. If required, a more refined pavement structure design can be performed based on specific traffic data and design life requirements provided by the client. The long term performance of the pavement is highly dependent upon the subgrade support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved. In addition, the need for adequate drainage cannot be overemphasized. The finished pavement surface and underlying subgrade should be free of depressions and should be sloped to provide effective surface drainage toward catch basins. Surface water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of pavement areas. Subdrains can also be placed at catch basins and along curb lines to further improve sub-surface drainage. As part of the subgrade preparation, proposed parking areas and access roadways should be stripped of topsoil and other obvious objectionable material. Fill required to raise the grades to design elevations should conform to backfill requirements outlined in previous sections of this report. The subgrade should be properly shaped, crowned then proof-rolled in the full time presence of a representative of this office. Soft or spongy subgrade areas should be sub-excavated and properly replaced with suitable approved backfill compacted to 98% SPMDD. Base and sub-base layers should be compacted to 100% of SPMDD. The most severe loading conditions on light-duty pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently, special provisions such as restricted access lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather. Rigid pavements are recommended in below grade areas (such as ramps leading to below grade parking). Rigid pavement will perform better than a flexible section in these critical areas.

14 Project The following pavement structure is recommended for the rigid pavement (concrete) areas: Pavement Layer Rigid Pavement Granular Base Course Table 4 Recommended Rigid Pavement Structure Material 180 mm of Concrete 400 mm OPSS Granular A It would be prudent to provide the same subgrade level across rigid and flexible pavement sections and thus prevent the need to construct frost tapers. The concrete should satisfy the requirements of CAN/CSA A23.1 Class C-2 concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 32 MPa and should have a minimum flexural strength of 4.1 MPa. The base should consist of granular base material and be compacted to 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. 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 as outlined above. It is recommended that SPL Consultants Limited be retained to review the final pavement structure designs and drainage plans prior to construction to ensure that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report Construction Considerations Construction Dewatering The groundwater level at the site was found to be at 5.5 m at the time of the investigation. As discussed previously, it is unlikely this is the stabilized groundwater level (the stabilized level is likely to be higher and should be confirmed before completion of detailed design. For excavations above or slightly below the water table in silty clay, it is likely that seepage into the excavations can be managed using properly filtered sumps, ditches, etc. SPL can provide additional guidance based on the size and depth of the excavation and once the stabilized groundwater levels have been confirmed. The need for Ministry of Environment (MOE) Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is not anticipated for a typical single-storey excavation. This can be confirmed during detailed design based on the actual excavation details and stabilized groundwater levels. Without a PTTW dewatering operations must be limited to less than 50,000 litres/day Temporary Excavations All excavations should be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Part III of Ontario Regulation 213/91 deals with excavations.

15 Project The soils within the expected excavation include fill and native silty clay. For preliminary planning purposes the existing fill can be classified as a Type 3 Soil. The weathered native silty clay (which extends to a depth of 3.1 m to 3.7 m can also be classified as a Type 3 Soil above the groundwater table (or depth of watering). The unweathered grey silty clay soils below approximately 3 m to 4 m depth should be considered to be Type 4 soils below the groundwater table (or depth of watering). These classifications must be reviewed and confirmed by a qualified person during excavation. Due to the limited space available on the north and south sides of the lot a temporary shoring system may be required. Once the location of the building and the basement floor elevation is determined the need for vertical shoring should be reviewed. The type of shoring to be used depends on the permissible movement of the shoring. The design of any the shoring system must be carried out by a professional engineer and take into consideration the effect of the excavation upon the neighbouring buildings and structures. Failure to properly account for the loading of the adjacent structures, and the potential for deflection of the shoring may result in damage during construction. Proper review and monitoring of temporary excavation support should be carried out as the site is excavated to ensure that deflections and movements of adjacent structures are within acceptable limits. It is recommended that a pre-condition survey of the adjacent buildings be carried out prior to construction. The contractor is typically responsible for the detailed design of temporary shoring. If required, SPL can provide additional guidance based on preliminary excavation plans, depths, etc. during the detailed design phase of the project Subgrade Preparation The geotechnical bearing resistances provided in Section assume that the foundation soils will not be disturbed by construction activities. Proper de-watering and protection of the exposed subgrade will be important to the construction of the foundations. All excavated surfaces should be kept free of frost, water, etc. during the course of construction. All excavated surfaces should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar structures. The foundations soils at the site are expected to be sensitive to disturbance from ponded water and construction traffic (particularly if excavations extend into the unweathered clay present at 3.1 to 3.7 m depth). If the subgrades for foundations and basement floor slabs are exposed for a prolonged duration and/or exposed to construction traffic then placement of a mud slab directly on the subgrade may be required to protect the subgrade from these elements.

16

17 Project Drawings

18 N Site Client: Project#: DWG #: Drawn: Date: Size: Sam Himyary DW CH Approved: December 2014 Scale: N. T. S. Letter Rev: 0 Title: Project: Site Location Plan Geotechnical Investigation 59 Russell Ave., Ottawa, Ontario

19 1.55 (P1&MS) SHED PIN BH (P1&MS) 1 STORY WOOD ADDITION PIN PIN BH14-2 PIN DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT SET SIB DENOTES STANDARD IRON BAR IB DENOTES IRON BAR SSIB DENOTES SHORT STANDARD IRON BAR DENOTES ROUND CC DENOTES CUT CROSS CP DENOTES CONCRETE PIN (SU) MS DENOTES SOURCE UNKNOWN DENOTES MEASURED WIT DENOTES WITNESS -H- DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES UP DENOTES UTILITY POLE MMM DENOTES MMM GEOMATICS ONTARIO LIMITED 990 DENOTES J.G.PAYETTE, O.L.S. FSM DENOTES FARLEY, SMITH & MURRAY SURVEYING LTD. O.L.S. 857 DENOTES FAIRHALL, MOFFATT & WOODLAND LIMITED, O.L.S. PL DENOTES REGISTERED PLAN P1 DENOTES SURVEY BY FAIRHALL, MOFFATT & WOODLAND LIMITED, DATED APRIL 19,1994 P2 DENOTES SURVEY BY J.G.PAYETTE LTD., DATED JUNE 6, 1988 P3 DENOTES SURVEY BY PAUL A. RIDDELL LTD., DATED AUGUST 14, 2007 P4 DENOTES SURVEY BY J.G.PAYETTE LTD., DATED AUGUST 16, 1989 BDF DENOTES BOARD FENCE DENOTES CATCH BASIN H Y D DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES MANHOLE DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES UTILITY POLE NO. 49 W.L Sept 29, 2014 CARPORT 1 STORY WOOD ADDITION NO STORY BRICK DWELLING NO. 61 San Stm W GAS WV GV DENOTES WATER VALVE DENOTES GAS VALVE DENOTES SANITARY LINE DENOTES STORM LINE DENOTES WATER LINE DENOTES BUSH OR HEDGE DENOTES GAS LINE BH (PL) RIM =70.04 WV BH14-1 APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION RIM =69.17 SCALE 1: metres Client: Sam Himyary Title: Borehole Location Plan Project No.: Drawn: DW Date: December, 2014 Original Tabloid Drawing No.: Approved: Scale: Rev: 2 CH As Shown 0 Project: Geotechnical Investigation - 59 Russell Avenue, Ottawa, ON SPL Consultants Limited Geotechnical Environmental Materials Hydrogeology * * *

20 PLASTICITY CHART PLASTICITY INDEX, (PI) CL - ML ML 16 ML or OL MI or OI MH or OH LIQUID LIMIT, (LL) ASTM / CFEM Borehole: Sample Depth ( m ) Legend r Location: 59 Russell Avenue, Ottawa Project No. : Date: December 2014 Figure No.: 3

21 Project Appendix I Borehole Logs (Record of Borehole Sheets) and Core Photographs

22 LOG OF BOREHOLE 14-1 PROJECT: 59 Russell Avenue CLIENT: Sam Himyary PROJECT LOCATION: 59 Russell Avenue, Ottawa, ON DATUM: Geodetic BH LOCATION: See Location Plan (m) ELEV DEPTH SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION ASPHALT - 25 mm CRUSHED SAND AND GRAVEL trace to some silt, dark brown to grey, moist (FILL) SILTY SAND brown, moist, loose (FILL) STRATA PLOT NUMBER 1A 1B SAMPLES TYPE SS "N" BLOWS 0.3 m 3 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS ELEVATION Cuttings 70 Bentonite DRILLING DATA Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Diameter: 203 mm Date: Dec/01/2014 REF. NO.: ENCL NO.: DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE PLOT NATURAL PLASTIC MOISTURE LIMIT CONTENT w P w w L SHEAR STRENGTH (kpa) FIELD VANE UNCONFINED & Sensitivity QUICK TRIAXIAL LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMIT POCKET PEN. (Cu) (kpa) NATURAL UNIT WT (Mg/m 3 ) REMARKS AND GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) GR SA SI CL 2 SS SILTY CLAY brown grey, moist, firm to very stiff (WEATHERED CRUST) 3 SS 6 68 Cuttings 4 SS SILTY CLAY grey, moist, firm to very stiff 5 SS 2 67 VANE Bentonite 3 VANE SS 1 Sand 65 VANE Screen 4 SPL SOIL LOG-LARGE SCALE GPJ SPL.GDT 4/12/14 Continued Next Page GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS 7 8 VANE SS VANE VANE SS 1 1 GRAPH NOTES 64 Sand 63 3, 3 : Numbers refer to Sensitivity <116 kpa =3% Strain at Failure Shallow/ Single Installation Deep/Dual Installation

23 LOG OF BOREHOLE 14-1 PROJECT: 59 Russell Avenue CLIENT: Sam Himyary PROJECT LOCATION: 59 Russell Avenue, Ottawa, ON DATUM: Geodetic BH LOCATION: See Location Plan (m) ELEV DEPTH SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION SILTY CLAY grey, moist, firm to very stiff(continued) STRATA PLOT NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE VANE VANE "N" BLOWS 0.3 m GROUND WATER CONDITIONS ELEVATION 62 Cuttings DRILLING DATA Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Diameter: 203 mm Date: Dec/01/2014 REF. NO.: ENCL NO.: DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE PLOT NATURAL PLASTIC MOISTURE LIMIT CONTENT w P w w L SHEAR STRENGTH (kpa) FIELD VANE UNCONFINED & Sensitivity QUICK TRIAXIAL LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%) <116 kpa LIQUID LIMIT POCKET PEN. (Cu) (kpa) NATURAL UNIT WT (Mg/m 3 ) REMARKS AND GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) GR SA SI CL 61 9 SS 2 VANE End of Borehole VANE 60 1 Notes: 1) Borehole was dry upon completion of augering 2) 19 mm piezometer installed at 6.1 m below existing surface elevation 3) Date Groundwater Depth /12/ m SPL SOIL LOG-LARGE SCALE GPJ SPL.GDT 4/12/14 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS GRAPH NOTES 3, 3 : Numbers refer to Sensitivity =3% Strain at Failure Shallow/ Single Installation Deep/Dual Installation

24 LOG OF BOREHOLE 14-2 PROJECT: 59 Russell Avenue CLIENT: Sam Himyary PROJECT LOCATION: 59 Russell Avenue, Ottawa, ON DATUM: Geodetic BH LOCATION: See Location Plan (m) ELEV DEPTH SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION Topsoil mm SILTY SAND trace brick fragments, brown, moist, loose (FILL) STRATA PLOT NUMBER 1 SAMPLES TYPE SS "N" BLOWS 0.3 m 4 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS ELEVATION 70 DRILLING DATA Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Diameter: 203 mm Date: Dec/04/2014 REF. NO.: ENCL NO.: DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE PLOT NATURAL PLASTIC MOISTURE LIMIT CONTENT w P w w L SHEAR STRENGTH (kpa) FIELD VANE UNCONFINED & Sensitivity QUICK TRIAXIAL LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMIT POCKET PEN. (Cu) (kpa) NATURAL UNIT WT (Mg/m 3 ) REMARKS AND GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) GR SA SI CL 2 SS SILTY CLAY brown grey, moist, stiff to very stiff (WEATHERED CRUST) 3 4 SS SS SS SS SILTY CLAY grey, moist, stiff to very stiff 7 SS 2 66 VANE VANE SS 2 65 SPL SOIL LOG-LARGE SCALE GPJ SPL.GDT 4/12/ End of Borehole Notes: 1) Borehole was dry upon completion of sampling and open to 5.5 m below existing surface elevation VANE VANE GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS GRAPH NOTES 3, 3 : Numbers refer to Sensitivity =3% Strain at Failure Shallow/ Single Installation Deep/Dual Installation

25 Project Appendix II Results of Chemical Testing

26 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: SPL Consultants Ltd. 146 Colonnade Rd., Unit 17 Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Attention: Ms. Wendy McLaughlin PO#: Invoice to: SPL Consultants Ltd. Page 1 of 3 Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: COC #: Dear Wendy McLaughlin: Please find attached the analytical results for your samples. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call ( ). Report Comments: APPROVAL: Lorna Wilson Laboratory Supervisor, Inorganics All analysis is completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated). Exova Ottawa is accredited by CALA, Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation to ISO/IEC for tests which appear on our CALA scope of accreditation. It can be found at Exova (Ottawa) is certified and accredited for specific parameters by OMAFRA, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (for farm soils). Licensed by Ontario MOE for specific tests in drinking water. Exova (Mississauga) is accredited for specific parameters by SCC, Standards Council of Canada (to ISO 17025) Please note: Field data, where presented on the report, has been provided by the client and is presented for informational purposes only. Guideline values listed on this report are provided for ease of use (informational purposes) only. Exova recommends consulting the official provincial or federal guideline as required.

27 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: SPL Consultants Ltd. 146 Colonnade Rd., Unit 17 Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Attention: Ms. Wendy McLaughlin PO#: Invoice to: SPL Consultants Ltd. Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: COC #: Lab I.D. Sample Matrix Sample Type Sampling Date Sample I.D. Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline Agri. - Soil ph 2.0 General Chemistry Cl % Electrical Conductivity 0.05 ms/cm Resistivity 1 ohm-cm SO % Soil BH 14-1 SS < Soil BH 14-1 SS <0.01 Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario). Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. 146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Page 2 of 3

28 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: SPL Consultants Ltd. 146 Colonnade Rd., Unit 17 Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Attention: Ms. Wendy McLaughlin PO#: Invoice to: SPL Consultants Ltd. Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: COC #: QC Summary Analyte Blank QC % Rec QC Limits Run No Analysis Date Method C SM4500-SO4--D SO4 <0.01 % Run No Analysis Date Method Cond-Soil Electrical Conductivity ph Resistivity Run No Analysis Date Method C CSA A23.2-4B Cl <0.002 % Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario). Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. 146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Page 3 of 3

29 Project Appendix III Explanation of Terms used in Report

30 ! " #! " $ $ %! &'()*+,-. /&- *'-.0 )-*1. % %'--*+1.( $2 3!% 4 %! &'()*+,-. /&- *'-. )-*1. "&- 34 5% %'--*+1.(! 7 " 61-- /) 1--,(/) /) -(-/)2,(/) -(--1 -(-/) 8-(--1 # $%&'%(%)$ ' :*((. 1- ')9 *((. 6')9 * +,-.! '/ ;% % +1 1) 1, 1) )-, < %% )- +-- < +) ;%% ) ' '- *=. % +(>? 1( '(> (,(#3@4 )(# 0 1*,-.! ; 8, >, '- '- )- ; 6)-! $! #! >0 *. A? AB?!! *% "7. C@; C D E % 5 E *. E# E% # B B B? ; *>;. F B!

31 Project Appendix IV Limitations of This Report

32 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report is intended solely for the Client named. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to SPL Consultants Limited at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by SPL Consultants Limited, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to the fitness of the property for a particular purpose. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the test hole locations. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those encountered at the test hole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site investigation. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the test hole locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc. The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text and then only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. The comments made in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are intended only for the guidance of the designer. The number of test holes may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. For example, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary markedly and unpredictably. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. SPL Consultants Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.