Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Commercial ...

© 2016 Pinchin Ltd.

Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Commercial Development 571 Lacolle Way Ottawa, Ontario

Prepared for:

Morley Hoppner Limited 1818 Bradley Side Road Ottawa, ON K0A 1L0

Attention: Brian Morley Vice President October 14, 2016

Pinchin File: 117840.001

Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Commercial Development October 14, 2016 571 Lacolle Way, Ottawa, Ontario Pinchin File: 117840.001 Morley Hoppner Limited

© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page i

Issued to: Contact: Issued on: Pinchin file: Issuing Office: Primary Contact:

Morley Hoppner Limited Brian Morley October 14, 2016 117840.001 555 Legget Drive, Suite 1001, Tower A, Kanata, ON K2K 2X3 Wesley Tabaczuk, Project Manager

Author: Wesley Tabaczuk, P. Eng. Project Manager 1-613-592-3387 Ext. 1829 [email protected]

Reviewer: Scott Mather, P. Eng. Manager National Capital Region 1-613-592-3387 Ext. 1802 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING ..................................................................... 2

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND METHODOLOGY .............................................. 2

4.0 FIELD LOGGING AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3

4.1 Borehole Soil Stratigraphy & Groundwater Conditions ........................................................ 3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4

5.1 Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 4 5.1.1 Natural Soil Subgrade Preparation ........................................................................ 6 5.1.2 Biaxial Geogrid Installation .................................................................................... 7 5.1.3 Vertical Transition of Strip Footings ....................................................................... 8 5.1.4 Individual Spread Footings .................................................................................... 8 5.1.5 Estimated Settlement ............................................................................................. 8 5.1.6 Building Drainage ................................................................................................... 8 5.1.7 Shallow Foundation Frost Protection & Foundation Backfill .................................. 9 5.1.8 Concrete Floor Slab-on-Grade ............................................................................. 10

6.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR PARKING LOT ................. 11

6.1 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 11 6.2 Pavement Structure ............................................................................................................ 12 6.3 Pavement Structure Subgrade Preparation and Granular Up Fill ...................................... 13 6.4 Horizontal Transition Treatment ......................................................................................... 14 6.5 Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 14

7.0 SITE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 15

7.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover Materials for Flexible and Rigid Pipes ........................................ 15 7.2 Trench Backfill .................................................................................................................... 15 7.3 Frost Protection .................................................................................................................. 17

8.0 INSTALLATION OF ENGINEERED FILL ...................................................................................... 17

9.0 SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE & SOIL BEHAVIOUR ....................... 18

10.0 SITE SUPERVISION & QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................... 19

10.1 Open Cut Excavations ........................................................................................................ 19 10.2 Anticipated Groundwater Management .............................................................................. 20

11.0 DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................. 21


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page iii

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 General Site Location Plan

FIGURE 2 Borehole Location Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I Abbreviations, Terminology and Principle Symbols used in Report and Borehole Logs

APPENDIX II Pinchin’s Borehole Logs

APPENDIX III Analytical Laboratory Testing Reports for Soil Samples APPENDIX IV Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page 1 of 22

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pinchin Ltd. (Pinchin) was retained by Morley Hoppner Limited (Client) to conduct a Geotechnical

Investigation and provide subsequent geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed

commercial development to be located at 571 Lacolle Way Ottawa, Ontario (Site). The Site location is

shown on Figure 1.

Based on a drawing provided by the Client entitled “Site Plan Study” dated May 9, 2016, Project No. 16-

034, the proposed development is to consist of an approximate 1,420 square metre (m2) addition to the

west portion of the existing commercial building located on-Site. The proposed addition will reportedly

consist of a single-storey, slab-on-grade (i.e. no basement level) building. The development will also

include an asphalt surfaced parking area complete with 44 parking spaces.

Pinchin’s comments and recommendations are based on the results of the Geotechnical Investigation

and understanding of the project scope.

The purpose of the Geotechnical Investigation was to delineate the subsurface conditions and soil

engineering characteristics by advancing a total of four sampled boreholes and one Dynamic Cone

Penetration Test (DCPT) within the vicinity of the proposed building footprint. The information gathered

from the Geotechnical Investigation will allow Pinchin to provide geotechnical design recommendations

for the proposed development.

Based on a desk top review and the results of the Geotechnical Investigation, the following geotechnical

data and engineering design recommendations are provided herein:

• A review of relevant area geology and Site background information;

• A detailed description of the soil and groundwater conditions, including borehole logs;

• Foundation design recommendations including soil bearing pressures at Serviceability

Limit States (SLS) design;

• Foundation subgrade preparation;

• Potential foundation settlements;

• Foundation frost protection and engineered fill specifications and installation;

• Interior concrete floor slab-on-grade;

• Building drainage and foundation backfill;

• Asphaltic concrete pavement structure design for parking lot area;

• Site service trench design;

• Seismic Site classification for seismic Site response;



• Open cut excavations; and

• Anticipated groundwater management.

Abbreviations terminology and principle symbols commonly used throughout the report, borehole logs

and appendices are enclosed in Appendix I.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lacolle Way and Taylor Creek

Boulevard, approximately 150 m north of St. Joseph Boulevard in Ottawa, Ontario. Currently the Site is

occupied by a single storey commercial retail building, asphalt and gravel surfaced parking areas and

areas of soft landscaping (i.e. grassed areas with trees).

Data obtained from the Ontario Geological Survey Maps, as published by the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, indicates that the Site is located on a fine-textured glaciomarine deposit consisting of massive

to well laminated silt and clay, with minor sand and gravel. The underlying bedrock at this Site is of the

Shadow Lake Formation consisting of limestone, dolostone, shale, arkose and sandstone (Ontario

Geological Survey Map 2419, published 1979).

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND METHODOLOGY

Pinchin completed a field investigation at the Site on September 2, 2016 by advancing a total of four

sampled boreholes throughout the Site. The boreholes were advanced to sampled depths ranging from

approximately 5.9 to 6.7 metres below existing grade (mbg). Below the sampled depth in borehole BH1

(6.7 m), a Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) was advanced to a depth of approximately 17.1 mbg

to further assess the consistency of the soils. The approximate spatial locations of the boreholes

advanced at the Site are shown on Figure 2.

The boreholes were advanced with the use of a track mounted mobile drill rig, owned and operated by

Strata Drilling Group, which was equipped with 200 millimetre (mm) diameter continuous flight hollow

stem augers and standard soil sampling equipment. Soil samples were collected at 0.76 m intervals in the

upper 3.0 m, then 1.52 m intervals thereafter using a 51 mm outside diameter (OD) split spoon barrel in

conjunction with Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) “N” values (ASTM D1586). The SPT “N” values were

used to estimate the consistency of the cohesive soils.

The DCPT was performed with a 60 degree apex cone attached to “A” size drill rods. The numbers of

blows were recorded for each 300 mm of soil penetration advanced by a 63.5 kilogram (kg) weight free

falling a distance of 0.76 m. It is noted that the DCPT values per 300 mm are not fully representative of

the consistency of the soil due to rod friction masking the actual tip resistance. As such, the DCPT values

should only be interpreted with the guidance of a geotechnical consultant.



The soil sampling operation was completed under the full time supervision of experienced Pinchin

personnel. Pinchin logged the drilling operations and identified the soil samples as they were retrieved.

The recovered soil samples were sealed into plastic bags and carefully transported to an independent

and accredited materials testing laboratory for detailed analysis and testing. All soil samples were

classified according to visual and index properties by the project engineer. Upon completion of the drilling

program, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and sealed with bentonite pellets.

A local temporary benchmark was established on the top nut of the fire hydrant located adjacent to the

southwest corner of the Site. The temporary benchmark was assigned a local elevation of 100.00 m. The

approximate spatial locations and local elevations of the boreholes advanced at the Site are shown on

Figure 2.

4.0 FIELD LOGGING AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Field logging of the soil and groundwater conditions was performed to collect geotechnical engineering

design information. Details of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered within the boreholes are

included in Appendix II, Borehole Logs. The borehole logs include textural descriptions of the subsoil in

accordance with a modified Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and indicate the soil boundaries

inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations made during the borehole advancement. These

boundaries reflect approximate transition zones for the purpose of geotechnical design and should not be

interpreted as exact planes of geological change. The modified USCS classification is explained in

further detail in Appendix I.

Select soil samples collected from the boreholes were submitted to a materials testing laboratory to

determine the natural moisture content, grain size distribution, and Atterberg Limits of the soils. A copy of

the laboratory analytical reports is included in Appendix IV. In addition, the collected samples were

compared against previous geotechnical information from the area, for consistency and calibration of

results.

It is noted that due to the limitations of retrieving soil samples with a 51 mm diameter split spoon barrel,

the grain size distribution results may not be representative of the in-situ soil matrix and reflect the larger

particles observed by the field personnel. These observations are reflected on the borehole logs.

4.1 Borehole Soil Stratigraphy & Groundwater Conditions

In general, the soil stratigraphy encountered within the boreholes consisted of approximately 300 mm of

topsoil and grass overlying silty clay to the maximum borehole termination depth of approximately 6.7

mbg.



The silty clay material was encountered in all boreholes underlying the topsoil and grass. The moisture

content of the silty clay material was noted to increase with depth (i.e. dry to wet) and the colour was

noted to be greyish brown. Undrained shear strengths of the silty clay material ranged from 6 to 77

kilopascals (kPa) indicating a very soft to stiff consistency. It is noted that the shear strength of the soil

generally decreases with depth and is primarily a function of the natural groundwater elevation. Grain size

distribution analysis indicates that the silty clay material contains 20 to 22% silt and 78 to 80% clay sized

particles. Atterberg Limit testing indicates that the silty clay material is of high plasticity. The water content

of the silty clay material tested ranged from 34.1 to 54.8%. The sensitivity of the silty clay material ranges

between approximately 0.94 and 6.53.

Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 2.3 to 3.0 mbg within the boreholes.

Seasonal variations in the water table should be expected, with higher levels occurring during wet

weather conditions in the spring and fall and lower levels occurring during dry weather conditions.

A detailed description of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered during borehole advancement is

documented in the borehole logs located in Appendix II.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation Recommendations

The recommendations presented in the following sections of this report are based on the information

available regarding the proposed construction, the results obtained from the investigation, and Pinchin’s

experience with similar projects. Since the investigation only represents a portion of the subsurface

conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction that are substantially

different than those encountered during the investigation. If these situations are encountered,

adjustments to the design may be necessary. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be on Site during

the foundation preparation to ensure the subsurface conditions are the same/similar to what was

observed during the investigation.

It is typical construction practice to provide foundation frost protection with soil cover. For the Ottawa

area, foundations should be provided with a minimum of 1.8 m of soil cover frost protection above the

underside of the foundation for heated buildings.

The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the natural subgrade soils at this Site become weaker with

depth. As such, to mitigate the pressure on the underlying weaker soils (i.e. silty clay) it is recommended

to install the foundations as high as practically possible and provide a combination of soil cover and rigid

polystyrene insulation for frost protection.



Based on the results of the Geotechnical Investigation, Pinchin has reviewed several different shallow

foundation sizes and subgrade improvement options for the soil conditions encountered within the

boreholes. The final foundation design will be based on the loading requirements. Prior to finalizing the

foundation design it should be reviewed by Pinchin to ensure it satisfies the design assumptions. Given

the poor soil conditions with depth, the following preliminary shallow strip and spread footing design

options are provided for the support of the proposed development:

• Maximum 1 m wide shallow strip footing founded on the natural silty clay located

approximately 1.0 mbg, with a maximum applied allowable bearing pressure of 50 kPa at

Serviceability Limit States (SLS); and

• Maximum 1.5 x 1.5 m spread footing founded on the natural silty clay located

approximately 1.0 mbg, with a maximum applied allowable bearing pressure of 75 kPa at

SLS.

Alternatively, a slightly higher bearing pressure could be obtained by improving the subgrade as follows:

• Excavate all organic material to the undisturbed non-organic natural silty clay located

approximately 2.5 mbg, install a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 270R or equivalent) and a

biaxial geo-grid (Terrafix TBX2000 or equivalent);

• Install 1.5 m of Granular A (OPSS 1010), which is to be divided into two 750 mm layers,

separated by a biaxial geo-grid (Terrafix TBX2000 or equivalent); and

• The reinforced engineered fill pad is to extend a minimum horizontal distance of 1.2 m

beyond the outside face of the foundations and slope down at 1H:1V to ensure loads are

properly transferred to the underlying natural subgrade soil as well as to accommodate

the installation of the geogrid.

For foundations installed on a reinforced engineered fill pad as outlined above the following strip and

spread footing design options are provided:

• Maximum 1 m wide shallow strip footing founded on a reinforced engineered fill pad

consisting of 1.5 m of Granular A Ontario Provincial Standards and Specifications (OPSS

1010) overlying the natural silty clay located approximately 2.5 mbg, with a maximum

applied allowable bearing pressure of 75 kPa at Serviceability Limit States (SLS); and

• Maximum 1.5 x 1.5 m spread footing founded on a reinforced engineered fill pad

consisting of 1.5 m of Granular A (OPSS 1010) overlying the natural silty clay located

approximately 2.5 mbg, with a maximum applied allowable bearing pressure of 125 kPa

at SLS.

All foundation walls should consist of steel reinforced poured concrete.



5.1.1 Natural Soil Subgrade Preparation

The natural subgrade soils are sensitive to change in moisture content and can become very soft if the

soils are subject to additional water or precipitation. The natural subgrade soils are also susceptible to

shrinkage if the soils are subject to prolonged periods of sun exposure. As well, they could be easily

disturbed if travelled on during construction. Once they become disturbed they are no longer considered

adequate to support the recommended design bearing pressures.

In addition, to ensure and protect the integrity of the subgrade soil during construction operations, the

following is recommended:

• Prior to commencing excavations, it is critical that all existing surface water, potential

surface water and perched groundwater are controlled and diverted away from the work

Site to prevent infiltration and subgrade softening. At no time should excavations be left

open for a period of time that will expose them to precipitation and cause subgrade

softening.

• Should construction proceed during the hot summer months, the excavations should not

be open for a period of time that will cause drying of the subgrade material. Excessive

drying of the natural subgrade material could potentially result in shrinkage which will

ultimately increase the risk of foundation settlement. In the event the excavations are

required to be left open, the natural subgrade material is to be covered with a tarpaulin in

order to protect the subgrade material from change in moisture content through

evaporation;

• The subgrade should be sloped to a sump outside the excavation to promote surface

drainage and the collected water pumped out of the excavation. It is critical that water be

controlled and the subgrade preparation work commence in the dry. Any potential

precipitation or seepage entering the excavations should be pumped away immediately

(not allowed to pond);

• The footing areas should be cleaned of all deleterious materials such as topsoil, fill,

disturbed or caved materials;

• The foundation formwork and concrete should be installed as soon as practically possible

after the excavation subgrade is exposed. The longer the excavated subgrade soil

remains open to weather conditions and groundwater seepage, the greater the chance

for construction problems to occur; and

• If it is anticipated that the subgrade soils will be exposed for a period of time that will

cause loosing, the soils should be protected with a minimum 75 mm thick concrete mud

slab.



If groundwater or perched groundwater is infiltrating the excavation, an approximate 150 mm granular

pad consisting of 19 mm clear stone gravel (OPSS 1004) wrapped in a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix

270R or equivalent) should be considered to maintain the integrity of the original subgrade soils. The

clear stone should contain a minimum of 50% crushed particles. The clear stone will help distribute foot

pressures and protect the integrity of the subgrade soils during the construction of the concrete formwork.

Water collected within the stone should be controlled through sumps and filtered pumps.

Prior to installing the formwork for the foundations, the subgrade soils are to be inspected and approved

by a qualified geotechnical engineering consultant to ensure that the material conforms with the soil type

and consistency observed during the subsurface investigation work preparation, and to verify design

assumptions and recommendations. This is especially critical with respect to the verification of the

recommended soil bearing pressures.

If the soils are not consistent with the observations made from within the boreholes, Pinchin can provide

appropriate recommendations at that time.

If construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the

footing bases and concrete must be provided and maintained above freezing at all times.

5.1.2 Biaxial Geogrid Installation

The following provides a brief outline of key installation procedures that need to be performed during the

installation of the biaxial geogrid. These procedures, as well as the manufactures specifications are to be

followed:

• For strip footings, the geogrid is to be oriented such that the roll length runs parallel to the

footing direction;

• For square footings, the geogrid shall be oriented such that the roll direction runs

perpendicular to the roll direction of the previous layer of geogrid;

• The geogrid is to extend out a minimum of 1.2 m from the outside edge of the footing in

all directions;

• The geogrid is to have a minimum overlap of 600 mm. To prevent separation during

construction it may be held together with plastic ties, wire ties, staples, etc.;

• The geogrid must be laid down so there are no kinks, ripples or waves and is to be

secured in place with either staples, pins, sand bags or piles of granular backfill;

• Granular fill material is to be placed so that it minimizes movement and the above

aforementioned; and



• A minimum loose granular fill thickness of 200 mm should be installed above the geogrid

prior to compaction and or construction equipment operation over the geogrid.

Depending on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction this thickness may

have to be increased. Sharp turns and sudden stopping from compaction and/or

construction equipment are to be avoided.

5.1.3 Vertical Transition of Strip Footings

Where strip footings are founded at different elevations, the subgrade soil is to have a maximum slope of

2H:1V, with a maximum rise of 600 mm and a minimum run of 600 mm between each step, as detailed in

the latest edition of the Ontario Building Code. The lower footing should be installed first to mitigate the

risk of undermining the upper footing.

5.1.4 Individual Spread Footings

Individual spread footings are to be spaced a minimum distance of one and half times the largest footing

width apart from each other to avoid stress bulb interaction between footings. This assumes the footings

are at the same elevation.

Foundations may be placed at a higher elevation relative to one another provided that the slope between

the outside face of the foundations are separated at a minimum slope of 2H:1V with an imaginary line

drawn from the underside of the foundations.

5.1.5 Estimated Settlement

The high plastic silty clay material encountered within the boreholes is susceptible to consolidation.

Pinchin notes that the natural silty clay material will experience some level of consolidation over time

once it is exposed to the loads from the proposed building; however, the amount of consolidation and

total time for it to occur cannot be accurately determined without completing consolidation testing. It is

noted that consolidation testing was not included as part of this Geotechnical Investigation; as such, there

is a risk for total settlements to exceed 25 mm and differential settlements to exceed 19 mm.

All foundations are to be designed and constructed to the minimum widths outlined in the latest edition of

the OBC, and to the maximum sizes outlined within this report.

5.1.6 Building Drainage

To assist in maintaining the building dry from surface water seepage, it is recommended that exterior

grades around the building be sloped away at a 2% gradient or more, for a distance of at least 2.0 m.

Roof drains should discharge a minimum of 1.5 m away from the structure to a drainage swale or

appropriate storm drainage system.



Exterior perimeter foundations drains are not required, where the finished floor elevation is established a

minimum of 150 mm above the exterior final grades or that the exterior gradient is properly sloped to

divert surface water away from the building.

Where interior finished floor elevations do not satisfy the above requirements, it is recommended that

exterior perimeter foundation drains be installed where subsurface walls are exposed to the interior. The

foundation drains should consist of a minimum 150 mm diameter fabric wrapped perforated drainage tile

surrounded by 19 mm diameter clear stone (OPSS 1004) with a minimum cover of 150 mm on top and

sides and 50 mm below the drainage tile. Since the natural soil contains a significant amount of clay sized

particles, the clear stone gravel should be wrapped in a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 270R or

equivalent). The water collected from the weeping tile should be directed away from the building to

appropriate drainage areas; either through gravity flow or interior sump pump systems. All subsurface

walls should be water proofed.

The in-situ natural soils encountered within the boreholes are not considered a free draining material and

as such, may not be reused as foundation backfill.

5.1.7 Shallow Foundation Frost Protection & Foundation Backfill

In the Ottawa area, exterior perimeter foundations for heated buildings require a minimum of 1.8 m of soil

cover above the underside of the footing to provide soil cover for frost protection. Isolated unheated

foundations (i.e., pier pads) should be provided with a minimum of 2.1 m of soil cover for frost protection.

As previously mentioned, Pinchin recommends to install the foundations as high as practically possible;

as such, the footings will require a combination of soil cover and rigid polystyrene insulation to provide

frost protection.

To provide a combination of soil cover and rigid polystyrene insulation frost protection for the building

foundations, Pinchin recommends the following:

• The insulation should have a minimum thermal resistance value of R-20. If Dow

Styrofoam is used this would require a total of 100 mm of insulation;

• The insulation should buttress the foundation wall and extend out a minimum horizontal

distance of 1.8 m beyond the outside face of the footing;

• The insulation should be installed vertically on the perimeter of the foundation wall, from

approximately 100 mm below the proposed finished grade to the top of the horizontal

insulation;

• A minimum of 600 mm of soil cover is to be provided above the insulation at all times;

and



• The insulation placed beyond the foundation is to have a positive slope away from the

building foundation.

These insulation recommendations assume the interior of the building is maintained at 18 degrees

Celsius or higher.

The insulation is to be installed as outlined above as well as in accordance with the manufactures

requirements. The insulation recommendations are Site specific and are not to be used for any other

structures except for the Site in which it was intended for. Where there is less than 760 mm of soil cover

above the insulation and heavy vehicular traffic is present, a Dow HI (High Load) product should be

considered.

To minimize potential frost movements from soil frost adhesion, the perimeter foundation backfill should

consist of a free draining granular material, such as a Granular “B” Type I or Type II Ontario Provincial

Standards and Specifications (OPSS 1010) extending a minimum lateral distance of 600 mm beyond the

foundation. The maximum aggregate size should not exceed 200 mm in diameter. It is critical that

particles greater than 200 mm in diameter are not in contact with the foundation or insulation to prevent

point loading and overstressing. The backfill material used against the foundation must be placed so that

the allowable lateral capacity is achieved. Ideally, during backfilling operations, all backfill material should

be placed on each side of the foundation in equal lifts, not exceeding 300 mm. Additionally, it is

recommended that exterior grades around the foundation be sloped away at a 2% gradient or more, for a

distance of at least 2 m so that surface water is diverted away from the foundation to further mitigate soil

frost adhesion.

All granular material is to be placed in maximum 300 mm thick lifts compacted to a minimum of 98%

SPMDD within 2% optimum moisture content. It is recommended that inspection and testing be carried

out during construction to confirm backfill quality, thickness and to ensure compaction requirements are

achieved.

The natural soils are not considered suitable as foundation backfill material.

5.1.8 Concrete Floor Slab-on-Grade

Based on the in-situ soil conditions, it is recommended to establish the concrete floor slab-on-grade on a

minimum 300 mm thick layer of Granular “A” (OPSS 1010). Any required up fill below the Granular “A”

should consist of Granular “B” Type I or Type II (OPSS 1010).



Prior to the installation of the engineered fill material, all organics and deleterious materials should be

removed to the underlying organic free in-situ soils. Provided organics are not encountered during

excavations for the footings then the undisturbed natural soil may be left in place.

The natural silty clay material is to be proof roll compacted to a minimum of 98% Standard Proctor

Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) with the use of a minimum 10 tonne vibratory steel drum roller. Pinchin

notes that there may be areas that the steel drum roller will not be able to access; as such, a minimum

450 Kg vibratory plate compactor may be used in these areas in order to achieve the recommended

compaction. Any soft areas encountered during proof rolling are to be removed and replaced with a

Granular “B” Type I (OPSS 1010) compacted to 98% SPMDD.

Once the subgrade soils are exposed they are to be inspected and approved by a qualified geotechnical

engineering consultant to ensure that the material conforms with the soil type and consistency observed

during the subsurface investigation work.

6.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR PARKING LOT

6.1 Discussion

It is assumed that the parking lot area will be used by normal vehicular traffic as well as moderately heavy

trucks. Prior to the installation of the recommended pavement structure, all organics and deleterious

materials should be removed to the underlying organic free in-situ soils.

The subgrade material is to be proof roll compacted to a minimum of 98% SPMDD with the use of a

minimum 10 tonne vibratory steel drum roller. Any loose/soft areas encountered during proof rolling are to

be removed and replaced with a Granular “B” Type I (OPSS 1010) compacted to 98% SPMDD. Pinchin

notes that there may be areas that the steel drum roller will not be able to access; as such, a minimum

450 Kg vibratory plate compactor may be used in these areas in order to achieve the recommended

compaction.

Pinchin has not been provided with the proposed final grades for the parking lot and access roadways. As

such, provided the pavement structure overlies the in-situ silty clay material, the following pavement

structure is recommended.



6.2 Pavement Structure

The following table presents the minimum specifications for a flexible asphaltic concrete pavement

structure constructed on the in-situ silty clay material:

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Light Duty Traffic Heavy Duty Traffic

Surface Course Asphaltic Concrete HL-8 (OPSS 1150)

92 to 96.5% MRD as per OPSS 310 50 mm 50 mm

Base Course Asphaltic Concrete HL-8 (OPSS 1150)

92 to 96.5% MRD as per OPSS 310 N/A 50 mm

Base Course: Granular “A” (OPSS

1010)

100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(ASTM-D698) 150 mm 150 mm

Subbase Course: Granular “B” Type I

(OPSS 1010)

100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(ASTM D698) ii300 mm 450 mm

Non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 270R or equivalent)

Notes:

i) The compacted thickness of the asphalt layer should be at least 3 times the nominal

maximum aggregate size to achieve adequate compaction, smoothness and durability;

ii) A Granular “B” Type II (OPSS 1010) product is preferred since it is not as sensitive to

changes in water content and maintains its frictional capacity during traffic loading. It is also

preferred to be installed during times of the year when excessive precipitation is expected;

iii) The recommended pavement structure may have to be adjusted according to the city of

Ottawa standards. If construction takes place during times of substantial precipitation and the

subgrade soils become wet and disturbed, then the granular thickness may have to be

increased to compensate for the weaker subgrade soils. Further, the granular fill material

may have to be temporarily increased to allow heavy construction equipment access the Site,

such as tri-axel dump trucks to avoid the sandy clayey silt subgrade from “pumping” up into

the granulars.



The Superpave asphaltic concrete mixes should be designed for Traffic Level A or B. Performance grade

PG 58-34 asphaltic concrete should be specified for either Superpave or Marshall mixes.

The recommended pavement structure design requires routine maintenance, such as, crack sealing,

pothole repairs, and etcetera to maintain the longevity of the structure. As well as a possible asphaltic

concrete overlay in about 12 to 15 years.

6.3 Pavement Structure Subgrade Preparation and Granular Up Fill

The proper placement of base and subbase fill materials becomes very important in addressing the

proper load distribution to provide a durable pavement structure.

The natural subgrade soils are sensitive to change in moisture content and can become very soft if the

soils are subject to additional water or precipitation. The natural subgrade soils are also susceptible to

shrinkage if the soils are subject to prolonged periods of sun exposure. Furthermore, they could be easily

disturbed if travelled on during construction. As such, where this material will be exposed, it is

recommended that the engineered fill be placed immediately upon excavation to protect the integrity of

the soil.

The first layer of granular fill should be placed at a minimum thickness of 300 mm (loose) prior to

compaction to mitigate disturbance of the underlying original subgrade soils.

Should the subgrade soils become disturbed during construction or pockets of unstable or unsuitable

areas be encountered, Pinchin can provide recommendations at that time, which may include but not be

limited to the following:

• Compaction of the subgrade soil;

• Removal of subgrade material and subsequent replacement with engineered fill; and

• Placement of geogrid.

A geotechnical engineer should be on-Site to review the subgrade material and to ensure fill

specifications and compaction requirements are achieved. Once the subgrade is approved, it can then be

backfilled with the recommended pavement structure materials.

Where fill material is required to increase the grade to the underside of the pavement structure it should

consist of a Granular “B” Type I (OPSS 1010). The granular up fill material is to be placed in maximum

300 mm thick lifts compacted to 95% SPMDD within 4% of the optimum moisture content.

All stockpiled material should be protected from deleterious materials, additional moisture and be kept

from freezing.



Where buried services intercept the parking and roadway areas the backfill material between the

underside of the pavement structure and service cover material should consist of the excavated natural

soils to the underside of the granular subbase. The material should be compacted in maximum 300 mm

thick lifts to 95% SPMDD within 4% optimum moisture content. This is recommended to provide soil

compatibility and help minimize potential abrupt differential frost heave between the local soils and

another type of backfill material.

Post compaction settlement of fine grained soils can be expected, even when placed to compaction

specifications. As such, fill material should be installed as far in advance as possible before finishing the

parking lot and access roadways for best grade integrity.

6.4 Horizontal Transition Treatment

Where the subgrade material types differ below the underside of the pavement structure, the transition

between the materials should be sloped as per frost heave taper OPSD 205.60.

6.5 Drainage

Control of surface water is a critical factor in achieving good pavement structure life. The pavement

thickness designs are based on a drained pavement subgrade via sub-drains or ditches.

Any potential sub-drains should consist of 150 mm diameter fabric wrapped perforated drainage tile

surrounded by 19 mm diameter clear stone (OPSS 1004) with a minimum cover of 150 mm on top and

sides and 50 mm below the drainage tile. Since the original soil contains a significant amount of silt sized

particles, the clear stone gravel should be wrapped in a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 270R or

equivalent). Any potential ditching should have inverts of at least 500 mm below the underside of the

subbase.

The surface of the roadways should be free of depressions and be sloped at a minimum grade of 1% in

order to drain to appropriate drainage areas. Subgrade soils should slope a minimum of 3% toward

stormwater collection points. Positive slopes are very important for the proper performance of the

drainage system. The granular base and subbase materials should extend horizontally to any potential

ditches or swales.

In addition, routine maintenance of the drainage systems will assist with the longevity of the pavement

structure. Ditches, culverts, sewers and catch basins should be regularly cleared of debris and

vegetation.



7.0 SITE SERVICES

7.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover Materials for Flexible and Rigid Pipes

Service pipes require an adequate base to ensure proper pipe connection and positive flow is maintained

post construction. As such, pipe bedding should be placed to be of uniform thickness and compactness.

The pipe bedding and cover material should conform to OPSD 802.010 and 802.013 specifications for

flexible pipes and to OPSD 802.031 to 802.033 with Class “B” bedding for rigid pipes. The pipe bedding

material should consist of a minimum thickness of 150 mm Granular “A” (OPSS 1010) below the pipe and

extend up the sides to the spring line. However, the bedding thickness may have to be increased

depending on the pipe diameter or if wet or weak subgrade conditions are encountered. The pipe cover

material from the spring line should consist of a Granular “B” Type I (OPSS 1010) with a minimum particle

diameter size of 26.5 mm and should extend to a minimum of 300 mm above the top of the pipe. All

granular fill material is to be placed in maximum 200 mm thick loose lifts compacted to a minimum of 98%

SPMDD.

The bedding material, pipe and cover material should be installed as soon as practically possible after the

excavation subgrade is exposed. The longer the excavated subgrade soil remains open to weather

conditions and groundwater seepage, the greater the chance for construction problems to occur.

A Granular “B” Type II material may be required where it is difficult to stabilize the subgrade due to

groundwater or the material is higher than the optimum moisture content. Alternatively, if constant

groundwater infiltration becomes an issue, than an approximate 150 mm granular pad consisting of 19

mm clear stone gravel (OPSS 1004) wrapped in a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 270R or equivalent)

should be considered to maintain the integrity of the natural subgrade soils. The clear stone should

contain a minimum of 50% crushed particles. Water collected within the stone should be controlled

through sumps and filtered pumps.

7.2 Trench Backfill

Above the pipe cover material, the trench can be backfilled by re-using the excavated natural soils

matching the materials exposed on the sides of the trenches. The soils should be placed to the underside

of the granular subbase of the pavement structure, and be compacted in maximum 300 mm thick lifts to

95% SPMDD within plus 2% to minus 4% optimum moisture content. This is recommended to provide soil

compatibility and help minimize potential abrupt differential frost heave between surrounding natural

materials similar in composition. The natural material must be free of organics or other deleterious

material. If it contains deleterious material or it is not utilized, then it should be removed and properly

disposed of.



All stockpiled material should be protected from deleterious materials, additional moisture and be kept

from freezing.

Quality control will be the utmost importance when selecting the material. The selection of the material

should be done as early in the contract as possible to allow sufficient time for gradation and proctor

testing on representative samples to ensure it meets the projects specifications.

Where the natural soils will be exposed, adequate compaction may prove difficult if the material becomes

wet (i.e., above the optimum moisture content). Depending on the moisture content of the natural

materials at the time of construction, they may either require moisture to be added or stockpiled and left

to dry to achieve moisture content within plus 2% to minus 4% of optimum. This will be the case for soils

excavated below the groundwater table. The natural soils at this site are subject to moisture content

increase during wet weather. As such, stockpiles should be compacted at the surface and/or be covered

with tarpaulins to help minimize moisture absorption during wet weather. Alternatively, an imported drier

material of similar gradation as the soils (i.e., silty sand/sandy silt) may be mixed to decrease the overall

moisture content and bring it to within plus 2% to minus 4% of optimum. Depending on weather

conditions at the time of construction, an imported material may be required regardless to achieve

adequate compaction. If the imported material is not the same/similar to the soil observed on the side

walls of the excavation then a horizontal transition between the materials should be sloped as per frost

heave taper OPSD 205.60. Any natural material is to be placed in maximum 300 mm thick lifts compacted

to 95% SPMDD within plus 2% to minus 4% optimum moisture content. Imported material should consist

of a Granular “A”, Granular “B” Type I, or Select Subgrade Material (OPSS 1010). Heavy construction

equipment and truck traffic should not cross any pipe until at least 1 m of compacted soil is placed above

the top of the pipe.

Post compaction settlement of finer grained soils can be expected, even when placed to compaction

specifications. As such, fill materials should be installed as far in advance as possible before finishing the

roadway in order to mitigate post compaction settlements.



7.3 Frost Protection

The frost penetration depth in Ottawa, Ontario for these types of soil conditions is estimated to extend to

approximately 2.1 mbg in open roadways cleared of snow. As such, it is recommended to place water

services at a minimum depth of 300 mm below this elevation with the top of the pipe located at 2.4 mbg or

lower as dictated by municipal service requirements. If a minimum of 2.4 m of soil cover cannot be

provided, then the pipe should be insulated with a rigid polystyrene insulation (DOW Styrofoam HI40, or

equivalent) or a pre-insulated pipe be utilized.

The insulation design configuration may either consist of placing horizontal insulation to a specified

design distance beyond the outside edge of the pipe or an inverted “U” surrounding the top and sides of

the pipe. Any method chosen requires suitable design and installation in accordance with the

manufactures recommendations. To accommodate the placement of horizontal insulation a wider

excavation trench may be required.

8.0 INSTALLATION OF ENGINEERED FILL

It is recommended that engineered fill be constructed as controlled, well-compacted fill. All engineered fill

material is to conform to Ontario Provincial Standards and Specifications (OPSS 1010). Any existing in-

situ soils with high organic content are suitable for reuse as fill in landscaping areas only. It is

recommended that only engineered fill be used within the building footprint and within 1 m of the building

footprint.

Prior to construction commencing, laboratory testing should be performed on the engineered fill to be

used to determine the appropriate moisture-density relationship of the material.



Pinchin recommends that engineered fill be compacted in accordance with the criteria stated in the

following table. A qualified geotechnical engineering technician should be on site to observe fill placement

operations and perform field density tests at random locations throughout each lift, including trench

backfilling, to indicate the specified compaction is being achieved.

Type of Engineered Fill

Maximum Loose Lift Thickness (mm)

Compaction Requirements

Moisture Content (Percent of Optimum)

Granular “A”

(OPSS 1010) 200 100% SPMDD Plus 2 to minus 4

Granular “B” Type I or Type II

(OPSS 1010) 200 98 to 100% SPMDD Plus 2 to minus 4

19 mm Clear Stone Gravel (OPSS 1010) 150 N/A N/A

Notes:

i) Granular “B” Type II is to be proof rolled compacted to a dense state, and verified by a

geotechnical engineering consultant during installation;

ii) The 19 mm clear stone gravel is to be tamped to rearrange the particles;

iii) The first lift of engineered fill is to be installed with a minimum thickness of 300 mm to mitigate

disturbance of the original subgrade soils; and

iv) The foundation backfill is to be compacted to 100% SPMDD where placed below any settlement

sensitive structures, such as sidewalks, parking lots etc.

9.0 SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE & SOIL BEHAVIOUR

The following information has been provided to assist the building designer from a geotechnical

perspective only. These geotechnical seismic design parameters should be reviewed in detail by the

structural engineer and be incorporated into the design as required.

The seismic site classification has been based on the latest edition of the OBC. The parameters for

determination of Site Classification for Seismic Site Response are set out in Table 4.1.8.4.A of the OBC.

The site classification is based on the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m of the site stratigraphy.

If the average shear wave velocity is not known, the site class can be estimated from energy corrected

Standard Penetration Resistance (N60) and/or the average undrained shear strength of the soil in the top

30 m.



There have been no shear wave velocity measurements at this Site; as such, the undrained shear

strengths and SPT values have been used to classify the soil.

The boreholes advanced at this site extended to between approximately 5.9 and 17.1 mbg and were

terminated in very soft clay. The SPT “N” values within the soil ranged from 0 to 10 blows per 300 mm,

while the undrained shear strengths of the soil ranged from approximately 6 to 77 kilopascals (kPa). The

soils below this depth are anticipated to be at least as competent. As such, based on Table 4.1.8.4.A of

the OBC, this Site has been classified as Class E. A Site Class E has an average shear wave velocity

(Vs) of less than 180 m/s. There is a potential that the Site Class may be higher; however, shear wave

velocity measurements would be required for the determination of a higher Site Classification, as per the

OBC.

10.0 SITE SUPERVISION & QUALITY CONTROL

It is recommended that all geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed and confirmed under the

appropriate geotechnical supervision, to routinely check such items. This includes but is not limited to

inspection and confirmation of the undisturbed natural subgrade material prior to subgrade preparation,

pouring any foundations or footings, backfilling, or engineered fill installation to ensure that the actual

conditions are not markedly different than what was observed at the test hole locations and geotechnical

components are constructed as per our recommendations. Compaction quality control of engineered fill

material is recommended as standard practice, as well as sampling and testing of aggregates and

concrete, to ensure it meets the physical characteristics for compliance during installation and satisfies all

specifications presented within this report.

10.1 Open Cut Excavations

It is anticipated that excavations for the building foundation systems and site services will extend to

depths ranging from approximately 1.0 to 3.0 mbg. At the time of our investigation groundwater was

encountered between approximately 2.3 and 3.0 mbg within the majority of the boreholes.

Based on the subsurface information obtained from within the borehole, it is anticipated that the

excavated material will predominately consist of silty clay.

Where workers must enter trench excavations deeper than 1.2 m, the trench excavations should be

suitably sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA),

Ontario Regulation 213/91, Construction Projects, July 1, 2011, Part III - Excavations, Section 226.

Alternatively, the excavation walls may be supported by either closed shoring, bracing, or trench boxes

complying with sections 235 to 239 and 241 under O. Reg. 231/91, s. 234(1).



Based on the OHSA, the in-situ soil may be classified as Type 3 soil above the groundwater table and

Type 4 soil below the groundwater table. Temporary excavation side slopes in Type 3 soil should remain

stable at a slope of 1H:1V; however, temporary excavation side slopes in Type 4 soil should be braced or

shored. The in-situ soil can be excavated using conventional earthmoving equipment.

The natural subgrade soil is conducive to installing conventional shored steel sheet piles to support the

excavation walls and control groundwater. The use of trench boxes can most likely be used for temporary

support of vertical side walls. The appropriate trench should be designed/confirmed for use in this soil

deposit.

In addition to compliance with the OHSA, the excavation procedures must also be in compliance to any

potential other regulatory authorities, such as federal and municipal safety standards.

10.2 Anticipated Groundwater Management

Groundwater was encountered between approximately 2.3 and 3.0 mbg within the boreholes advanced at

the Site. As such, groundwater is expected to be encountered during excavations. If construction

commences during wet periods (typically spring or fall), there is a potential that the groundwater elevation

could be higher.

Prior to commencing excavations, it is critical that all existing surface water and potential surface water is

controlled and diverted away from the Site to prevent infiltration and subgrade softening. At no time

should excavations be left open for a period of time that will expose them to precipitation and cause

subgrade softening.

All collected water is to discharge a sufficient distance away from the excavation to prevent re-entry.

Sediment control measures, such as a silt fence should be installed at the discharge point of the

dewatering system. The utmost care should be taken to avoid any potential impacts on the environment.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to propose a suitable dewatering system based on the

groundwater elevation at the time of construction. The method used should not adversely impact any

nearby structures. The contractor should submit their proposal to the prime consultant for review and

approval prior to construction. A Permit to Take Water may be required from the Ministry of the

Environment and Climate Change. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make this application as

required.

Seasonal variations in the groundwater table should be expected, with higher levels occurring during wet

weather conditions in the spring and fall and lower levels occurring during dry weather conditions. As

such, depending on the groundwater at the time of the excavation works, a more involved dewatering

system may be required.



Any potential precipitation or seepage entering the excavations should be pumped away immediately (not

allowed to pond).

11.0 DISCLAIMER

This Geotechnical Investigation was performed for the exclusive use of Morley Hoppner Limited (Client) in

order to evaluate the subsurface conditions at 571 Lacolle Way Ottawa, Ontario.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance

with generally accepted practises in the field of geotechnical engineering for the Site. Classification and

identification of soils, and geologic units have been based upon commonly accepted methods employed

in professional geotechnical practice. No warranty or other conditions, expressed or implied, should be

understood. Conclusions derived are specific to the immediate area of study and cannot be extrapolated

extensively away from sample locations.

Performance of this Geotechnical Investigation to the standards established by Pinchin is intended to

reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the subgrade soils at the Site, and recognizes reasonable

limits on time and cost.

Regardless how exhaustive a Geotechnical Investigation is performed, the investigation cannot identify all

the subsurface conditions. Therefore, no warranty is expressed or implied that the entire Site is

representative of the subsurface information obtained at the specific locations of our investigation. If

during construction, subsurface conditions differ from then what was encountered within our test location

and the additional subsurface information provided to us, Pinchin should be contacted to review our

recommendations.

This report does not alleviate the contractor, owner, or any other parties of their respective

responsibilities.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and their authorized agents. 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 the third parties. If additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization

from Pinchin will be required. Pinchin disclaims responsibility of consequential financial effects on

transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs. No other warranties are

implied or expressed. Furthermore, this report should not be construed as legal advice.

The liability of Pinchin or our officers, directors, shareholders or staff will be limited to the lesser of the

fees paid or actual damages incurred by the Client. Pinchin will not be responsible for any consequential

or indirect damages. Pinchin will only be liable for damages resulting from the negligence of Pinchin.

Pinchin will not be liable for any losses or damage if the Client has failed, within a period of two years

following the date upon which the claim is discovered (Claim Period), to commence legal proceedings



against Pinchin to recover such losses or damage unless the laws of the jurisdiction which governs the

Claim Period which is applicable to such claim provides that the applicable Claim Period is greater than

two years and cannot be abridged by the contract between the Client and Pinchin, in which case the

Claim Period shall be deemed to be extended by the shortest additional period which results in this

provision being legally enforceable.

Pinchin makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of

its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership

of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory

compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and these interpretations may change

over time. Please refer to Appendix IV, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use, which pertains to this

report.

FIGURES

NOTE:Images obtained from © OpenStreetMap contributors

APPENDIX I Abbreviations, Terminology and Principle Symbols used in Report and

Borehole Logs

ABBREVIATIONS, TERMINOLOGY & PRINCIPAL SYMBOLS USED

Sampling Method

AS Auger Sample w Washed Sample SS Split Spoon Sample HQ Rock Core (63.5 mm diam.) ST Thin Walled Shelby Tube NQ Rock Core (47.5 mm diam.) BS Block Sample BQ Rock Core (36.5 mm diam.)

In-Situ Soil Testing

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), “N” value is the number of blows required to drive a 51 mm outside

diameter spilt barrel sampler into the soil a distance of 300 mm with a 63.5 kg weight free falling a

distance of 760 mm after an initial penetration of 150 mm has been achieved. The SPT, “N” value is a

qualitative term used to interpret the compactness condition of cohesionless soils and is used only as a

very approximation to estimate the consistency and undrained shear strength of cohesive soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) is the number of blows required to drive a cone with a 60

degree apex attached to “A” size drill rods continuously into the soil for each 300 mm penetration with a

63.5 kg weight free falling a distance of 760 mm.

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is an electronic cone point with a 10 cm2 base area with a 60 degree apex

pushed through the soil at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s.

Field Vane Test (FVT) consists of a vane blade, a set of rods and torque measuring apparatus used to

determine the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils.

Soil Descriptions

The soil descriptions and classifications are based on an expanded Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS). The USCS classifies soils on the basis of engineering properties. The system divides soils into

three major categories; coarse grained, fine grained and highly organic soils. The soil is then subdivided

based on either gradation or plasticity characteristics. The classification excludes particles larger than 75

mm. To aid in quantifying material amounts by weight within the respective grain size fractions the

following terms have been included to expand the USCS:

Soil Classification Terminology Proportion

Clay < 0.002 mm

Silt 0.002 to 0.06 mm “trace”, trace sand, etc. 1 to 10%

Sand 0.075 to 4.75 mm “some”, some sand, etc. 10 to 20%

Gravel 4.75 to 75 mm Adjective, sandy, gravelly, etc. 20 to 35%

Cobbles 75 to 200 mm And, and gravel, and silt, etc. >35%

Boulders >200 mm Noun, Sand, Gravel, Silt, etc. >35% and main fraction

Notes:

• Soil properties, such as strength, gradation, plasticity, structure, etcetera, dictate

the soils engineering behaviour over grain size fractions; and

• With the exception of soil samples tested for grain size distribution or plasticity, all soil

samples have been classified based on visual and tactile observations. The accuracy of

visual and tactile observation is not sufficient to differentiate between changes in soil

classification or precise grain size and is therefore an approximate description.

The following table outlines the qualitative terms used to describe the compactness condition of

cohesionless soil:

Cohesionless Soil

Compactness Condition SPT N-Index (blows per 300 mm)

Very Loose 0 to 4

Loose 4 to 10

Compact 10 to 30

Dense 30 to 50

Very Dense > 50

The following table outlines the qualitative terms used to describe the consistency of cohesive soils

related to undrained shear strength and SPT, N-Index:

Cohesive Soil

Consistency Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) SPT N-Index (blows per 300 mm)

Very Soft <12 <2

Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4

Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8

Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15

Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30

Hard >200 >30

Note: Utilizing the SPT, N-Index value to correlate the consistency and undrained shear strength of

cohesive soils is only very approximate and needs to be used with caution.

Soil & Rock Physical Properties

General

W Natural water content or moisture content within soil sample

γ Unit weight

γ’ Effective unit weight

γd Dry unit weight

γsat Saturated unit weight

ρ Density

ρs Density of solid particles

ρw Density of Water

ρd Dry density

ρsat Saturated density e Void ratio

n Porosity

Sr Degree of saturation

E50 Strain at 50% maximum stress (cohesive soil)

Consistency

WL Liquid limit

WP Plastic Limit

IP Plasticity Index

WS Shrinkage Limit

IL Liquidity Index

IC Consistency Index

emax Void ratio in loosest state

emin Void ratio in densest state

ID Density Index (formerly relative density)

Shear Strength

Cu, Su Undrained shear strength parameter (total stress)

C’d Drained shear strength parameter (effective stress)

r Remolded shear strength

τp Peak residual shear strength

τr Residual shear strength

ø’ Angle of interface friction, coefficient of friction = tan ø’

Consolidation (One Dimensional) Cc Compression index (normally consolidated range)

Cr Recompression index (over consolidated range)

Cs Swelling index

mv Coefficient of volume change

cv Coefficient of consolidation

Tv Time factor (vertical direction)

U Degree of consolidation

σ'o Overburden pressure

σ’p Preconsolidation pressure (most probable)

OCR Overconsolidation ratio

Permeability

The following table outlines the terms used to describe the degree of permeability of soil and common soil

types associated with the permeability rates:

Permeability (k cm/s) Degree of Permeability Common Associated Soil Type

> 10-1 Very High Clean gravel

10-1 to 10-3 High Clean sand, Clean sand and gravel

10-3 to 10-5 Medium Fine sand to silty sand

10-5 to 10-7 Low Silt and clayey silt (low plasticity)

>10-7 Practically Impermeable Silty clay (medium to high plasticity)

Rock Coring

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is an indirect measure of the number of fractures within a rock mass,

Deere et al. (1967). It is the sum of sound pieces of rock core equal to or greater than 100 mm recovered

from the core run, divided by the total length of the core run, expressed as a percentage. If the core

section is broken due to mechanical or handling, the pieces are fitted together and if 100 mm or greater

included in the total sum.

RQD is calculated as follows:

RQD (%) = Σ Length of core pieces > 100 mm x 100

Total length of core run The following is the Classification of Rock with Respect to RQD Value:

RQD Classification RQD Value (%)

Very poor quality <25

Poor quality 25 to 50

Fair quality 50 to 75

Good quality 75 to 90

Excellent quality 90 to 100

APPENDIX II Pinchin’s Borehole Logs

Borehole Log:

Project:

Client:

Project No.: Logged By:

Entered By:

Reviewed By:

Location:

Drill Method:

Drill Date:

Datum:

Sheet: 1 of 2

Ground Elevation:

This data relates to the boring and shouldn't be interpreted as being indicative of the whole site

Drilled By:

Pinchin Ltd.555 Legget Drive, Suite 1001, Tower A

Kanata, Ontario,K2K 2X3

Depth

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Str

ata

Plo

t Description

Ele

vation

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Sam

ple

Type

Blo

ws /

0.3

m

Recovery

(%

)

Dynamic PenetrationResistance

Blows / 0.3m10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Undrained Shear Strength (Cu, kPa)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Water Content (%)

10 20 30 40

Remarks

Grain SizeGr Sa Si Cl M

onitoring W

ell

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE

BH1

Geotechnical Investigation

Morley Hoppner Limited

117840.001 W. Tabaczuk

M. Garside

W. Tabaczuk

571 Lacolle Way, Ottawa, Ontario

Ground Surface

Topsoil and grass ~300mmSilty clay, dry to wet, greyish brown, very soft to stiff

99.5

92.8

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

10

6

0 6

WH

WH

WH

WH

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

65

80

NA 100

100

100

100

100

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6

6

6

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

58

9

6

54.8Cu=58kPar=12kPas=4.88

WL=62%WP=24%Groundwater was encountered at approximately 3.0m depthCu=9kPar=2kPas=5.05

Cu=6kPar=6kPas=0.94

Direct Push/Split Spoon

September 2, 2016

Local

99.54m

BH1 NEW

Strata Drilling Group

22 78

22 78

Start of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)

Borehole Log:

Project:

Client:


Entered By:

Reviewed By:

Location:

Drill Method:

Drill Date:

Datum:

Sheet: 2 of 2

Ground Elevation:


Drilled By:



Depth

(m

)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Str

ata

Plo

t Description

Ele

vation

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Sam

ple

Type

Blo

ws /

0.3

m

Recovery

(%

)


Blows / 0.3m10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Water Content (%)

10 20 30 40

Remarks


onitoring W

ell


BH1




M. Garside

W. Tabaczuk


End of Borehole

82.4

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

3

3


September 2, 2016

Local

99.54m

BH1 NEW


(DCPT Terminated)

Borehole Log:

Project:

Client:


Entered By:

Reviewed By:

Location:

Drill Method:

Drill Date:

Datum:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Ground Elevation:


Drilled By:



Depth

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Str

ata

Plo

t Description

Ele

vation

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Sam

ple

Type

Blo

ws /

0.3

m

Recovery

(%

)


Blows / 0.3m10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Water Content (%)

10 20 30 40

Remarks


onitoring W

ell


BH2




R. MacLeod

W. Tabaczuk


Ground Surface


End of Borehole

99.1

93.2

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

10

6

6

WH

WH

WH

WH

65

80

100

100

100

100

100

10

6

6 58

17

9

Cu=58kPar=13kPas=4.36Groundwater was encountered at approximately 2.3m depth

Cu=17kPar=6kPas=2.80

Cu=9kPar=7.5kPas=1.19


September 2, 2016

Local

99.07m

BH2


Borehole Log:

Project:

Client:


Entered By:

Reviewed By:

Location:

Drill Method:

Drill Date:

Datum:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Ground Elevation:


Drilled By:



Depth

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Str

ata

Plo

t Description

Ele

vation

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Sam

ple

Type

Blo

ws /

0.3

m

Recovery

(%

)


Blows / 0.3m10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Water Content (%)

10 20 30 40

Remarks


onitoring W

ell


BH3




R. MacLeod

W. Tabaczuk


Ground Surface


End of Borehole

98.9

92.2

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

9

8

2

WH

WH

WH

WH

85

95

100

100

100

100

100

9

8

2

77

20

34.1

Cu=77kPar=11.5kPas=6.5

WL=63% 22 78WP=23%

20 80Cu=20kPar=4.5kPas=4.29

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 2.3m depth


September 2, 2016

Local

98.94m

BH3


Borehole Log:

Project:

Client:


Entered By:

Reviewed By:

Location:

Drill Method:

Drill Date:

Datum:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Ground Elevation:


Drilled By:



Depth

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Str

ata

Plo

t Description

Ele

vation

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Sam

ple

Type

Blo

ws /

0.3

m

Recovery

(%

)


Blows / 0.3m10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Water Content (%)

10 20 30 40

Remarks


onitoring W

ell


BH4




R. MacLeod

W. Tabaczuk


Ground Surface


End of Borehole

99.6

92.9

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

9

8

9

2

1

WH

WH

80

80

80

100

100

100

100

9

8

9

2

1

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 2.3m depth

21 79


September 2, 2016

Local

99.59m

BH4


APPENDIX III Analytical Laboratory Testing Reports for Soil Samples

Checked By: H.Smith

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

Pinchin Ltd.

Geotech Testing

60106.016

SYMBOL SOURCESAMPLE DEPTH

Material Description AASHTONO. (m.)

SOIL DATA

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 78.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 21.9 77.9

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 18.5 81.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.9 79.0

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75

Particle Size Distribution Report

117840.001 BH1 2.29-2.90 Silty Clay A-7-6(44)

117840.001 BH3 0.76-1.37 Silty Clay A-7-6(46)

117840.001 BH3 1.52-2.13 Clay some Silt

117840.001 BH4 3.05-3.66 Silty Clay

AME Materials Engineering

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 09/23/2016

Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 2.29-2.90 Sample Number: BH1Material Description: Silty ClayAASHTO: A-7-6(44)Checked by: H.Smith

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

320.23 0.00 0.00 2.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

51.81 0.00 0.00 .850 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.425 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.250 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.106 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.075 mm 0.01 100.0 0.0

Hydrometer Test Data

Hydrometer test uses material passing #10Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 100.0Weight of hydrometer sample =51.81Automatic temperature correction Composite correction (fluid density and meniscus height) at 20 deg. C = -5.5Meniscus correction only = -1.0Specific gravity of solids = 2.750Hydrometer type = 152H Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 15.75980 - .179 x Rm

ElapsedTime (min.)

Temp.(deg. C.)

ActualReading

CorrectedReading K Rm

Eff.Depth

Diameter(mm.)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

1.00 20.2 58.0 52.5 0.0132 57.0 5.6 0.0312 99.1 0.9

2.00 20.2 57.5 52.0 0.0132 56.5 5.6 0.0222 98.2 1.8

5.00 20.2 56.5 51.0 0.0132 55.5 5.8 0.0143 96.3 3.7

15.00 20.1 55.5 50.0 0.0132 54.5 6.0 0.0084 94.4 5.6

30.00 20.1 54.0 48.5 0.0132 53.0 6.3 0.0061 91.6 8.4

60.00 20.2 52.0 46.5 0.0132 51.0 6.6 0.0044 87.8 12.2

250.00 20.3 48.0 42.5 0.0132 47.0 7.3 0.0023 80.3 19.7

1440.00 20.5 40.0 34.6 0.0132 39.0 8.8 0.0010 65.3 34.7


Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

Coarse

0.0

Fine

0.0

Total

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Medium

0.0

Fine

0.0

Total

0.0

Fines

Silt

21.6

Clay

78.4

Total

100.0

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D80

0.0022

D85

0.0034

D90

0.0053

D95

0.0094

FinenessModulus

0.00



Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 0.76-1.37 Sample Number: BH3Material Description: Silty ClayAASHTO: A-7-6(46)Checked by: H.Smith

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

361.55 0.00 0.00 2.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

51.48 0.00 0.00 .850 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.425 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.250 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.106 mm 0.08 99.8 0.2

.075 mm 0.10 99.8 0.2



ElapsedTime (min.)

Temp.(deg. C.)

ActualReading


Eff.Depth

Diameter(mm.)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

1.00 20.1 58.0 52.5 0.0132 57.0 5.6 0.0311 99.6 0.4

2.00 20.1 57.0 51.5 0.0132 56.0 5.7 0.0224 97.7 2.3

5.00 20.2 56.0 50.5 0.0132 55.0 5.9 0.0144 95.9 4.1

15.00 20.2 55.0 49.5 0.0132 54.0 6.1 0.0084 94.0 6.0

30.00 20.2 53.0 47.5 0.0132 52.0 6.5 0.0061 90.2 9.8

60.00 20.2 51.5 46.0 0.0132 50.5 6.7 0.0044 87.3 12.7

250.00 20.3 47.5 42.0 0.0132 46.5 7.4 0.0023 79.8 20.2

1440.00 20.5 40.5 35.1 0.0131 39.5 8.7 0.0010 66.6 33.4



Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

Coarse

0.0

Fine

0.0

Total

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Medium

0.0

Fine

0.2

Total

0.2

Fines

Silt

21.9

Clay

77.9

Total

99.8

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D80

0.0023

D85

0.0035

D90

0.0060

D95

0.0098

FinenessModulus

0.00



Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 1.52-2.13 Sample Number: BH3Material Description: Clay some SiltChecked by: H.Smith

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

341.96 0.00 0.00 2.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

51.98 0.00 0.00 .850 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.425 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.250 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.106 mm 0.09 99.8 0.2

.075 mm 0.10 99.8 0.2



ElapsedTime (min.)

Temp.(deg. C.)

ActualReading


Eff.Depth

Diameter(mm.)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

1.00 20.1 58.5 53.0 0.0132 57.5 5.5 0.0308 99.5 0.5

2.00 20.1 58.0 52.5 0.0132 57.0 5.6 0.0220 98.6 1.4

5.00 20.1 57.5 52.0 0.0132 56.5 5.6 0.0140 97.6 2.4

15.00 20.1 56.5 51.0 0.0132 55.5 5.8 0.0082 95.7 4.3

30.00 20.2 55.0 49.5 0.0132 54.0 6.1 0.0059 93.0 7.0

60.00 20.2 53.0 47.5 0.0132 52.0 6.5 0.0043 89.2 10.8

250.00 20.3 49.5 44.0 0.0132 48.5 7.1 0.0022 82.7 17.3

1440.00 20.5 42.0 36.6 0.0131 41.0 8.4 0.0010 68.7 31.3



Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

Coarse

0.0

Fine

0.0

Total

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Medium

0.0

Fine

0.2

Total

0.2

Fines

Silt

18.5

Clay

81.3

Total

99.8

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D80

0.0018

D85

0.0027

D90

0.0046

D95

0.0074

FinenessModulus

0.00



Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 3.05-3.66 Sample Number: BH4Material Description: Silty ClayChecked by: H.Smith

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

304.27 0.00 0.00 2.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

51.47 0.00 0.00 .850 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.425 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.250 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

.106 mm 0.01 100.0 0.0

.075 mm 0.06 99.9 0.1



ElapsedTime (min.)

Temp.(deg. C.)

ActualReading


Eff.Depth

Diameter(mm.)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

1.00 20.1 58.0 52.5 0.0132 57.0 5.6 0.0312 99.8 0.2

2.00 20.1 57.5 52.0 0.0132 56.5 5.6 0.0222 98.9 1.1

5.00 20.1 57.0 51.5 0.0132 56.0 5.7 0.0142 97.9 2.1

15.00 20.2 55.5 50.0 0.0132 54.5 6.0 0.0084 95.1 4.9

30.00 20.2 54.0 48.5 0.0132 53.0 6.3 0.0060 92.2 7.8

60.00 20.2 52.0 46.5 0.0132 51.0 6.6 0.0044 88.4 11.6

250.00 20.3 48.0 42.5 0.0132 47.0 7.3 0.0023 80.9 19.1

1440.00 20.5 40.0 34.6 0.0132 39.0 8.8 0.0010 65.7 34.3



Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

Coarse

0.0

Fine

0.0

Total

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Medium

0.0

Fine

0.1

Total

0.1

Fines

Silt

20.9

Clay

79.0

Total

99.9

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D80

0.0021

D85

0.0032

D90

0.0050

D95

0.0083

FinenessModulus

0.00

Checked By: H.Smith

Silty Clay 62 24 38 100.0 100.0 CH

Silty Clay 63 23 40 100.0 99.8 CH

60106.016 Pinchin Ltd.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Figure

Source of Sample: 117840.001 Depth: 2.29-2.90 Sample Number: BH1

Source of Sample: 117840.001 Depth: 0.76-1.37 Sample Number: BH3

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL or O

L

CH or O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximateupper limit boundary for natural soils

4

7

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

Geotech Testing


LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 09/23/2016

Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 2.29-2.90 Sample Number: BH1Material Description: Silty Clay%<#40: 100.0 %<#200: 100.0 USCS: CH AASHTO: A-7-6(44)Checked by: H.Smith

Liquid Limit Data

1

18.7616.0911.57

3459.1

2

22.1519.0414.03

2362.1

3

22.6119.9215.76

1764.7

4 5 6Run No.Wet+TareDry+Tare

Tare# Blows

Moisture

Mo

istu

re

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Blows5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40

1

2

3

Liquid Limit= 62

Plastic Limit= 24

Plasticity Index= 38

Natural Moisture= 54.8

Liquidity Index= 0.8

Plastic Limit Data

1

17.9817.5515.7023.2

2

18.6218.0715.7723.9

3

18.8218.2115.6423.7

4Run No.Wet+TareDry+Tare

TareMoisture

Natural Moisture Data

Wet+Tare748.48

Dry+Tare573.07

Tare252.84

Moisture54.8


LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 09/23/2016

Client: Pinchin Ltd.Project: Geotech TestingProject Number: 60106.016Location: 117840.001Depth: 0.76-1.37 Sample Number: BH3Material Description: Silty Clay%<#40: 100.0 %<#200: 99.8 USCS: CH AASHTO: A-7-6(46)Checked by: H.Smith

Liquid Limit Data

1

29.5526.4721.41

3360.9

2

23.4020.3915.61

2663.0

3

23.8920.5715.70

1568.2

4 5 6Run No.Wet+TareDry+Tare

Tare# Blows

Moisture

Mo

istu

re

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Blows5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40

1

2

3

Liquid Limit= 63

Plastic Limit= 23

Plasticity Index= 40

Natural Moisture= 34.1

Liquidity Index= 0.3

Plastic Limit Data

1

18.9418.3415.7423.1

2

18.3617.8615.7323.5

3

18.0917.6415.7023.2

4Run No.Wet+TareDry+Tare

TareMoisture

Natural Moisture Data

Wet+Tare738.35

Dry+Tare615.02

Tare253.47

Moisture34.1

APPENDIX IV Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

REPORT LIMITATIONS & GUIDELINES FOR USE

This information has been provided to help manage risks with respect to the use of this report.

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and their authorized agents, subject to the

conditions and limitations contained within the duly authorized work plan. 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 the

third parties. If additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from Pinchin will be

required. Pinchin disclaims responsibility of consequential financial effects on transactions or property

values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

Furthermore, this report should not be construed as legal advice.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE

This geotechnical report is based on the existing conditions at the time the study was performed, and

Pinchin’s opinion of soil conditions are strictly based on soil samples collected at specific test hole

locations. The findings and conclusions of Pinchin’s reports may be affected by the passage of time, by

manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the Site, or by natural events such as floods,

earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations.

LIMITATIONS TO PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS

Interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from test holes that were spaced

to capture a ‘representative’ snap shot of subsurface conditions. Site exploration identifies subsurface

conditions only at points of sampling. Pinchin reviews field and laboratory data and then applies

professional judgment to formulate an opinion of subsurface conditions throughout the Site. Actual

subsurface conditions may differ, between sampling locations, from those indicated in this report.

LIMITATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Subsurface soil conditions should be verified by a qualified geotechnical engineer during construction.

Pinchin should be notified if any discrepancies to this report or unusual conditions are found during

construction.

Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by Pinchin during construction and/or

excavation activities, to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the

test hole investigation, and to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions

revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. In addition, monitoring, testing and consultation

by Pinchin should be completed to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in

accordance with our recommendations. Retaining Pinchin for construction observation for this project is

the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. However,

please be advised that any construction/excavation observations by Pinchin is over and above the

mandate of this geotechnical evaluation and therefore, additional fees would apply.

MISINTERPRETATION OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could

lower that risk by having Pinchin confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the

report. Also retain Pinchin to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.

Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by

having Pinchin participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction

observation. Please be advised that retaining Pinchin to participation in any ‘other’ activities associated

with this project is over and above the mandate of this geotechnical investigation and therefore, additional

fees would apply.

CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE SAFETY

This geotechnical report is not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or

management of the work Site. The contractor is solely responsible for job Site safety and for managing

construction operations to minimize risks to on-Site personnel and to adjacent properties. It is ultimately

the contractor’s responsibility that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act is adhered to, and Site

conditions satisfy all ‘other’ acts, regulations and/or legislation that may be mandated by federal,

provincial and/or municipal authorities.

SUBSURFACE SOIL AND/OR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

This report is geotechnical in nature and was not performed in accordance with any environmental

guidelines. As such, any environmental comments are very preliminary in nature and based solely on field

observations. Accordingly, the scope of services do not include any interpretations, recommendations,

findings, or conclusions regarding the, assessment, prevention or abatement of contaminants, and no

conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding contamination, as they may relate to this project.

The term "contamination" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, viruses, PCBs,

petroleum hydrocarbons, inorganics, pesticides/insecticides, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and/or any of their by-products.

Pinchin will not be responsible for any consequential or indirect damages. Pinchin will only be held liable

for damages resulting from the negligence of Pinchin. Pinchin will not be liable for any losses or damage

if the Client has failed, within a period of two years following the date upon which the claim is discovered

within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002 (Ontario), to commence legal proceedings against Pinchin

to recover such losses or damage.

Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Commercial ...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Commercial ...