final geotechnical reports of culverts - toronto...creek, toronto, ontario city of toronto final...

Final Geotechnical Reports

of Culverts

17M-02182-00 Culvert 274 Replacement,

Islington Avenue over Berry Creek,

Toronto, Ontario

17M-02182-00 Culvert 668 Retaining Wall

Replacement, Redwater Dr,

Toronto, Ontario

17M-02182-00 Final Geotechnical Report

Albion Road Culvert Replacement,

Toronto,Ontario

CITY OF TORONTO

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT

WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT ALBION ROAD, OVER ALBION CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO

FINAL REPORT PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00, PHASE 700, SUBPHASE 701 DATE: AUGUST 31, 2018 WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9 T +1 905 475-0065 F +1 905 475-0064 WSP.COM

WSP Canada Inc.

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1

2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................. 1

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ............................... 1

4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................... 2

4.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ...............................................................................2

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ..................................................... 4

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 5

5.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT . 5

5.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 5

5.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT ................................. 6

5.1.3 SLIDING RESISTANCE .................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 EXCAVATIONS, GROUNDWATER CONTROL AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................ 7

5.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 7

5.2.2 EXCAVATION ........................................................................................................................................ 8

5.2.3 BACKFILL ................................................................................................................................................. 8

5.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES ............................................................... 8

5.3.1 BEARING RESISTANCE FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL/WINGWALL . 8

5.3.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURES ............................................................. 9

5.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION ......................................................... 10

5.5 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................. 11

5.5.1 EXISTING SLOPE CONDITIONS AND PROFILES .......................................................... 11

5.5.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE ......... 12

5.5.3 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 13

5.5.4 ANALYSES OF LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE .............................................. 13

5.5.5 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 13

6 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ....................................... 14

6.1 SOIL SAMPLING .................................................................................. 14

6.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................. 14

6.3 FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 14

WSP Canada Inc.

6.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 15

7 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS .......................... 16

8 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF REPORT................................................................................. 16

9 CLOSURES ............................................................................17

WSP Canada Inc.

TABLES

TABLE 4.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING ................................................ 3 TABLE 4.4 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.5 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 4 TABLE 4.6 GROUNDWATER DEPTH/ELEVATION ............................. 4 TABLE 5.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING

LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 6 TABLE 5.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 7 TABLE 5.3 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH

PRESSURE (GRANULAR ‘A’ OR GRANULAR ‘B ‘TYPE II) ............................................................................................ 9

TABLE 5.4 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE (GRANULAR ‘B’ TYPE I) ................................... 9

TABLE 5.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN ................................................................... 10 TABLE 5.6 MATERIAL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE

STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................. 12 TABLE 5.7 STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS OF

EXISTING SLOPES ........................................................................ 12 TABLE 6.1 SOIL SAMPLES AND CORRESPONDING

TESTS .................................................................................................... 14 TABLE 6.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS EXCEEDANCES ......................... 15 TABLE 6.3 TCLP EXCEEDANCES ................................................................. 15

DRAWINGS

DRAWING 1 BOREHOLE LOCATION, CROSS SECTION AND LTSTS PLAN

DRAWING 2 CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 3 CROSS SECTION B-B’ DRAWING 4 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 5 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTNG SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION B-B’ DRAWING 6 LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE ANALYSIS AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 7 LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE ANALYSIS AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 8 PROPOSED ARMOUR STONE RETAINING WALL WITH 2.5H:1V SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION A-A’

WSP Canada Inc.

ENCLOSURES

ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURES 2-4 BOREHOLE LOGS

FIGURES

FIGURES 1-4 RESULTS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES AND ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING

APPENDICES

A CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS B PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING SLOPES

WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto

WSP

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for the replacement of an existing culvert (Culvert 267, Albion Creek) located at Albion Road in City of Toronto, Ontario.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of three (3) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of Albion Creek culvert replacement.

This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above and on the assumption that the design will be in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the recommendations of this office can be relied upon.

The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario.

This report has been prepared for City of Toronto and its designers. Third party use of this report without WSP consent is prohibited.

2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY Based on the Physiography of Southern Ontario (1984), the surficial geology of the project site is relatively consistent, typically consisting of Late Wisconsinan Age Halton Glacial Till of silty clay to silty sand texture. Within the creek valleys, surficial alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt and clay are present overlying the till or bedrock, often with high moisture content and some organic content. Ordovician shale interbedded with limestone and calcareous siltstone of the Georgian Bay Formation lies at 3 m to 11m below existing ground surface.

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on January 18 and 25, 2018 at which time three (3) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 3.1 m to 7.7 m below the existing ground surface as shown on the Borehole Location, Cross Section and LOSTOS Plan, Drawing No. 1. The boreholes were advanced using a track mounted drilling machine provided by a drilling sub-contractor under the direction and supervision of WSP technical personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at regular intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method.

In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. Four (4) selected soil samples were subjected to grain size analyses and one (1) of these samples was selected for Atterberg Limits testing. The results are shown on the borehole logs.

Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations. A 50 mm diameter monitoring well was installed in each of the boreholes BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 to permit further monitoring the groundwater levels.

The boreholes were staked in the field by WSP and the ground surface elevations were surveyed by WSP using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. It should be noted that the elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not provided by a professional surveyor and should be considered to be approximate. Contractors performing any work referenced to the borehole elevations should confirm the borehole elevations for their work.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 2

4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Albion Creek culvert is located approximately 40 m west of the intersection of Albion Road and Todd Brook Drive in City of Toronto, Ontario, as shown on Borehole Location, Cross Section and LTSTS Plan, Drawing 1.

The Albion Creek culvert was constructed in 1964. The culvert classified as Culvert 267 in City’s database is a corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) arch culvert. The overall length of the culvert is approximately 44.5 m with the width by height of 5 m by 3 m. The culvert carries the overburden fill and four lanes of vehicular traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction). There is sidewalk and steel beam guide rail on each side of the roadway. A major sewer infrastructure and other utilities and infrastructures associated with Albion Road are present in the vicinity of the culvert.

The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 1. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (BH18-AB-1 to BH18-AB-3) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive). The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by more detailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site.

4.1 SOIL CONDITIONS

In summary, underlying the existing pavement structure or topsoil, fill material was encountered in all boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 0.7 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted of glacial till deposits with clayey texture and silty clay to silty clay /shale complex underlain by shale bedrock. Localized shallow stratum of sandy silt was also encountered.

Existing Pavement Structure:

Borehole BH18-AB-1 was advanced through the existing pavement structure. The asphalt thickness encountered was about 100 mm. The granular base thicknesses was approximately 100 mm.

Topsoil:

Topsoil with a thickness of about 200 mm was encountered surficially in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3. The thicknesses of topsoil were shown in borehole logs.

Fill Material:

Fill material consisting of silty clay was encountered in all boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 0.7 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within silty clay fill material gave N values ranging from 9 blows to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a stiff to hard state, but generally stiff. It should be noted, the higher ‘N’ value may have been caused by frozen ground. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 8 % to 20 %.

Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-AB-3/SS3) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 5 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 3

Table 4.1 Grain Size Distribution

BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

BH18-AB-3 SS3 3 23 40 34

Silty Clay Till:

Deposits of silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-AB-1 and extended to a depth of about 2.1 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty clay till gave N values ranging from 26 blows to 28 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very stiff state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from about 7 % to 8 %.




BH18-AB-1 SS3 9 24 40 27

Atterberg limits test was carried out on this sample and the result of which is presented in Figure No. 2 as well as are summarized in the following table:

Table 4.3 Atterberg Limits Testing

Borehole No. sample No. LIQUID LIMIT

( WL ) PLASTIC LIMIT

( WP ) PLASTICITY INDEX

( PI )

BH18-AB-1 SS3 28 16 12

Silty Clay:

Deposits of silty clay were encountered in Boreholes BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 and extended to the depths ranging from 4.4 m to 5.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty clay gave N values ranging from 28 blows to 50 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very stiff to hard state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from about 16 % to 18 %.

Sandy Silt:

Localized shallow stratum of sandy silt was encountered in Borehole BH18-AB-1 and extended to a depth of 2.9 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration test carried out within the sandy silt gave N value of 34 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a dense state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 18 %.




BH18-AB-1 SS4 0 26 65 9

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 4

Silty Clay / Shale Complex

Silty clay/shale complex was encountered beneath the fill material or native silty clay deposits in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3.

What is described as ‘silty clay/shale complex’ consists of a rather heterogeneous, hard silty clay matrix containing extensive broken bedrock (shale, limestone and siltstone) slabs and fragments. This stratum was reportedly difficult to auger due to the fragmented shale/limestone/siltstone content and given its hard condition. The natural moisture content measured in the test sample from these materials was about 8% to 20%. The current investigation method could not determine the size and frequency of the boulder and cobbles.

This complex is a transitional deposit between bedrock and the overlying silty clay or may be the completely to highly weathered bedrock. This deposit has characteristics of both the shale/limestone/siltstone bedrock and silty clay. The slabs of bedrock found within the soil matrix can be quite large in size (0.5m to 1m in length or more).



BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND (SHALE

FRAGMENTS) % SILT % CLAY

BH18-AB-3 SS8 0 16 59 25

Probable Weathered Shale / Shale Bedrock

Based on the observation of the shale fragments retrieved from sampler, probable weathered shale/shale bedrock was encountered in all boreholes at depths ranging from 2.9 m to 6.3 m below the existing ground surface. All boreholes was terminated in the probable shale/shale bedrock. Since there is no rock coring being carried out, the nature, the strength and the degree of weathering were not determined.

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater observations and measurements are shown in details on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3 during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 2.7 m to 7.5 m below existing ground surface. On January 31 and February 27, 2018, about two weeks and five weeks after the borehole drilling, the groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells installed in BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 were at depths as shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Groundwater Depth/Elevation

MONITORING WELL I.D. MONITORING DATE GROUNDWATER DEPTH/ELEVATION (M)

BH18-AB-1 Jan. 31, 2018 2.84/148.4

Feb. 27, 2018 3.13/148.1

BH18-AB-3 Jan. 31, 2018 5.92/142.9

Feb. 27, 2018 5.86/142.9

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 5

It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to weather events and will also fluctuate with the water levels in the creek.

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of Culvert 267 replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.

The construction methods described in this report must not be considered as being specifications or direct recommendations to the contractors, or as being the only suitable methods. Prospective contractors should evaluate all of the factual information, obtain additional subsurface information as they might deem necessary and should select their construction methods, sequencing and equipment based on their own experience in similar ground conditions. The readers of this report are also reminded that the conditions are known only at the borehole locations and conditions may vary significantly in-between.

5.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT

The existing culvert is a CSP culvert with a size of about 5 m wide and 3 m high. Replacement of the existing culvert is currently being considered. However, the type of the replacement structure was unknown at the time this report was prepared.

Should the replacement of the existing culvert be considered, the new culvert structure will be designed in accordance with the 2006 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). Once the final design is available, the following recommendations should be further reviewed by the geotechnical engineer, following which additional recommendations can be provided, as required.

5.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS

The invert depth of the existing culvert is approximately 6 m below the road surface of Albion Road. It is assumed that the new culvert invert will likely be at a similar elevation.

Based on the subsoil information encountered at the borehole locations, topsoil and fill materials are considered unsuitable to support the proposed culvert/wingwalls foundations. As such, consideration should be given to removing topsoil and fill materials to expose the underlying competent native soil deposits or bedrock. For the design of the culvert and wingwalls bearing on the competent undisturbed native soils or bedrock, a geotechnical bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and a factored geotechnical bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) together with corresponding founding depths/elevations at the borehole locations are summarized on Table 5.1.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 6

Table 5.1 Bearing Resistances and Founding Levels of Footings

BH No.

BEARING RESISTANCES AT

SLS (kPa)

FACTORED GEOTECHNICAL

RESISTANCES AT ULS

(kPa)

MINIMUM DEPTH BELOW EXISTING

GROUND/ELEVATION*

(m) ANTICIPATED FOUNDING SOIL

BH18-AB-2 300

1,000 450

1,500 2.3/143.5 3.0/142.8

Silty Clay/Shale Complex Shale Bedrock

BH18-AB-3 300

1,000 450

1,500 4.6/144.2 6.4/142.5

Silty Clay Shale Bedrock

Foundations designed to the specified bearing resistances at SLS are expected to settle less than 25mm total and 19mm differential. All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2m of soil cover for frost protection.

Should it be required, the excavated area may be brought up to the designed subgrade elevation using granular engineered fill such as OPSS Granular A. A geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa may be used for the design of the culvert and wing walls bearing on the engineered Granular A fill.

The proposed founding soils to be exposed at the founding/subgrade level are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and ponded water, leading to degradation of the founding soils. To limit this detrimental condition, a working mat of lean concrete should be placed on the subgrade as soon as possible after excavation.

All bearing surfaces must 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 structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, culvert structures, etc.

It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

5.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT

As an alternative to the open bottom culvert (refer to Section 5.1.1), precast concrete box culvert may be considered.

Designing the precast box culvert for a foundation founded on bedrock will obviously yield higher bearing resistances. However, it would entail risk related to the actual condition and location of the rock surface between the boreholes. The assumption that the culvert is resting on soil is more conservative, and also more versatile (because the condition and exact location of the rock surface is not critical and the foundation design would not likely need to be adjusted based on the actual as-found conditions).

It is anticipated that the proposed precast box culvert will be founded on engineered Granular A (i.e. possible engineered fill and/or levelling pad) overlying native deposits. Geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa can be used for the design of the precast concrete culvert bearing on the Granular A engineered fill as noted above.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 7

The Granular A material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Full-time inspection by a geotechnical staff from WSP would be required during the placement of the engineered Granular A fill.

It should be noted that the founding soil of box culvert should be at least 1.2 m below the final grade to provide sufficient earth cover for frost protection unless the box culvert is designed to withstand the frost pressures.

5.1.3 SLIDING RESISTANCE

Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the culvert footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. Values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials are provided in Table 5.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored and in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.

Table 5.2 Coefficient of Friction

STRUCTURE MATERIALS GROUND OR BACKFILL MATERIALS COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARD SILTY CLAY/SHALE COMPLEX 0.4

SHALE BEDROCK 0.55

PRE-CAST CONCRETE GRANULAR 0.4

5.2 EXCAVATIONS, GROUNDWATER CONTROL AND BACKFILL

5.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the culvert would extend below the local water table.

Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavations extend below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/silty soils (if any), highly weathered shale and fractures within the shale bedrock.

Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions. Depending on the creek flow at the time of construction, surface water could flow through the culvert area by means of a temporary bypass/pipe, or be diverted by pumping from behind a temporary cofferdam. Assuming that the cofferdam and/or temporary bypass are effective, any seepage into the excavation during normal creek water flow conditions should be adequately controlled by pumping from properly filtered sumps. Pumping discharges should conform to the Ministry of the Environments and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines, City of Toronto, Conservation Authority and other relevant agencies.

It would be necessary to carry out a hydrogeological study to support an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) for construction dewatering between 50,000 to 400,000 L/day or a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for dewatering greater than 400,000 L/day.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 8

5.2.2 EXCAVATION

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and sandy silt can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table. The very stiff to hard tills, silty clay and silty clay/shale complex can be classified as Type 2 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 3 soil below groundwater table.

Should excavation be required into bedrock for the foundations (e.g. strip/spread footings for open bottom culvert), any loose or highly weathered rock should be removed and any large voids in the rock surface should be levelled using lean concrete. Rock excavations less than 1 m can typically be carried out using mechanical equipment (such as hoe-rams mounted on hydraulic excavators). Excavations more than 1 m into rock maybe require blasting.

Provisions must be made in the excavation contract for bedrock excavations.

5.2.3 BACKFILL

The selected inorganic fill and native soils free of topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill where it can be compacted with sheep's foot type compactors. Loose lifts of soil, which are to be compacted, should not exceed 300mm and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.

Imported Granular fill is recommended in areas where free draining material is required. Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with hand held equipment, should be used in confined areas.

5.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES

It is understood that retaining structures are required at the ends of culvert (10 m beyond each end of culvert). Since

the existing culvert will be reconstructed, consideration may be given to the construction of the proposed retaining

structures together with the design of new wingwall of culvert i.e. extended wingwall. Another consideration should

be given is the existing slope at the right bank of the downstream is not stable in terms of Long Term Stable Top of

Slope (refer to Section 5.5). Stabilization measures of the exiting slope should be implemented to satisfy TRCA (Toronto

and Region of Conservation Authority) requirements.

As alternatives to the extended wingwall, armour stone retaining wall (discussed in more detail in Section 5.5.5) or

vegetated wall may also be considered as retaining structures. The selection of the retaining wall structures will highly

depend on the site conditions and various aspects such as cost, constructability, structure to withstand against water

flow, future maintenance etc. Once the appropriate structure is selected, further geotechnical recommendations can

be provided to assist the detailed design. The following is the preliminary geotechnical recommendations based on the

borehole information.

5.3.1 BEARING RESISTANCE FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL/WINGWALL

The proposed retaining structure should be founded on the competent undisturbed native soils. The bearing resistances and corresponding founding depths/elevations can be referred to Section 5.1.1 of this report.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 9

5.3.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURES

The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the retaining

walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B. This fill

should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 200 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard

Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. The fill materials should be benched into the existing

roadway embankment side slopes. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage

of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost taper

should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings.

Computation of earth pressures acting against retaining walls should be in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, (CHBDC) S6-06. For design purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.

Compacted Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’ Type II

Angle of Internal Friction =35 (unfactored)

Unit weight = 22 kN/m3

Table 5.3 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B ‘Type II)

LEVEL BACKFILL BACKFILL SLOPING AT 3H:1V BACKFILL SLOPING AT 2H:1V

Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40

Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50

Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62

K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66

Compacted Granular ‘B’ Type I


Unit Weight = 21 kN/m3

Table 5.4 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (Granular ‘B’ Type I)

LEVEL BACKFILL BACKFILL SLOPING AT 3H:1V BACKFILL SLOPING AT 2H:1V

Ka=0.31 Ka=0.39 Ka=0.47

Kb=0.39 Kb=0.49 Kb=0.57

Ko=0.47 Ko=0.62 Ko=0.69

K*=0.54 K*=0.68 K*=0.78

Note: Ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure

Kb is the backfill earth pressure coefficient for an unrestrained structure including compaction efforts

K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 10

K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes

compaction effects

The lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls may be calculated from the following expression:

p = K( h +q)

where p = Lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h

K = Earth pressure coefficient, as shown on Table 5.3 and 5.4 above

= Unit weight of backfill

h = Depth to point of interest in metres

q = Equivalent value of surcharge on the ground surface in kPa

The above expression assumes that a drainage system will be installed to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop.

A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for the structural design of the walls, according to CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Other surcharge loadings should be accounted for in the design as required.

5.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION

It is understood the pavement restoration after the completion of the culvert replacement on Albion Road will be

required. It is understood that this section of Albion Road is a Major Arterial road. The following pavement design is

recommended for the pavement restoration according to City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Guideline

Summary dated November 30, 2006.

Table 5.5 Pavement Design

MATERIAL THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT ELEMENTS (MM)

Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)

HL-1 40

HL 8 (HS) 150

Granular Material (OPSS 1010)

Granular A Base 50

Granular B, Type II Subbase 350

Prepared and Approved Subgrade

Prior to placing the granular subbase material, the exposed soil subgrade should be heavily proofrolled in conjunction

with an inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel. Remedial work (i.e. further subexcavation and replacement)

should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by geotechnical personnel.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 11

The granular subbase and base materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of their standard Proctor

maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall Maximum

Relative Densities ("MRD"), as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.

In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the pavement, continuous subdrains should be placed along both sides

of the road. The invert of the subdrains should be at least 300 mm below the bottom of the Granular B subbase and

should be sloped to drain to the catchbasins. The subdrains should consist of perforated pipe wrapped in a suitable

geotextile and surrounded on all sides with a minimum thickness of 150 mm of clean free draining sand such as concrete

sand.

The above pavement designs should provide serviceable pavements for the anticipated traffic levels over a normal

design period of ten years, provided that timely maintenance is carried out (i.e. crack sealing).

Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the construction limits), proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the new asphalt into the existing pavement. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermined or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.

5.5 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT A relatively steep slope is situated at the right bank of the downstream end of culvert. BH18-AB-1 was drilled at the top of the slope to obtain the soil and groundwater conditions of the slope. Based on the borehole information, the visual slope inspection and the provided topographic drawing, a detailed slope stability study was carried out to evaluate the long-term stable top of slope.

The assessment of the stability of the subject slope consisted of two parts: visual field review of the current slope conditions from a slope stability perspective; and a global stability analysis based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH18-AB-1.

5.5.1 EXISTING SLOPE CONDITIONS AND PROFILES

On Dec. 13, 2017 and Feb. 28, 2018, site visits were made by a geotechnical engineer of WSP to examine the general site and existing slope conditions. Based on our site observations, the inclination of the existing slope in the vicinity of the culvert is generally flatter that 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) with the exception of the slope located at the right bank of creek downstream. In general, 3H:1V slope is considered to be geotechnical stable. As such the slope stability study is limited to the slope at the right bank of the creek downstream where an unnamed laneway paved by asphaltic concrete carrying local traffic on the crest of slope.

The overall inclination of the slope generally is about 2.1 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.1H:1V). The inclinations of

the upper sections of the slope (1.7H:1V to 1.9H:1V) are steeper than the low sections of the slope (2.2H:1V to

2.3H:1V).

The slope surface is generally covered with trees, bushes and decayed trees/leaves, as shown on the

photograph 1 in Appendix B.

Pavement cracking was observed on the lane way located at the crest of the slope, as shown on Photograph 2, in Appendix B.

Water seepage was not noted on the slope surface during the site visits.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 12

The existing retaining walls located at the bottom of slope were tilled away from the slope, as shown on

Photograph 3, in Appendix B.

Erosion and undercut were observed and the shale bedrock was exposed where erosion protection measures

not applied, as shown on Photograph 4, in Appendix B.

5.5.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE

Soil strength parameters selected for the soil strata have been estimated based on BH18-AB-1 drilled near the slope, previously published information and from our experience on similar projects. A static slope stability analysis was carried out for the soil stratigraphy using effective stress strength parameters as shown on Table 5.6 below.

Table 5.6 Material Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis

SOIL UNIT

UNIT WEIGHT

(KN/M3)

EFFECTIVE COHESION C'

(KPA)

EFFECTIVE FRICTION ANGLE

Φ (DEGREES)

Fill 18 0 28

Silty Clay Till 20.5 1 29

Silty Clay 19 2 28

Sandy Silt 19.5 0 30

Silty Clay/Shale Complex 21 2 29

Shale Bedrock 24 500 20

Two (2) typical slope profiles identified as cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ were derived from the topographic drawing and are presented on Drawings 2 and 3.

Stability analyses of the existing slopes at above noted sections were carried out with the computer program SLIDE (Version 6.0) using the Simplified Bishop method. The analysis results are presented on Drawings 4 and 5 and are summarized on Table 5.7 below.

Table 5.7 Stability Analysis Results of Existing Slopes

SLOPE LOCATION

APPROXIMATE EXISTING

SLOPE INCLINATION

CALCULATED FACTOR OF

SAFETY

LONG-TERM

STABILITY

Section A-A’

(See Drawing 2)

Overall 2.1H:1V

(Upper Section 1.7H:1V)

1.164 Not Stable

Section B-B’

(See Drawing 3)

Overall 2.1H:1V

(Upper Section 1.9H:1V)

1.294 Not stable

The calculated factors of safety of the existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ range from 1.164 to 1.294, which are less than the TRCA’s minimum acceptable value of 1.5. The existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ are considered not stable in terms of long term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 13

5.5.3 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS

The magnitude of the erosion component is typically the estimated recession of the slope toe due to erosion over a specified design period, and is measured as a horizontal distance from the creek bank. For this study, the toe erosion component has been assessed using suggested guidelines for toe erosion allowances contained in “Technical Guide for River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002)” prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Based on the soil conditions encountered in BH18-AB-1 and the site observations, the soil at the toe of slope generally consist of silty clay/shale complex and shale bedrock. Evidence of active erosion at the banks was observed during the field site visit. In accordance with the “Technical Guide for River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002)”, a design erosion setback allowance of 5 m is considered applicable for the exposed silty clay/shale complex and shale bedrock which are present at the toe of the slope and the bank. This erosion allowance identified as e = 5.0 m will be used to establish the long-term stable top of slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’.

5.5.4 ANALYSES OF LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE

As discussed previously, the existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ are considered not stable in terms of long-term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.

In order to obtain the stable slope allowance, imaginary slope profiles have been created to search for the slope with a minimum FOS of 1.5. It is noted that the stable slope inclination of Georgian Bay formation shale bedrock is usually near vertical to 1H:1V. However, the inclination of 1.4H:1V for Georgian Bay shale bedrock has been used for this study, which is considered to be conservative. Based on the stability analysis of imaginary slopes carried out with the computer program SLIDE (Version 6.0) using the Simplified Bishop method, the imaginary slope with an inclination of 2.4H:1V for the upper section of the slope (i.e. soils) and 1.4H:1V for the low section of the slope (i.e. shale bedrock) has a FOS greater than 1.5, as shown on Drawings 6 and 7.

It is concluded that the Long-Term Stable Top of Slope Line can be drawn upward (5 m away from the riverbed for erosion allowance) at 1.4H:1V through the shale bedrock and 2.4H:1V through the soils and intersect the existing ground surface, which result in a stable top of slope about 3.5 to 3.9 m from the top of existing slope at Section A-A’ and B-B’, respectively. The Long Term Stable Top of Slope Line Sa-Sb are shown on Drawing 1. This Long-Term Stable

Top of Slope Line must be reviewed by TRCA for their approval.

5.5.5 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the LTSTS study, the existing laneway, on the crest of the steep slope at the right bank of the downstream, will be impacted in long-term by the erosion hazards and slope failure. At this location, the existing road alignment encroaches upon the LTSTS line, as such slope stabilization together with erosion protection measures should be implemented to satisfy TRCA requirements.

Stabilization measures such as retaining wall or reinforced engineered slope or the combination of both can be considered. As the low section of the existing slope consists of shale bedrock, rock anchor may be used to provide lateral resistance for the retaining wall. Section 5.3 of this report addresses the geotechnical recommendations for the design of the retaining wall. Should the reinforced engineered slope be used, the design and construction of the reinforced engineered slope/earth retention system should be carried out by a specialized contractor.

As per the discussions between the project team, an armour stone retaining wall is currently considered as the potential stabilization measure to satisfy the long-term stability of the slope. The armour stone wall is proposed to be built at the toe of the slope to retain a 2.5H:1V slope. Based on the global stability analysis as shown on drawing 8, the proposed armour stone retaining wall with regraded 2.5H:1V slope above the wall have a FOS greater than 1.5 which is considered stable in terms of long-term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 14

6 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

6.1 SOIL SAMPLING

In order to provide information regarding the chemical quality of the subsurface soil for the captioned site, soil samples taken from the depths ranging from 0.2 m to 4.3 m below the existing ground surface were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”). The representative soil samples were collected and placed in laboratory supplied glass jars, methanol vials and plastic zip lock bags. During sampling, obvious environmental impact (staining) was observed in the samples. The samples for chemical analyses were placed in a cooler with ice bags.

Upon return to our laboratory, the headspace of the sample bags was tested for presence of VOCs using a Multi-Gas monitor (RKI GX-6000). The VOC readings of the samples ranged between nil and 0.1 ppm.

6.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Soil samples, which were selected for various tests, are summarized in the table 6.1 below:

Table 6.1 Soil Samples and Corresponding Tests

TESTED SAMPLE I.D.

BOREHOLE SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPE NAME OF TEST

BH18-AB-1 SS2 BH18-AB-1 SS2 DISCRETE M & I

BH18-AB-2 SS1 BH18-AB-2 SS1 DISCRETE M & I AND BETX & PHCS

BH18-AB-3 SS1&SS2 BH18-AB-3 SS1&SS2 COMPOSITE M & I

BH18-AB-3 SS6 BH18-AB-3 SS6 DISCRETE BETX & PHCS

BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 DISCRETE PAHS

BH18-AB-2 SS2 BH18-AB-2 SS2 DISCRETE PAHS

BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 DISCRETE TCLP – METALS & INORGANICS

6.3 FINDINGS

Three (3) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I); two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). Test results were compared to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines listed in Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) for Residential / Parkland / Institutional/Industrial / Commercial / Community (RPIICC) Property Use and Tables 2 and 3 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable & Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI)

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 15

and Industrial/Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011). The tested soil samples met the relevant MOECC guidelines, with the exceptions listed in the table below. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.

Table 6.2 Chemical Analysis Exceedances

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.

BOREHOLE

SAMPLE

PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES

MOECC TABLE1

RPIICC

MOECC TABLE 2

AG

MOECC TABLE3

RPI

MOECC TABLE3

ICC

BH18-AB-1 SS2

BH18-AB-1 SS2

M&I: EC M&I: EC M&I: EC -

BH18-AB-2 SS2

BH18-AB-2 SS2

PAHS: ACENAPHTHYLENE,

BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE, BENZO(A)PYRENE,

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE,

INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE, PYRENE

PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,

BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE


BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE

PAHS: BENZO(A)PYRENE

BH18-AB-3 SS3

BH18-AB-3 SS3

PAHS: ACENAPHTHYLENE,

ANTHRACENE BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,

BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTH

ENE, BENZO(K)FLUORANTH

ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE, FLUORANTHENE,

FLUORENE, INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE,

PHENANTHRENE, PYRENE




INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE




INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE



ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRAC

ENE

One (1) soil sample was analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extraction. Test results were compared to Schedule 4 of O.Reg.558. The tested soil samples met the relevant guidelines as detailed in Table 6.3. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.

Table 6.3 TCLP Exceedances

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.

BOREHOLE

SAMPLE

PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES

METALS & INORGANICS

BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 NONE

6.4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above noted soil sampling, laboratory testing and findings, disposal option of the excavated material is given below:

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 16

— The excavated material from the site should be disposed as “non-hazardous” waste to a licensed landfill facility which will be willing to accept such material.

7 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class C” for seismic site response.

8 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., would be much greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole and test pit results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.

This report is intended solely for the Client named. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to WSP at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by WSP, 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.

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.

DRAWING

200 CONC

300

CO

NC

300

CO

NC

675

UN

K

675

UN

K

SL2305918

SL2305915

SL2307566

S

S

S

SL2306589

SL2306571

S

S

MH4

4034

99058

MH4

404

299018

MH4

408599030

MH4

404

098953

CB

CB

BB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

MH4

404

298979

MH4

408799026

IO4409898970

IO4404

598966

IO4405698963

IO4402998952

MH4

404

898872

MH4

407598880

MH4

40609894

9

CB4

406198877

CB4

406798925

CB4

404

898937

CB4

405198872

CB4

40299894

2

CB4

402998935

CB4

404

598871

CB4

406299014

CB4

405799015

CB4

405699025

CB4

403399003

CB4

405598982

SL2305942

450 CONC

T

SL2306875

SL2306793

SL2306386

SL2306868

600 CONC

300 CONC

450 CONC

T

T

525 CSP

T

T

MH4

40279904

2 CB4

40239904

7

Bus

Shelter

LN 2

E

SA

NA

GA

N

N

LIG

HT

WO

OD

ALBION RDLSLS

LS

LS

LS

LS LS

LS

LS

LS

LSLS

LS

PROJECT: 17M-02182-01

SCALE: 1:500

FILE NO.:

DATE: MARCH 2018

DRAWING NO.:

110 0 10 metres5

LEGEND

BH18-AB-1

Albion Rd.

BOREHOLE LOCATION

Todd Bro

ok Dr.

BH18-AB-2(6m)

BH18-AB-3(9m)

Albion Creek

A

A'

BH18-AB-1(11m)

Toronto, Ontario

267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,

City of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

B

B'

Sa

Sb

LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE (LTSTS)

SECTION AND LTSTS PLAN

BOREHOLE LOCATION,CROSS

1285

1265

30 17

1246

C.L.

CC

C.L.

SMH

SMH

C.L.C.L.

RS

HE

HE

LS

HCP

LS

HE

INV. = 143

.687

OBV

OBV

WL

Nail

HE

Dirt

HE

Dirt

WL

Nail

Dirt

+142.71

8

+142.71

9

+142.72

4

+142.72

6

+142.72

8

+142.73

0

+142.73

2

+142.73

2

+142.73

3

+142.73

3

+142.73

4

+142.73

5

+142.73

5

+142.73

6

+142.73

7

+142.73

8

+142.74

2

+142.74

3

+142.74

3

+142.74

6

+142.75

2

+142.75

7+14

2.779

+142.79

9

+142.84

0

+142.85

0

+142.85

3

+142.85

9

+142.90

0

+142.98

6+142.9

89

+143.02

9

+143.07

3

+143.08

2

+143.08

4

+143.09

9

+143.17

8

+143.20

5

+143.21

9

+143.27

8

+143.35

5

+143.36

8

+143.37

0

+143.37

4

+143.37

7

+143.37

9

+143.37

9

+143.38

0

+143.38

1

+143.38

3

+143.38

5

+143.38

7

+143.39

0

+143.40

3

+143.40

4

+143.41

4

+143.45

0

+143.45

4

+143.49

6

+143.50

5

+143.55

2

+143.56

2

+143.62

5

+143.65

8

+143.68

7

+143.69

0

+143.70

7

+143.72

7

+143.75

0

+143.77

6

+143.82

1

+143.87

7

+143.89

4

+143.90

7

+143.93

6+14

3.971

+144.04

9

+144.06

0

+144.06

6

+144.06

9

+144.07

7

+144.08

1

+144.09

5

+144.12

3

+144.13

9

+144.15

9

+144.16

9

+144.17

0

+144.18

0

+144.19

2

+144.22

8

+144.23

3

+144.25

7

+144.26

1

+144.30

5

+144.31

6+14

4.322

+144.35

7

+144.39

8

+144.41

8

+144.41

8

+144.42

0

+144.44

7

+144.47

7

+144.48

7

+144.50

0

+144.53

0

+144.53

4

+144.53

4

+144.55

1+144.56

9

+144.57

1

+144.57

6+14

4.584

+144.58

4

+144.58

8

+144.59

0

+144.61

0

+144.61

4

+144.61

8

+144.62

1

+144.64

2

+144.65

0

+144.65

7

+144.66

1

+144.67

5

+144.68

6+14

4.699

+144.74

6

+144.75

1

+144.75

3

+144.76

4

+144.76

5

+144.77

0

+144.82

8

+144.82

8

+144.83

1

+144.83

2

+144.87

8

+144.89

8

+144.90

1

+144.90

4

+144.93

5

+144.93

9

+144.94

6

+144.95

5+145.01

5

+145.01

8+14

5.028

+145.02

9

+145.03

3

+145.04

9

+145.08

4

+145.08

8

+145.15

3

+145.15

6

+145.15

7

+145.17

8

+145.19

5

+145.20

9

+145.22

5

+145.22

8

+145.23

5

+145.24

1

+145.27

3

+145.28

8

+145.29

6

+145.30

3

+145.30

4

+145.40

4

+145.41

5

+145.44

0

+145.47

5

+145.48

3

+145.49

4

+145.50

2

+145.50

9

+145.51

9

+145.53

2+14

5.549

+145.55

1

+145.59

4

+145.61

4

+145.62

2

+145.63

7

+145.65

7

+145.66

2

+145.66

3

+145.70

9

+145.71

7

+145.72

9

+145.76

4

+145.85

7

+145.87

3

+145.87

7

+145.89

0

+145.89

7+14

5.901

+145.90

5

+145.91

8

+145.93

5

+145.96

5

+145.98

4

+146.02

4

+146.03

2

+146.03

8

+146.04

3

+146.04

6

+146.07

1

+146.08

1

+146.11

8

+146.11

9+146.12

7

+146.16

2

+146.23

3

+146.26

1

+146.26

2+146.27

6

+146.30

9

+146.32

5

+146.36

1

+146.41

2

+146.41

9+146.44

0+14

6.452

+146.52

6

+146.53

8

+146.55

4

+146.59

1+14

6.600

+146.60

4+14

6.605

+146.60

8

+146.60

8

+146.61

7+146.70

0

+146.82

6+14

6.833

+146.83

9

+146.89

5

+146.89

8

+146.97

5

+146.98

1

+146.99

8

+147.01

9

+147.04

1

+147.08

0

+147.08

0

+147.10

8+14

7.109

+147.11

0

+147.15

1

+147.22

8

+147.24

4

+147.24

9

+147.27

8

+147.60

8

+147.81

2

+147.84

1

+148.01

7

+148.05

4

+148.06

5

+148.11

3

+148.30

7+148.35

6+14

8.382

+148.50

0+14

8.549

+148.56

0

+148.59

7

+148.73

3

+148.74

1

+148.80

8

+148.81

3

+148.85

7

+148.85

8

+148.92

0

+148.94

5

+148.95

5

+148.96

5

+148.97

0

+148.98

0

+148.99

4

+148.99

7

+149.01

0

+149.01

4

+149.01

5

+149.02

4

+149.04

1

+149.05

0

+149.05

0

+149.05

2

+149.05

6

+149.05

8

+149.06

6

+149.06

7

+149.06

7

+149.06

9

+149.08

2

+149.08

4

+149.08

6

+149.08

8

+149.09

5

+149.10

3

+149.10

7

+149.12

2

+149.12

4

+149.13

3

+149.13

4

+149.13

6

+149.13

6

+149.13

8

+149.13

9

+149.14

5

+149.15

3+149.15

3

+149.16

5

+149.16

6

+149.16

9

+149.18

0

+149.18

1

+149.18

9

+149.19

1

+149.19

5

+149.19

9

+149.20

3

+149.20

3

+149.21

2

+149.21

3

+149.22

1

+149.24

7

+149.25

5

+149.25

7

+149.26

7

+149.26

8

+149.27

1

+149.27

6

+149.28

3

+149.29

5

+149.30

0

+149.30

5

+149.30

9

+149.31

0

+149.31

3

+149.31

4

+149.32

1

+149.33

4

+149.34

6

+149.35

3

+149.36

6

+149.37

9

+149.37

9

+149.38

1

+149.39

0

+149.39

3

+149.42

2

+149.42

4+14

9.428

+149.42

9

+149.43

4

+149.43

5

+149.47

9

+149.48

0+14

9.499

+149.51

4

+149.53

1

+149.54

1

+149.54

3

+149.54

4

+149.56

1

+149.56

6

+149.57

0

+149.58

7

+149.58

9

+149.71

5

+149.84

0

+149.84

7

+149.84

8

+149.90

2

+149.91

2

+149.93

3

+149.96

1

+149.97

7

+149.98

7

+150.03

3

+150.05

5

+150.10

4

+150.10

4

+150.35

3+15

0.368

+150.37

2

+150.40

9

+150.44

5

+150.54

3

+150.56

5

+150.57

6

+150.59

5

+150.73

0

+150.74

6

+150.76

0

+150.78

9

+150.78

9

+150.81

8

+150.87

9

+150.88

4

+150.89

6

+150.90

5

+150.92

3+150.94

0

+150.95

8

+150.99

0

+151.03

0

+151.03

2

+151.03

8

+151.06

0+151.06

2

+151.07

0

+151.09

5

+151.09

8

+151.10

0+15

1.101

+151.110

+151.13

8

+151.14

1

+151.14

2

+151.14

6

+151.16

8

+151.17

6+15

1.196

+151.21

7

+151.22

8

+151.23

0

+151.30

4

+151.31

2+15

1.316

+151.32

4

+151.34

9

+151.36

6

+151.40

0

+151.43

2

+151.49

5

Cross Section A-A'

West

A

1

2.1

East

A'

Albion Creek

Existing Slope

Property

Line

Laneway

Property

Line

Property

Line

Water Level 142.7

(Jan17, 2018)

21

Lightwood

Dr

33

Lightwood

Dr

Top of

Gabion

BH

18

-A

B-1

Fill

SiCLTill

Sa Si

Si CL

Shale Bedrock

Top of

Concrete

Bank

Fence

3.9m

Sa

2

CROSS SECTION A-A'

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONCity of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,Toronto, Ontario

DRAWING NO.:

PROJECT: 17M-02182-00

DATE: FEBRUARY 2018 NOT TO SCALE

FILE NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

Distance Along Baseline (m)

AutoCAD SHX Text

Elevation (masl)

AutoCAD SHX Text

0+50

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

145

AutoCAD SHX Text

155

AutoCAD SHX Text

140

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

145

AutoCAD SHX Text

155

AutoCAD SHX Text

140

AutoCAD SHX Text

0+25

Cross Section B-B'

West

B

1

2.1

East

B'

Albion Creek

Existing Slope

Property

Line

Laneway

Property

Line

Water Level 142.7

(Jan17, 2018)

21

Lightwood

Dr

33

Lightwood

Dr

Top of

Gabion

Fence

Culvert

3.5m

Sb

3

CROSS SECTION B-B'

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONCity of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,Toronto, Ontario

DRAWING NO.:

PROJECT: 17M-02182-00

DATE: FEBRUARY 2018 NOT TO SCALE

FILE NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

Distance Along Baseline (m)

AutoCAD SHX Text

Elevation (masl)

AutoCAD SHX Text

0+50

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

145

AutoCAD SHX Text

155

AutoCAD SHX Text

140

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

145

AutoCAD SHX Text

155

AutoCAD SHX Text

140

AutoCAD SHX Text

0+25

Drawing 4

Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701

Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario

Stability Analysis for Existing Slope at Cross Section A-A’

Drawing 5



Stability Analysis for Existing Slope at Cross Section B-B’

Drawing 6



Long – Term Stable Top of Slope Analysis at Cross Section A-A’

Drawing 7



Long – Term Stable Top of Slope Analysis at Cross Section B-B’

Drawing 8



Proposed Armour Stone Retaining Wall with 2.5H:1V Slope at Cross

Section A-A’

ENCLOSURE

Enclosure 1-A: Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. All sample descriptions included in this report generally follow the Unified Soil Classification. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by

WSP also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others, such as the system by the International Society

for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). Please note that, with the exception of those samples where a grain size

analysis and/or Atterberg Limits testing have been made, all samples are classified visually. Visual classification is not sufficiently

accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise differentiation between size classification systems.

2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the boring process. The reader

is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree of compaction. The borehole description may

therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood,

large concrete pieces or subsurface basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since

boreholes cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary information. Despite

the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain

pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or

significant ongoing and future settlements. Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the

results are given on the borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor

does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed study is recommended for

sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it

unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for

contaminants that may be considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In

most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally not detected in a

conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.

3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated with glaciation.

Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and as such may contain pockets and/or

seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors

may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated

that normal sampling equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical

variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential when dealing with

sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.

Enclosure 1-B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Borehole

Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer” Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm) Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description

a) Cohesive Soils(*)

Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater

pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) Γ Unit weight

ASPHALT: 100 mmGRANULAR BASE: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some sand, tracegravel, brown, moist, hard.

SILTY CLAY TILL: brown, moist,very stiff.

SANDY SILT: trace clay, brown,moist, dense.

SILTY CLAY: trace gravel, tracesand, grey, moist, very stiff.

PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open and dry uponcompletion of drilling;2). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Jan 31, 2018 2.84Feb 27, 2018 3.13

40

65

151.1151.0

150.5

149.1

148.3

146.8

145.1

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

50/150mm

26

28

34

28

50/100mm

50/50mm

9

0

0.10.2

0.7

2.1

2.9

4.4

6.2

24

26

27

9

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

151

150

149

148

147

146

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations

CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO

PROJECT LOCATION: Albion Road, over Albion Creek, Toronto, Ontario

DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83

BH LOCATION: N 4844021 E 298940

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-AB-1

1st 2nd

Ground Surface ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

151.2

PLASTICLIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

Method: Solid Stem Auger

Diameter: 110mm

Date: Jan/19/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 2

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

17

M-0

2182

-01-

CU

LVE

RT

267

ALB

ION

RO

AD

2018

0124

.GP

J 2

7/2/

18

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

W. L. 148.1 mFeb 27, 2018

TOPSOIL: 200 mm

FILL: silty clay, some sand, tracegravel, containing shale pieces,brown, moist, stiff to very stiff.

SILTY CLAY / SHALE COMPLEX:grey, moist, very stiff to hard.

PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open uponcompletion of drilling;2). Water at a depth of 2.7m uponcompletion of drilling.

145.6

144.0

142.9

142.7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

9

24

18

50/100mm

50/75mm

0.2

1.8

2.9

3.1

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

145

144

143

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION: N 4844075 E 298961

GR

1

2

3


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

145.8

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP


Diameter: 110mm

Date: Jan/25/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 3

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

17

M-0

2182

-01-

CU

LVE

RT

267

ALB

ION

RO

AD

2018

0124

.GP

J 2

7/2/

18

TOPSOIL: 200 mm

FILL: silty clay, sandy, trace gravel,brown, moist, firm to stiff.

--------------------containing wood pieces

--------------------black and grey

SILTY CLAY: trace gravel, tracesand, containing shale andlimestone pieces, grey, moist, hard.

SILTY CLAY / SHALE COMPLEX:grey, moist, hard.

PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open uponcompletion of drilling;2). Water at a depth of 7.5m uponcompletion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Jan 31, 2018 5.92Feb 27, 2018 5.86

40

59

148.6

144.4

143.2

142.6

141.1

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

8

9

11

9

10

13

50

50/100mm

50/50mm

3

0

0.2

4.4

5.6

6.3

7.7

23

16

34

25

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

148

147

146

145

144

143

142

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION: N 4844031 E 298982

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

148.8

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP


Diameter: 110mm

Date: Jan/19/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 4

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

17

M-0

2182

-01-

CU

LVE

RT

267

ALB

ION

RO

AD

2018

0124

.GP

J 2

7/2/

18

Cutting

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

W. L. 142.9 mFeb 27, 2018

FIGURE

Jan.25, 2018

1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Silty clay till19mm16mm

13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm

2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm

0.0404 mm.0.0291 mm.0.0187 mm.0.0110 mm.0.0080 mm.0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.0.0012 mm.

100.094.992.692.691.489.487.183.777.569.766.859.255.852.447.242.138.630.923.2

16.0 28.1 12.1

2.6265 0.5060 0.04300.0139 0.0027

CL A-6(6)

Sampled by Jack on Jan.18, 2018

City of Toronto

Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations

17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: BH18-AB-1 SS3Sample Number: MM-5429 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 8.6 2.0 5.7 16.9 39.6 27.2

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

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORTP

LA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

CL-ML

CL or OL

CH or OH

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate

upper limit boundary for natural soils

4

7

WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

26

26.4

26.8

27.2

27.6

28

28.4

28.8

29.2

29.6

30

NUMBER OF BLOWS5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40

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

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: BH18-AB-1 SS3Sample Number: MM-5429

Figure

Silty clay till 28.1 16.0 12.1 83.7 66.8 CL

17M-02182- City of Toronto

2

Sampled by Jack on Jan.18, 2018Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations

Jan.25, 2018

3


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Sandy silt, trace clay2mm

0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.0100.0100.0

99.285.673.747.838.430.021.517.815.010.3

8.4

0.1267 0.1038 0.05670.0461 0.0209 0.00630.0029 19.31 2.63


City of Toronto


17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 64.8 8.9

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


Jan.25, 2018

4


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Silty clay/shale complex4.75mm

2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.086.685.384.884.684.284.079.275.069.058.850.342.629.819.6

2.6990 0.5785 0.01100.0076 0.0030


City of Toronto


17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 1.8 0.8 59.4 24.6

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


Feb.09, 2018


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Sandy clayey silt, trace gravel9.5mm

4.75mm2mm

0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.097.094.392.289.284.876.473.666.962.557.251.948.444.037.029.9

0.4885 0.2543 0.02360.0091 0.0012


City of Toronto


17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7 5.1 15.6 39.7 33.9

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


andy.chen

Text Box

5

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST, UNITS 9-12MARKHAM, ON L3R4H9 (905) 475-0065

5835 COOPERS AVENUE

MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Nivine Basily, Inorganics Report WriterSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

Neli Popnikolova, Senior ChemistTRACE ORGANICS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 15

Feb 07, 2018

VERSION*: 2

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

18T305562AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Jack Li

PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto

Laboratories (V2) Page 1 of 15

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

VERSION 2:Revised Report Issued February 07th 2018. TCLP Metals and Inorganics added to BH18-AB-3 SS3 as per client request.

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

BH18 - AB - 1

SS2

BH18 - AB - 3

SS1 & 2

BH18 - AB - 2

SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-01-24 2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:

9030132 9030134 9030137G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter

<0.8[<A] <0.8[<A] <0.8[<A]Antimony 0.81.3µg/g 40 7.5 7.5

5[<D] 5[<D] 5[<D]Arsenic 118µg/g 18 18 11

82[<A] 52[<A] 77[<A]Barium 2220µg/g 670 390 390

0.8[<A] 0.8[<A] 0.8[<A]Beryllium 0.52.5µg/g 8 4 4

8[<A] 8[<A] 8[<A]Boron 536µg/g 120 120 120

0.17[<C] <0.10[<C] 0.14[<C]Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.10NAµg/g 2 1.5 1.5

<0.5[<D] <0.5[<D] <0.5[<D]Cadmium 0.51.2µg/g 1.9 1.2 1

21[<A] 20[<A] 22[<A]Chromium 270µg/g 160 160 160

10.4[<A] 11.7[<A] 11.1[<A]Cobalt 0.521µg/g 80 22 22

27[<A] 25[<A] 23[<A]Copper 192µg/g 230 140 140

27[<D] 9[<D] 14[<D]Lead 1120µg/g 120 120 45

<0.5[<A] <0.5[<A] <0.5[<A]Molybdenum 0.52µg/g 40 6.9 6.9

22[<A] 25[<A] 24[<A]Nickel 182µg/g 270 100 100

<0.4[<A] <0.4[<A] <0.4[<A]Selenium 0.41.5µg/g 5.5 2.4 2.4

<0.2[<A] <0.2[<A] <0.2[<A]Silver 0.20.5µg/g 40 20 20

<0.4[<A] <0.4[<A] <0.4[<A]Thallium 0.41µg/g 3.3 1 1

<0.5[<A] <0.5[<A] <0.5[<A]Uranium 0.52.5µg/g 33 23 23

30[<A] 25[<A] 28[<A]Vanadium 186µg/g 86 86 86

72[<A] 57[<A] 58[<A]Zinc 5290µg/g 340 340 340

<0.2[<A] <0.2[<A] <0.2[<A]Chromium VI 0.20.66µg/g 8 8 8

<0.040[<A] <0.040[<A] <0.040[<A]Cyanide 0.0400.051µg/g 0.051 0.051 0.051

<0.10[<D] <0.10[<D] <0.10[<D]Mercury 0.100.27µg/g 3.9 0.27 0.25

0.198[<A] 0.751[D-B] 0.175[<A]Electrical Conductivity 0.0050.57mS/cm 1.4 0.7 0.7

0.211[<A] 1.50[<A] 0.350[<A]Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA2.4NA 12 5 5

7.71 8.21 7.79pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.

AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562

DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07


O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)

SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)

Certified By:Page 2 of 15










5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: A Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use, B Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, C Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, D Refers to Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Agricultural or Other Property Use - Coarse Textured SoilsGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.

9030132-9030137 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.



BH18 - AB - 3


SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:

9030136G / S RDLUnitParameter

<0.010Arsenic Leachate 0.0102.5mg/L

0.436Barium Leachate 0.100100mg/L

0.071Boron Leachate 0.050500mg/L

<0.010Cadmium Leachate 0.0100.5mg/L

<0.010Chromium Leachate 0.0105mg/L

<0.010Lead Leachate 0.0105mg/L

<0.01Mercury Leachate 0.010.1mg/L

<0.010Selenium Leachate 0.0101mg/L

<0.010Silver Leachate 0.0105mg/L

<0.050Uranium Leachate 0.05010mg/L

0.22Fluoride Leachate 0.05150mg/L

<0.05Cyanide Leachate 0.0520mg/L

<0.70(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate 0.701000mg/L

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to O. Reg. 558 - Schedule IV Leachate Quality CriteriaGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.








O. Reg. 558 Metals and Inorganics


5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122




BH18 - AB - 2

SS2

BH18 - AB - 3


SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:

9030136 9030139G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter

<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Naphthalene 0.050.09µg/g 9.6 0.6 0.6

0.13[A-B] 0.11[A-B]Acenaphthylene 0.050.093µg/g 0.15 0.15 0.15

0.07[<A] <0.05[<A]Acenaphthene 0.050.072µg/g 96 7.9 7.9

0.20[A-B] <0.05[<A]Fluorene 0.050.12µg/g 62 62 62

1.7[A-C] 0.34[<A]Phenanthrene 0.050.69µg/g 12 6.2 6.2

0.35[A-B] 0.11[<A]Anthracene 0.050.16µg/g 0.67 0.67 0.67

2.7[D-B] 1.2[D-B]Fluoranthene 0.050.56µg/g 9.6 0.69 0.69

2.3[A-C] 1.2[A-C]Pyrene 0.051µg/g 96 78 78

1.6[>B] 0.80[D-B]Benz(a)anthracene 0.050.36µg/g 0.96 0.5 0.5

1.6[<A] 0.77[<A]Chrysene 0.052.8µg/g 9.6 7 7

1.7[>B] 0.82[D-B]Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.050.47µg/g 0.96 0.78 0.78

0.57[A-C] 0.25[<A]Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.050.48µg/g 0.96 0.78 0.78

1.1[>A] 0.57[>A]Benzo(a)pyrene 0.050.3µg/g 0.3 0.3 0.078

0.54[D-B] 0.27[A-C]Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.050.23µg/g 0.76 0.38 0.38

0.14[>D] 0.08[<A]Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.050.1µg/g 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.52[<A] 0.27[<A]Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.050.68µg/g 9.6 6.6 6.6

0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- 0.050.59µg/g 76 0.99 0.99

Acceptable LimitsUnitSurrogate

115 122.Chrysene-d12 % 50-140


9030136-9030139 Results are based on the dry weight of the soil.Note: The result for Benzo(b)Fluoranthene is the total of the Benzo(b)&(j)Fluoranthene isomers because the isomers co-elute on the GC column.








O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)


5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122




BH18 - AB - 2

SS1

BH18 - AB - 3


SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:

9030135 9030137G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter

<0.02[<A] <0.02[<A]Benzene 0.020.02µg/g 0.32 0.21 0.21

<0.08[<A] <0.08[<A]Toluene 0.080.2µg/g 68 2.3 2.3

<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Ethylbenzene 0.050.05µg/g 9.5 2 1.1

<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Xylene Mixture 0.050.05µg/g 26 3.1 3.1

<5[<A] <5[<A]F1 (C6 to C10) 525µg/g 55 55 55

<5[<A] <5[<A]F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX 525µg/g 55 55 55

<10[<A] <10[<A]F2 (C10 to C16) 1010µg/g 230 98 98

<50[<A] <50[<A]F3 (C16 to C34) 50240µg/g 1700 300 300

<50[<A] <50[<A]F4 (C34 to C50) 50120µg/g 3300 2800 2800

NA[<A] NA[<A]Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons 50120µg/g 3300 2800 2800

16.0 14.4Moisture Content 0.1%

Acceptable LimitsUnitSurrogate

100 97Terphenyl % 60-140








O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)


5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122











O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)


5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122



9030135-9030137 Results are based on sample dry weight.The C6-C10 fraction is calculated using Toluene response factor.The C10 - C16, C16 - C34, and C34 - C50 fractions are calculated using the average response factor for n-C10, n-C16, and n-C34.Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons are not included in the Total C16-C50 and are only determined if the chromatogram of the C34 - C50 hydrocarbons indicates that hydrocarbons >C50 are present.The chromatogram has returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.Total C6 - C50 results are corrected for BTEX contributions.This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.nC6 and nC10 response factors are within 30% of Toluene response factor.nC10, nC16 and nC34 response factors are within 10% of their average.C50 response factor is within 70% of nC10 + nC16 + nC34 average.Linearity is within 15%.Extraction and holding times were met for this sample.Fractions 1-4 are quantified with the contribution of PAHs. Under Ontario Regulation 153, results are considered valid without determining the PAH contribution if not requested by the client.Quality Control Data is available upon request.



9030134 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.57 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm

9030134 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.7 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm

9030134 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.7 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Acenaphthylene 0.093 0.13BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Anthracene 0.16 0.35BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.36 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.47 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.48 0.57BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.56 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluorene 0.12 0.20BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.23 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Phenanthrene 0.69 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Pyrene 1 2.3BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.078 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.38 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.96 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.96 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.38 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Acenaphthylene 0.093 0.11BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.36 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.47 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.56 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.23 0.27BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Pyrene 1 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.078 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g


Guideline Violation




SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE UNIT

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V2) Page 8 of 15

9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g

9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g


Guideline Violation




SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE UNIT

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V2) Page 9 of 15


Antimony 9027705 <0.8 <0.8 NA < 0.8 97% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%

Arsenic 9027705 6 6 0.0% < 1 96% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%

Barium 9027705 94 94 0.0% < 2 97% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Beryllium 9027705 0.8 0.8 NA < 0.5 97% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 109% 70% 130%

Boron

9027705 8 9 NA < 5 75% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 9028452 0.81 0.84 3.6% < 0.10 99% 60% 140% 91% 70% 130% 91% 60% 140%

Cadmium 9027705 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 98% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%

Chromium 9027705 20 19 5.1% < 2 86% 70% 130% 108% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Cobalt 9027705 11.5 11.2 2.6% < 0.5 99% 70% 130% 92% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%

Copper

9027705 32 31 3.2% < 1 98% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%

Lead 9027705 11 11 0.0% < 1 97% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 9027705 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 94% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 87% 70% 130%

Nickel 9027705 24 25 4.1% < 1 95% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Selenium 9027705 0.5 <0.4 NA < 0.4 100% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%

Silver

9027705 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 83% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Thallium 9027705 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 85% 70% 130% 101% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Uranium 9027705 0.6 0.6 NA < 0.5 87% 70% 130% 101% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%

Vanadium 9027705 26 26 0.0% < 1 99% 70% 130% 89% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%

Zinc 9027705 72 72 0.0% < 5 96% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 111% 70% 130%

Chromium VI

9028033 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 75% 70% 130% 97% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%

Cyanide 9034022 <0.040 <0.040 NA < 0.040 90% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 106% 70% 130%

Mercury 9027705 <0.10 <0.10 NA < 0.10 103% 70% 130% 95% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Electrical Conductivity 9028548 0.107 0.112 4.6% < 0.005 99% 90% 110%

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 9028452 1.82 1.84 1.1% NA

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction

9031899 7.76 7.79 0.4% NA 99% 80% 120%

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.Duplicate Qualifier: As the measured result approaches the RL, the uncertainty associated with the value increases dramatically, thus duplicate acceptance limits apply only where the average of the two duplicates is greater than five times the RL.

O. Reg. 558 Metals and Inorganics

Arsenic Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 96% 90% 110% 97% 80% 120% 96% 70% 130%

Barium Leachate 9043364 0.830 0.891 7.1% < 0.100 93% 90% 110% 90% 80% 120% 78% 70% 130%

Boron Leachate 9043364 0.054 0.059 NA < 0.050 102% 90% 110% 100% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Cadmium Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 98% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Chromium Leachate

9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 104% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%

Lead Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 94% 90% 110% 88% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%

Mercury Leachate 9043364 <0.01 <0.01 NA < 0.01 100% 90% 110% 85% 80% 120% 85% 70% 130%

Selenium Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 89% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%

Silver Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 95% 90% 110% 95% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.


Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Feb 07, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V2) Page 10 of 15


Uranium Leachate

9043364 <0.050 <0.050 NA < 0.050 94% 90% 110% 95% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Fluoride Leachate 9043364 0.223 0.227 NA < 0.05 104% 90% 110% 106% 90% 110% 94% 70% 130%

Cyanide Leachate 9046528 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 100% 90% 110% 100% 90% 110% 99% 70% 130%

(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate 9043364 < 0.70 < 0.70 NA < 0.70 99% 80% 120% 105% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.Duplicate Qualifier: As the measured result approaches the RL, the uncertainty associated with the value increases dramatically, thus duplicate acceptance limits apply only where the average of the two duplicates is greater than five times the RL.

Certified By:




Dup #1 RPDMeasured


Quality Assurance




Soil Analysis (Continued)

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122




O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)

Benzene 9032284 < 0.02 < 0.02 NA < 0.02 116% 60% 130% 113% 60% 130% 114% 60% 130%

Toluene 9032284 < 0.08 < 0.08 NA < 0.08 107% 60% 130% 115% 60% 130% 109% 60% 130%

Ethylbenzene 9032284 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 101% 60% 130% 108% 60% 130% 105% 60% 130%

Xylene Mixture 9032284 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 73% 60% 130% 103% 60% 130% 98% 60% 130%

F1 (C6 to C10)

9032284 < 5 < 5 NA < 5 85% 60% 130% 90% 85% 115% 76% 70% 130%

F2 (C10 to C16) 9028453 < 10 < 10 NA < 10 102% 60% 130% 96% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%

F3 (C16 to C34) 9028453 < 50 < 50 NA < 50 102% 60% 130% 98% 80% 120% 106% 70% 130%

F4 (C34 to C50) 9028453 < 50 < 50 NA < 50 86% 60% 130% 94% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)

Naphthalene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 109% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 106% 50% 140%

Acenaphthylene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 116% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 94% 50% 140%

Acenaphthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 102% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140%

Fluorene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 110% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 110% 50% 140%

Phenanthrene

9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 93% 50% 140% 109% 50% 140%

Anthracene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 95% 50% 140% 98% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140%

Fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 101% 50% 140% 101% 50% 140% 110% 50% 140%

Pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 93% 50% 140% 115% 50% 140%

Benz(a)anthracene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 109% 50% 140% 81% 50% 140% 98% 50% 140%

Chrysene

9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 103% 50% 140% 96% 50% 140% 107% 50% 140%

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 116% 50% 140% 99% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 97% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140%

Benzo(a)pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 104% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 114% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 97% 50% 140% 103% 50% 140%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140% 96% 50% 140%

Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 114% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140%

Comments: When the average of the sample and duplicate results is less than 5x the RDL, the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) will be indicated as Not Applicable (NA).

Certified By:




Dup #1 RPDMeasured


Quality Assurance




Trace Organics Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122




Soil Analysis

Antimony MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Arsenic MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Barium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Beryllium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) MET-93-6104EPA SW 846 6010C; MSA, Part 3, Ch.21

ICP/OES

Cadmium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Cobalt MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Copper MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Lead MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Molybdenum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Nickel MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Selenium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Silver MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Thallium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Uranium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Vanadium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Zinc MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium VI INOR-93-6029 SM 3500 B; MSA Part 3, Ch. 25 SPECTROPHOTOMETER

Cyanide INOR-93-6052MOE CN-3015 & E 3009 A;SM 4500 CN

TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER

Mercury MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Electrical Conductivity INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER

Sodium Adsorption Ratio INOR-93-6007McKeague 4.12 & 3.26 & EPA SW-846 6010B

ICP/OES

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction INOR-93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER

Arsenic Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Barium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Cadmium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Lead Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Mercury Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Selenium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Silver Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Uranium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS

Fluoride Leachate INOR-93-6018 EPA SW-846-1311 & SM4500-F- C ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE

Cyanide Leachate INOR-93-6052EPA SW-846-1311 & MOE 3015 & SM 4500 CN- I

TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER

(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate INOR-93-6053EPA SW 846-1311 & SM 4500 - NO3- I

LACHAT FIA




Method Summary




AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


METHOD SUMMARY (V2) Page 13 of 15

Trace Organics Analysis

Naphthalene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Acenaphthylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Acenaphthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Fluorene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Phenanthrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benz(a)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Chrysene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(a)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

.Chrysene-d12 ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Toluene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Ethylbenzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Xylene Mixture VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

F1 (C6 to C10) VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID

F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID

F2 (C10 to C16) VOL-91-5009CCME Tier 1 Method, EPA SW846 8015

GC / FID


GC / FID


GC / FID

Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method BALANCE

Moisture Content VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method BALANCE

Terphenyl VOL-91-5009 GC/FID




Method Summary




AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


METHOD SUMMARY (V2) Page 14 of 15

Appendix A

APPENDIX B

M:\181 - Projects\WSP-MMM Project (DW)\17M-02182-00\Culvert 267 Albion Road\Report\Appendix\Appendix B - Slope Inspection Photos.docx

Photograph 1 – Overview of the slope, looking west, standing at the toe of slope

Photograph 2 – Pavement cracking and settlement was observed on the lane way located at the crest of

slope

M:\181 - Projects\WSP-MMM Project (DW)\17M-02182-00\Culvert 267 Albion Road\Report\Appendix\Appendix B - Slope Inspection Photos.docx

Photograph 3 – The existing Gabion walls located at the bottom of slope were tilted away from the slope

Photograph 3 – Erosion and undercut were observed and the shale bedrock was exposed

CITY OF TORONTO

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT

WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT REDWATER DRIVE, OVER BERRY CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO

FINAL REPORT

PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705

DATE: MARCH 13, 2019

WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9

T: +1 905 475-0065 WSP.COM

WSP Canada Inc.

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1


3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................... 1

3.1 Soil Conditions .....................................................................................2

3.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................2


4.1 Foundations ..........................................................................................3

4.2 Soil Parameters and Earth Pressure ......................................... 4

4.3 Passive Toe Rsistance ...................................................................... 5

4.4 Sliding Resistance ............................................................................. 6

4.5 Excavations and Groundwater Control ................................... 6


4.5.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................... 6

5 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 7

6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .............................................. 7

7 CLOSURES ............................................................................. 7

WSP Canada Inc.

TABLES

TABLE 3.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 2 TABLE 4.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING

LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 3 TABLE 4.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 6

DRAWINGS

DRAWING 1 LOCATION MAP DRAWING 2 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

ENCLOSURES

ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN

THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURE 2-3 BOREHOLE LOGS

FIGURE

FIGURE 1 RESULT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO

WSP

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for the retaining wall replacement at four quadrant of Culvert 668, over Berry Creek, Redwater Drive, in the City of Toronto, Ontario.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of two (2) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of the proposed retaining wall replacement.




2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on October 11, 2018 at which time two (2) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 4.9 m to 6.1 m below the existing ground surface as shown on Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 2. The boreholes were advanced using portable drilling equipment by a drilling sub-contractor under the full time direction and supervision of WSP personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at continuous intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method (ASTM D1586).

In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. One (1) selected soil sample was subjected to grain size analysis. The result is shown on the borehole log.

Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations.


3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located approximately 40 m north of the intersection of Redwater Drive and Cricklewood Road, as shown on Location Map, Drawing No. 1. The existing retaining walls are located along the creek banks near both inlet and outlet of culvert. The existing retaining wall consists of several types of wall such as Armor Stone, concrete and gabion walls.

The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 2. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditionsin the boreholes (BH18-1 and BH18-2) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3 inclusive).

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 2

The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by more detailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in both boreholes drilled at the site.

3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS In summary, underlying existing topsoil, fill material was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4.6 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted cohesionless silty sandy gravel deposits.

Topsoil:

Topsoil with thickness of about 100 mm was encountered surficially in both boreholes. The thickness of topsoil was shown in borehole logs.

Fill Material:

Fill material consisting of silty clay was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the fill material gave N values ranging from 3 to 18 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a soft to very stiff state. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 8 % to 22 %.

Silty Sandy Gravel:

Deposits of silty sandy gravel were encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 4.6 m to 6.1 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH18-1 was terminated in these deposits. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty sandy gravel gave N values ranging from 13 to 103 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact to very dense state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 6 % to 8 %.

Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-2/SS5) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 1 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:


GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

BOREHOLE NO, SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

BH18-2 SS5 33 31 29 7

Silty Clay Till:

Silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-2 and extended to the termination depth of the borehole. Standard

penetration test carried out within the silty clay till gave N value of 78 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a

hard state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 10 %.

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater observations and measurements conducted upon completion of drilling are shown in detail on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in both boreholes during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4 m below existing ground surface.


WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO

WSP

Page 3


In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of the proposed retaining wall replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.


4.1 FOUNDATIONS Based on the boreholes information, the proposed retaining walls can be supported by footings founded on the native silty sandy gravel. Footings founded on the undisturbed compact silty sandy gravel can be designed for a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 225 to 375 kPa and a geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 150 to 250 kPa as summarized on Table 4.1.


BH No. Bearing

Resistances at SLS (kPa)

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS

(kPa)

Minimum Depth Below Existing Ground/Elevation

(m)

Anticipated Founding Soil

BH18-1 150 250

225 375

4.6/138.5 5.3/137.8

Silty sandy gravel

BH18-2 250 375 2.7/139.4 Silty sandy gravel


When excavation extends into the cohesionless silty sandy gravel below water level, some difficulties should be expected for the footing installation/placement. Groundwater level (refer to Section 4.3.1) should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations.


All bearing surfaces must 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 structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, etc.

It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 4

the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

4.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURE

The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the retaining

walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B. This fill

should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 300 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard

Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to

provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to

subdrains and frost taper should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings. For design

purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.




Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:

Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V

Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40

Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50

Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62

K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66

Compacted Granular ‘B’ Type I


Unit Weight = 21 kN/m3

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:


Ka=0.31 Ka=0.39 Ka=0.47

Kb=0.39 Kb=0.49 Kb=0.57

Ko=0.47 Ko=0.62 Ko=0.69

K*=0.54 K*=0.68 K*=0.78



Ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest

K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes compaction effects

The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some

movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop. Any existing fill and topsoil should not

be re-used as backfill material.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 5

The design of the new retaining wall should take into account the horizontal soil loads, the magnitude of wall rotation,

hydrostatic pressure as well as surcharge loads resulting from during and after construction.

Assuming a drainage system will be installed to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, the

earth pressure p (kPa) acting on the retaining wall at any depth h (m) can be calculated using the following expression:

P = K ( h +q)

Where p = lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h

K = earth pressure coefficient, see table above

= unit weight of material, see above

h = depth in soil in meters

q = value of surcharge in kPa, acting adjacent to the wall.

The above calculation yields lateral pressures due to soil loading only. If the retaining walls are intended to become

partially submerged during the design flood event, then appropriate hydrostatic pressures below the water table should

be added to the earth pressures calculated as above in order to obtain the total lateral pressure acting on the walls.

Select free-draining granular fill, in accordance with the OPSS granular gradation specification, should be used as backfill

immediately adjacent to the retaining wall. In this regard, the onsite soils are considered unsuitable for this purpose.

As a minimum requirement, the granular backfill should be placed in the wedge-shaped zone defined by a 60 degree

line extending up and back from the bottom of the rear face of the retaining wall footing, beginning from a point at

least 1.2 m form the back of the retaining wall footings. Filtered longitudinal drains should be installed at the base of

the fill to provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. All granular backfill should be placed in maximum 300 mm

loose lifts and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of Standard Proctor maximum dry density. Heavy

compaction equipment, however, should not be used within the lateral distance behind any structure equal to the

current height of the fill above the base of the structure.

The global stability analyses for the retaining wall and slope should be carried out by a geotechnical engineer once the

detailed design of the retaining wall is available.

4.3 PASSIVE TOE RSISTANCE The passive earth pressure coefficient of Kp = 3.0, for undisturbed native soils (level ground) below the frost depth, can be used for the design.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 6

4.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the retaining wall footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated using the values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials provided in Table 4.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.



CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL 0.45

PRE-CAST CONCRETE GRANULAR A 0.45

4.5 EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL


The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the retaining wall would extend near or below the local water table.

Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavation extending below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/gravelly soils. Depending upon the prevailing groundwater level and water level in creek at the time of construction and the excavation depths, some form of positive groundwater control, in addition to pumping from sumps, may be required. The groundwater level should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations. Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions.

4.5.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and silty sandy gravel can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table.



WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 7

5 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class D” for seismic site response.

6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT WSP should be retained for a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that this report has been properly interpreted and implemented. If not accorded the privilege of making this review, WSP will assume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in the report.

The comments given in this report are intended for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., may be greater than has been carried out for current purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work shall, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.

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.

7 CLOSURES We trust that the information contained in this report is satisfactory. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

S I G N A T U R E S

Jack Li, E.I.T. Project Officer, Geotechnical Service

Derek Wang, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

WSP Canada Inc. prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CITY OF TORONTO, in accordance with the professional

services agreement. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. The content

and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP Canada Inc. at the time of

preparation. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible

for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP Canada Inc. does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result

March 19, 2019

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 8

of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this

report.

The original of this digital file will be conserved by WSP Canada Inc. for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted

to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP Canada Inc., its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP Canada Inc. does

not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient.

1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit-for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document.

DRAWINGS

Hum

ber R

iver

Berry Creek

HW

Y 4

01

ELM

HU

RS

T D

R

REDWATER DR

ALLE

NB

Y A

VE

HA

DR

IAN

DR

KIPLING AVE

SH

EN

DA

LE D

R

STAVELY CRES

IRW

IN R

D

GO

LF

DO

WN

DRBURRARD RD

BE

RG

AM

OT

AV

E

LE

DU

C D

R

RE

XD

ALE

BLV

D

RE

SO

UR

CE

S R

D

BE

NW

AY

DR

FROST ST

CH

ILC

OT A

VE

TURPIN AVE

HW

Y 4

01 C

OLLE

CT

OR

CLE

AR

BR

OO

KE

CIR

CHALFO

NT R

D

ISLINGTON AVE

ALBION RD

COVE DR

PAKENHAM DR

GRIERSON RD

BE

AT

TIE

AV

E

COPPERMILL DR

BO

NIF

AC

E A

VE

FO

RD

WIC

H C

RE

S

HA

RD

ISTY

DR

TO

FIE

LD

CR

ES

HW

Y 409

ENDICOTT AVE

HATFIELD

CRES

TORBOLTON DR

GE

NT

HO

RN

AV

E

HUNTSMO

OR RD

BE

TH

RID

GE

RD

NO

RF

IELD

CR

ES

PY

LO

N P

L

ARMEL CRT

BARRHEAD CRES

CA

ULF

IELD

RD

KENNEBEC CRES

RIN

GW

AY

CR

ES

MA

RC

EL R

D

DRUMHELLER RD

BR

IGH

AM

CR

T

URBAN CRT

DE

ES

IDE

CR

T

BEMBER

G C

RT

AU

BU

RN

DALE

CR

T

DAY

SLA

ND

RD

KLIBURN PL

HO

LB

ER

G S

THW

Y 4

01

HWY 401

HWY 401 COLLECTOR

ISLINGTON AVE

GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

N

Culvert 668 R

etaining Wall R

eplacement

Ov

er Berry

Creek

, Red

water D

rive, T

oro

nto

,

On

tario

LOCATION MAP

1F

ILE

. NO

.:P

RO

JE

CT: 1

7M

-021

82-0

0/7

00/7

05

DA

TE

: NO

VE

MB

ER

201

8

DR

AW

ING

NO

.:.

1:1

00

00

SC

AL

E:

020

040

010

0M

ete

rs

LegendAP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

SIT

E L

OC

AT

ION

LEGEND

-$-BH18-1 BOREHOLE LOCATION

10 5 0

11111 I

10 metres

.. c:::::-.c::::::t::::===---·1

BOREHOLE LOCATIONS PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Culvert 668 Retaining Wall Replacement Over Berry Creek, Redwater Drive, Toronto, Ontario

DATE: NOVEMBER 2018 SCALE: 1 :500

PROJECT: 17M-02182-0017001705 FILE NO.:

2

DRAWING NO.: '''I >

ENCLOSURES


Sample Type

AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance

Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30

in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).

WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer”

Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30

in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10)

Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mmCobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm)

Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description


Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa)

Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30

(*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer

b) Cohesionless Soils

Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value

Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests

w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater


TOPSOIL: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some gravel, somesand, brown to dark grey, moist towet, soft to very stiff.

SILTY SANDY GRAVEL: traceclay, grey, wet, compact to verydense.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.3m bgs upon completion ofdrilling;2). Water was at depth of 4m bgsupon completion of drilling.

143.0

138.5

137.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5

17

17

11

8

3

13

77

0.1

4.6

6.1

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

143

142

141

140

139

138

137N

AT

UR

AL

UN

IT W

T

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement


PROJECT LOCATION: Redwater Drive, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario


BH LOCATION: N 4841913.2 E 615984.8

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-1

1st 2nd

Ground Surface ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

143.1

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

Method: Continuous Spoon

Diameter: 50mm

Date: Oct/11/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00/700/705

ENCL NO.: 2

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

17M

-021

82-0

0-C

ULV

ER

T 6

68 R

ED

WA

TE

R D

R.G

PJ

31/

10/1

8

TOPSOIL: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some gravel, somesand, containing cobbles, brown todark grey, moist to wet, soft to verystiff.

SILTY SANDY GRAVEL: traceclay, containing sandy silt till layer,grey, wet, compact to very dense.

----------------------sandy silt till layer

SILTY CLAY TILL: trace gravel,some sand, grey, moist, hard.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of3.7m bgs upon completion ofdrilling;2). Water was at depth of 2.7m bgsupon completion of drilling.

29

142.0

139.4

137.5

137.2

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4

18

7

11

25

25

103

78

33

0.1

2.7

4.6

4.9

31 7

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

142

141

140

139

138

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION



PROJECT LOCATION: Redwater Drive, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario


BH LOCATION: N 4841925.7 E 615951.8

GR

1

2

3

4


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

142.1

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

Method: Continuous Spoon

Diameter: 50mm

Date: Oct/11/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00/700/705

ENCL NO.: 3

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

17M

-021

82-0

0-C

ULV

ER

T 6

68 R

ED

WA

TE

R D

R.G

PJ

31/

10/1

8

FIGURE

Oct.17, 2018

1


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Silty sandy gravel, trace clay26.5mm19mm16mm

13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm

2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.096.291.889.382.367.456.549.344.941.837.836.334.133.130.125.022.018.010.0

6.0

14.0049 10.5968 2.79250.9409 0.0191 0.00480.0031 894.21 0.04

Sampled by Jack on Oct.11, 2018

City of Toronto

Culverts Replacement, Redwater Drive, Culvert 668, Toronto, ON

17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: BH18-2 SS5Sample Number: MM-6569 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 3.8 28.8 10.9 11.6 8.6 29.1 7.2

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


CITY OF TORONTO

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 274 REPLACEMENT

WSP Canada Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 274 REPLACEMENT ISLINGTON AVENUE, OVER BERRY CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO

FINAL REPORT

PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 703

DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018

WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9

T: +1 905 475-0065 WSP.COM

WSP Canada Inc.

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1


3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................... 1

3.1 Soil Conditions .....................................................................................2

3.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................3


4.1 Geotechnical Design for Culvert Replacement ....................3

4.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1.3 SUBGRADE PROTECTION, FROST PROTECTION AND SCOUR PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5

4.1.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE .................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Excavations and Groundwater Control ................................... 6


4.2.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................... 6

4.3 Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures ............................. 7

4.4 Pavement Restoration .................................................................... 8

5 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ......................................... 9

5.1 Soil sampling ....................................................................................... 9

5.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................ 9

5.3 Findings .................................................................................................. 9

5.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 10

5.5 Corrosivity Potential and Cement Type .................................. 11

WSP Canada Inc.

6 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 11

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ............................................. 11

8 CLOSURES ........................................................................... 12

WSP Canada Inc.

TABLES

TABLE 3.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 2 TABLE 3.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING

LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 4 TABLE 4.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 6 TABLE 4.3 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH

PRESSURE ........................................................................................... 7 TABLE 4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN ..................................................................... 8 TABLE 5.1 SOIL SAMPLES AND CORRESPONDING

TESTS ...................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 5.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS EXCEEDANCES ......................... 10 TABLE 5.3 TCLP EXCEEDANCES ................................................................. 10 TABLE 5.4 RESULTS OF ANSI/AWWA SOIL

CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL RATING AND SULPHATE CONTENT ................................................................. 11

DRAWINGS

DRAWING 1 LOCATION MAP DRAWING 2 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

ENCLOSURES

ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN

THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURE 2-3 BOREHOLE LOGS

FIGURES

FIGURES 1-2 RESULTS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES

APPENDIX

A CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

WSP Canada Inc.

Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto

WSP

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for an existing culvert (Culvert 274) replacement located at Islington Avenue over Humber River Tributary (Berry Creek) in the City of Toronto, Ontario.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of two (2) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of the proposed culvert replacement.




2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on August 31, 2018 at which time two (2) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 6.6 m to 9.5 m below the existing ground surface as shown on Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 2. The boreholes were advanced using a truck mounted drilling machine provided by a drilling sub-contractor under the direction and supervision of WSP technical personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at regular intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method (ASTM D1586).

In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. Two (2) selected soil samples were subjected to grain size analyses. The results are shown on the borehole logs.

Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations. A 50 mm diameter monitoring well was installed in each of the boreholes to permit further monitoring the groundwater levels as well as for the possible future hydrogeological study.


3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject culvert is located approximately 1.3 km north of Highway 401, and 35 m north of the intersection of Islington Avenue and Torbolton Drive, as shown on Location Map, Drawing No. 1.

The existing culvert 274 was constructed in 1956. The culvert is a single span cast -in-place reinforced concrete culvert. The overall length of the culvert is approximately 48.8 m with the width of about 5 m. The opening height of the culvert ranges from 2.3 m at the west end to 3.2 m at the east end. The culvert carries the overburden fill and four lanes of

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 2

vehicular traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction). There is sidewalk and steel beam guide rail on each side of the roadway. The underground utilities along Islington Avenue are present in the vicinity of the culvert.

The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 2. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditionsin the boreholes (BH18-1 and BH18-2) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3 inclusive).The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by moredetailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in both boreholes drilled atthe site.

3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS In summary, underlying the existing pavement structure, fill material was encountered in both boreholes and extended to a depth of about 3.7 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted cohesionless silty sand and glacial till deposits with both sandy and clayey texture.

Existing Pavement Structure:

Both boreholes were advanced through the existing pavement structure. The asphalt thickness encountered ranged from about 120 mm to 180 mm. The average granular base thickness was approximately 130 mm and the average granular sub-base thickness was approximately 270 mm.

Fill Material:

Fill material consisting of sand and gravel/silty sand and silty clay was encountered in both boreholes and extended to a depth of about 3.7 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within clayey fill material gave N values ranging from 5 blows to 10 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a firm to stiff state. Standard penetration tests carried out within sandy / gravelly fill material gave N values ranging from 2 blows to 13 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a very loose to compact state. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 2 % to 14 %.

Silty Clay Till:

Deposits of silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-1 and extended to the termination depth of the borehole. Standard penetration test carried out within the silty clay till gave N value of greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a hard state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 8 %.

Sand and Silt Till:

A stratum of sand and silt till was encountered in borehole BH18-1 and extended to a depth of 5.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the sand and silt till gave N values ranging from 20 blows to 24 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 9 % to 13 %.





BH18-1 SS7 6 45 39 10

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 3

Silty Sand:

Deposit of silty sand was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 6.6 m to 8.5 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH18-2 was terminated in this deposit. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty sand gave N values ranging from 25 blows to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact to very dense state, but generally very dense. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 2 % to 10 %.





BH18-2 SS6 3 57 31 9

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater observations and measurements are shown in detail on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in both boreholes during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 4.4 m to 5.2 m below existing ground surface. On September 4, 2018, groundwater level measured in the monitoring wells installed in BH18-1 and BH18-2 was at depths of 4.25 m and 4.74 m below existing ground surface, respectively.



In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of the proposed culvert 274 replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.


4.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT The existing culvert is a cast-in-place concrete culvert with a size of about 5 m wide and 3 m high. Replacement of the existing culvert is currently being considered. However, the type of the replacement culvert structure was unknown at the time this report was prepared.

The culvert replacement will be designed in accordance with the 2006 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). Once the final design is available, the following recommendations should be further reviewed by the geotechnical engineer, following which additional recommendations can be provided, as required.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 4

4.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS

Based on the design drawings provided, it is understood that the footing of the existing culvert is founded at approximately 4.6 m (Elev. 135.9 m) below existing road surface on Islington Avenue. It is assumed that the new culvert will likely be founded at a similar elevation.

Based on the subsoil information encountered at the borehole locations, existing fill materials are considered unsuitable to support the proposed culvert/wingwalls foundations. As such, consideration should be given to removing existing fill materials to expose the underlying competent native deposits. For the design of the culvert and wingwalls bearing on the competent undisturbed native soils, a geotechnical bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and a factored geotechnical bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) together with corresponding founding depths/elevations at the borehole locations are summarized in Table 4.1.


BH No. Bearing

Resistances at SLS (kPa)

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS

(kPa)

Minimum Depth Below Existing Ground/Elevation

(m)

Anticipated Founding Soil

BH18-1 200 300

300 450

3.8/136.7 7.1/133.4

Sand and Silt Till Silty Sand

BH18-2 300 450 3.8/136.7 Silty Sand


Should it be required, the excavated area may be brought up to the designed subgrade elevation using granular engineered fill such as OPSS Granular A. A geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa may be used for the design of the culvert and wing walls bearing on the engineered Granular A fill.


All bearing surfaces must 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 structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, culvert structures, etc.

It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

4.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT AND WINGWALLS

As an alternative to the open bottom culvert (refer to Section 4.1.1), precast concrete box culvert may be considered. It is anticipated that the precast box culvert will be founded on engineered Granular A (i.e. engineered fill and/or levelling pad) overlying native deposits. Geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa can be used for the design of the precast concrete culvert bearing on the Granular A engineered fill as noted above.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 5

The Granular A material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Full-time inspection by a geotechnical staff from WSP would be required during the placement of the engineered Granular A fill.

It should be noted that the founding soil of box culvert should be at least 1.2 m below the final grade to provide sufficient earth cover for frost protection unless the box culvert is designed to withstand the frost pressures.

4.1.3 SUBGRADE PROTECTION, FROST PROTECTION AND SCOUR PROTECTION

As mentioned above, spread and/or strip footings for open bottom culvert foundation and for any associated concrete wing walls/retaining walls, should be founded at a minimum depth of 1.2 m below the lowest surrounding grade, to provide adequate protection against frost penetration (per OPSD 3090.101 – Foundation Frost Depths for Southern Ontario). It should be noted that the scour protection, such as rip rap and rock blocks should not be considered as earth cover for frost protection purposes.

If the water course flow velocities are sufficiently high, provision should be made for scour and erosion protection (suitable non-woven geotextiles and/or rip-rap) for the new culvert. In order to prevent surface water from flowing around the culvert, and potentially causing erosion and loss of fine soil particles, a concrete cut-off wall/wing wall or a clay seal may be constructed at the upstream end of the culvert. If a clay seal is adopted, the clay material should meet the requirements of OPSS 1205 (Material Specification for Clay Seal). The clay seal should have a thickness of 1 m, and the seal should extend from a depth of 1 m below the scour level to a minimum height equivalent to the high water level, and laterally to a sufficient distance to prevent surface water from flowing around the culvert.

The requirements for design of erosion protection measures for the inlet and outlet of the proposed culvert should be considered by design engineers. As a minimum, rip rap treatment for the outlet of the culvert should be consistent with the standard presented in OPSD 810.010 (Rip-Rap Treatment for Sewer and Culvert Outlets), Rip Rap Treatment Type A. Erosion protection for the inlet of the culvert should follow the standard presented in OPSD 810.010, similar to Rip-Rap Treatment Type A with the rip-rap placed to above the high water level, in combination with the cut off measures noted above. Rip rap should be provided over the full extent of the clay seal, if applicable, including the tributary channel slopes and engineered fill slope adjacent to the culvert.

4.1.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE

Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the culvert footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. Values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials are provided in Table 4.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored and in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 6



CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE / PRE-CAST CONCRETE

GRANULAR 0.4

SAND AND SILT TILL/SILTY SAND 0.3

4.2 EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL


The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the culvert would extend near or below the local water table.

Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavation extending below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/silty soils. Depending upon the prevailing groundwater level at the time of construction and the culvert invert depths, some form of positive groundwater control, in addition to pumping from sumps, may be required. The groundwater level should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations.

Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions. Depending on the creek flow at the time of construction, surface water could flow through the culvert area by means of a temporary bypass/pipe, or be diverted by pumping from behind a temporary cofferdam. Assuming that the cofferdam and/or temporary bypass are effective, any seepage into the excavation during normal creek water flow conditions should be adequately controlled by pumping from properly filtered sumps. Pumping discharges should conform to the Ministry of the Environments, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidelines, City of Toronto, conversation authority and other relevant agencies.

It should be noted that groundwater control measures that extract between 50,000 to 400,000 L/day of water are subject to an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) or a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for extract greater than 400,000 L/day of water.

4.2.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and silty sand can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table. The glacial tills can be classified as Type 2 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 3 soil below groundwater table.



WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 7

4.3 EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING STRUCTURES The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the culvert and wing walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B Type II. This fill should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 300 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. The fill materials should be benched into the existing roadway embankment side slopes. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost taper should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings.

Computation of earth pressures acting against retaining walls and any wing walls should be in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, (CHBDC) S6-06. For design purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.




Table 4.3 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure


Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40

Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50

Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62

K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66



K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest

K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes

compaction effects

These values are based on the assumption that the backfill behind the retaining structures is free-draining granular material and adequate drainage is provided. The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop.

A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for the structural design of the walls, according to CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Other surcharge loadings should be accounted for in the design as required.

The above calculation yields lateral pressures due to soil loading only. If the culvert is intended to become partially submerged during the design flood event, then appropriate hydrostatic pressures below the water table should be added to the earth pressures calculated as above in order to obtain the total lateral pressure acting on the culvert.

The fill depth during placement should be maintained equal on both sides of the culvert walls, with one side not exceeding the other by more than 500 mm.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 8

The use of heavy vibratory equipment behind the culvert and any other below-grade structures should be limited within a lateral distance equal to the height of the backfill (at the time of compaction) above the base of the structure. If required, WSP can provide additional assistance with the refinement of design earth pressure parameters based on the type of culvert selected, dimensions, etc.

4.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION It is understood the pavement restoration after the completion of the culvert replacement on Islington Avenue will be required. It is understood that this section of Islington Avenue is a Major Arterial road. The following pavement design in Table 4.4 is recommended for the pavement restoration according to City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Guideline Summary dated November 30, 2006.

Table 4.4 Pavement Design

MATERIAL THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT ELEMENTS (mm)

Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)

HL-1 40

HL 8 (HS) 150

Granular Material (OPSS 1010)

Granular A Base 50

Granular B, Type II Subbase 350

Prepared and Approved Subgrade

Prior to placing the granular subbase material, the exposed soil subgrade should be heavily proofrolled in conjunction with an inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel. Remedial work (i.e. further subexcavation and replacement) should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by geotechnical personnel.

The granular subbase and base materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of their standard Proctor maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall Maximum Relative Densities ("MRD"), as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.

In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the pavement, continuous subdrains should be placed along both sides of the road. The invert of the subdrains should be at least 300 mm below the bottom of the Granular B subbase and should be sloped to drain to the catchbasins. The subdrains should consist of perforated pipe wrapped in a suitable geotextile and surrounded on all sides with a minimum thickness of 150 mm of clean free draining sand such as concrete sand.

The above pavement designs should provide serviceable pavements for the anticipated traffic levels over a normal design period of ten years, provided that timely maintenance is carried out (i.e. crack sealing).

Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the construction limits), proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the new asphalt into the existing pavement. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermined or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 9

5 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

5.1 SOIL SAMPLING In order to provide information regarding the chemical quality of the subsurface soil for the captioned site, soil samples taken from the depths ranging from 0.7 m to 3.5 m below the existing ground surface were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”). Two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I), benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). One (1) soil sample was selected for analysis of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The representative soil samples were collected and placed in laboratory supplied glass jars, methanol vials and plastic ziplock bags. During sampling, no obvious environmental impact (staining) was observed in the samples. The samples for chemical analyses were placed in a cooler with ice bags.

Upon return to our laboratory, the headspace of the sample bags was tested for presence of VOCs using a Multi-Gas monitor (RKI GX-6000). The VOC readings of the samples ranged between nil and 91.2 ppm.

5.2 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples, which were selected for various tests, are summarized in the Table 5.1 below:

Table 5.1 Soil Samples and Corresponding Tests

Tested Sample I.D.

Borehole Sample

Sample Type Name of Test

BH18-1 SS2 & SS3 BH18-1 SS2 & SS3 composite M & I and BETX & PHCs

BH18-1 SS2 BH18-1 SS2 discrete PAHs

BH18-2 SS2 BH18-2 SS2 discrete M & I and BETX & PHCs

TCLP

BH18-1 SS2 to SS5

BH18-2 SS1 to SS5

composite TCLP M & I

5.3 FINDINGS Two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I); benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). One (1) soil sample was selected for analyses of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Test results were compared tothe Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidelines listed in Table 1 (Full Depth BackgroundSite Condition Standards) for Residential / Parkland / Institutional/Industrial / Commercial / Community (RPIICC)Property Use, Tables 2 and 3 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable & Non-Potable Ground WaterCondition) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses andTable 2 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for Agriculture or otherProperty Use (AG) of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the EnvironmentalProtection Act (April 15, 2011). The tested soil samples met the relevant MECP guidelines, with the exceptions listedin the Table 5.2 below. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 10

Table 5.2 Chemical Analysis Exceedances

Tested Sample I.D.

Borehole Sample

Parameter Exceedances

MECP Table 1 RPIICC

MECP Table 2 AG

MECP Table 2 & 3 RPI

MECP Table 2 & 3 ICC

BH18-1 SS2& SS3

BH18-1 SS2& SS3

None M & I: Lead None None

BH18-2 SS2 BH18-2 SS2 M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR

One (1) composite soil sample was analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extraction. Test result was compared to Schedule 4 of O.Reg.558. The tested soil sample met the relevant guidelines as detailed in Table 5.3. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.

Table 5.3 TCLP Exceedances

Tested Sample I.D.

Borehole Samples

Parameter Exceedances

Metals & Inorganics

TCLP BH18-1 SS2 to SS5 BH18-2 SS1 to SS5

None

5.4 CONCLUSIONS MECP Tables 2 and 3 (ICC) criteria are generally used to assess soil quality in municipally serviced areas. However, for soil to be exported to another property as “clean fill”, it is advisable that quality may need to meet MECP Table 1 RPIICC criteria.

Test results generally complied with the MECP criteria, with the exception of Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) parameters exceedance. The MECP criteria for EC and SAR is related to plant growth factors. Elevated EC and SAR concentrations indicate that there may be difficulty with growing grasses or plants in the tested soils. EC and SAR impacted soil can be reused on-site, as municipal roads are exempted from these parameters.

It should be noted that the test result for composite sample SS2 & SS3 obtained from BH18-1 had exceedances for metals and inorganics parameter Lead when compared to Table 2 AG guidelines. However, the concentrations of the tested sample are within the Tables 2 and 3 ICC criteria which govern the subject municipally serviced areas.

In the view above, the excess soils from the excavation may potentially be reused on-site or disposable off-site at a pit / quarry which are willing to accept the material for rehabilitation purposes, provided that the material is placed at least 1.5 m below final grade. Permission and approvals are required from appropriate authorities.

TCLP test results are below the Leachate Quality Criteria (O. Reg. 558/00) for all parameters tested, and hence any excess soil resulted from the construction activities can be considered as “non-hazardous and non-registrable” waste for disposal at a suitable licensed landfill facility.

Additional testing of samples may be required for final acceptance at the destination site, in particular for sites which carry a more sensitive land-use zoning. Approval from the MECP may be required to reuse the soil at a site(s) with a more sensitive land use.

WSP Canada Inc.


WSP

Page 11

5.5 CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL AND CEMENT TYPE Two (2) selected soil samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories (AGAT) for laboratory analyses of pH, resistivity, redox potential, and sulphide concentrations to determine the soil corrosivity and potential exposure of concrete elements to sulphate attack. The tested samples were obtained from boreholes BH18-1 (Sample SS8) and BH18-2 (Sample SS7).

Table 5.4 below summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating for the tested soil samples for the potential for corrosion towards buried steel elements. A score of 10 points or more indicates potential for corrosion. Based on the results and associated rating, the corrosion potential of the tested soil samples is considered to be low. It should be noted that there are other factors which may influence the corrosion potential, such as the nature of effluent conveyed, the application of de-icing salts on the site and subsequent leaching into the subsoils and stray currents.

The soil samples noted above were also submitted for laboratory analyses of soluble sulphates to assess the potential for degradation of buried concrete in contact with the encountered soils. The soluble sulphate concentrations of the tested samples range from 24 ug/g (24 ppm or 0.0024%) to 27 ug/g (27 ppm or 0.0027%). Based on the results, the potential for sulphate attack on concrete is considered “negligible” based on CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. Sulphate resistant Portland cement is not required. It should, however, be noted that the final selection of the type of concrete should be made by the Engineer taking into account all design considerations, as required.

Table 5.4 Results of ANSI/AWWA Soil Corrosivity Potential Rating and Sulphate Content

Sample I.D.

Sulphate Content (µg/g or

ppm)

Resistivity (ohms-cm)

PH Redox

Potential (mv)

Sulphide (%) Moisture Content

(%)

Total Points

BH18-1 SS8 27 3560/0 8.81/3 167/0 0.19/Trace/0 Moist/ 1 4

BH18-2 SS7 24 7870/0 8.77/3 159/0 0.17/Trace/0 Moist/ 1 4

6 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class D” for seismic site response.

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT WSP should be retained for a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that this report has been properly interpreted and implemented. If not accorded the privilege of making this review, WSP will assume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in the report.

The comments given in this report are intended for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., may be greater than has been carried out for current purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work shall, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.

DRAWINGS

Humber River

Berry C

reek

HWY 401

ELMHURST DR

RE

DW

AT

ER

DR

ALLENBY AVE

HADRIAN DR

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

SHENDALE DR

STA

VE

LY C

RE

S

IRWIN RD

GOLFDOWN DR

BU

RR

AR

D R

D

BERGAMOT AVE

LEDUC DR

REXDALE BLVD

RESOURCES RD

BENWAY DR

FR

OS

T S

T

CHILCOT AVE

TU

RP

IN A

VE

HWY 401 COLLECTOR

CLEARBROOKE CIR

CHALFO

NT R

D

ISLIN

GT

ON

AV

E

ALB

ION

RD

CO

VE

DR

PA

KE

NH

AM

DR

GR

IER

SO

N R

D

BEATTIE AVE

CO

PP

ER

MIL

L D

R

BONIFACE AVE

FORDWICH CRES

HARDISTY D

R

TOFIELD CRES

HWY 4

09

EN

DIC

OT

T A

VE

HAT

FIELD

CRES

TO

RB

OLT

ON

DR

GENTHORN AVE

HU

NTSM

OO

R R

D

BETHRIDGE RD

NORFIELD CRES

PYLON PL

AR

ME

L C

RT

BA

RR

HE

AD

CR

ES

CAULFIELD RD

KE

NN

EB

EC

CR

ES

RINGWAY CRES

MARCEL RD

DR

UM

HE

LLE

R R

D

BRIGHAM CRT

UR

BA

N C

RT

DEESIDE CRT

BEM

BER

G C

RT

AUBURNDALE CRT

DAYSLAND RDKLIB

UR

N P

L

HOLBERG ST

HWY 401HW

Y 4

01

HW

Y 4

01

CO

LLE

CT

OR

ISLIN

GTO

N A

VE


City of Toronto Culverts Replacement

274-Islington Avenue, Over Berry Creek

Toronto, Ontario

LOCATION MAP

1FILE. NO.:PROJECT: 17M-02182-00/700/703

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018

DRAWING NO.:.1:10000SCALE:

0 200 400100Meters

LegendAPPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

2366

50

2380

2386

2385

MH420

0700

152

IO42

0290

0163

MH420

0700

145

MH420

3400

161

MH420

4300

157

MH420

5500

134

MH420

5400

151

MH420

6800

125

200 CONC

200 UNK

200

UN

K

375 C

ONC

375 CONC

450 CONC

900 C

ONC

900 C

ONC

450 C

ONC

450 C

ON

C

900

CO

NC

450 RC

450 RC

250 UNK

200

UN

K SL2308851

SL2308895

SL2308984

S

S

S

SL2

310

169S

SL2313797

SL2310366

SL2310348

SL2310321

SL2310

313

SL2310259

SL2310

171

SL2310

167

SL2310

166

SL2309890

SL2310

227

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

SS

S

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

BB

CB

B BCB

CB CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

CB

MH420

0800

135

IO42

0190

0175

MH420

1500

159

MH421

1300

116

MH421

0800

122

CB421

2100

129

CB420

8000

142

CB420

3900

157

CB420

8000

125

CB421

2500

110

CB420

0000

139

CB420

3100

142

CB420

4900

125

CB421

2000

135

CB421

1400

113

CB420

5600

156

CB420

5200

134

CB420

3300

144

CB420

11001

37

CB419

6000

166

CB419

7400

179

CB419

9100

172

CB419

9500

154

SL2308845

975 RC

T

SL2313

559

SL2310233

SL231

0195

SL2310174

SL2309326

SL2309057

975 C

ONC

450 CONC

250 CONC

450 CONC

37

5

CO

NC

T

T

975

RC T

T

T

UN

K

AC

TV

300 UNK ABND MB-9107/7 FB-410B/48-50

300 PVC ACTV MB-9107/7 FB-410B/48-50

300 UNK ABND FB-170B/51

300

DI

AB

ND

MB-6404 F

B-280

D/70

300 UNK ACTV

300

DI

AC

TV

300 DI ACTV MB-6404 FB-280D/70

ISLINGTON AVE ISLINGTON AVE

HU

MBER RIV

ER TRIB

BUS S

HELTE

R

BMH

HEHE

CC

SMH

C.L.

Grass

SMH

SMH

SMH

Grass

OB

V

WL

Nail

Dirt

INV. = 138.789

INV. = 137.851

C.L.

INV. = 137.727

C.L.

WL

INV. = 138.238

SIB

Dirt

OB

V

C.L.

HE

Dirt

C.L.

Nail

Grass

OB

V

CC

HESMH

SCALE: 1:500

FILE NO.:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018

PROJECT: 17M-02182-00/700/703

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

PA

RKIN

G

PA

RKIN

G

+136.0

50

+136.0

69

+136.1

73

+136.3

82

+136.4

11

+136.4

12

+136.4

21

+136.4

21

+136.4

23

+136.4

23

+136.4

25

+136.4

27

+136.4

30

+136.4

30

+136.4

30

+136.4

32

+136.4

33

+136.4

33

+136.4

35

+136.4

35

+136.4

37

+136.4

38

+136.4

39

+136.4

40

+136.4

43

+136.4

44

+136.4

46

+136.4

49

+136.4

79

+136.4

92

+136.5

00

+136.5

07

+136.5

22

+136.5

24 +

136.5

34

+136.5

35

+136.5

36 +136.5

46

+136.5

55

+136.5

65

+136.5

96

+136.6

02

+136.6

09

+136.6

37

+136.6

37

+136.6

70

+136.6

70

+136.6

76

+136.6

79

+136.7

06

+136.7

32

+136.7

33

+136.7

45

+136.7

49

+136.7

50

+136.8

10

+136.8

11

+136.8

36

+136.8

45

+136.8

69

+136.8

81

+136.9

26

+136.9

49

+136.9

59

+136.9

61

+136.9

86

+136.9

95

+137.0

08

+137.0

16

+137.0

16

+137.0

16

+137.0

18

+137.0

45

+137.0

52

+137.0

70

+137.0

72

+137.0

99

+137.1

55

+137.1

65

+137.1

88

+137.1

97

+137.1

98

+137.2

00

+137.2

02

+137.2

06

+137.2

31

+137.2

32

+137.2

57

+137.2

78

+137.3

04

+137.3

44

+137.3

52

+137.3

69

+137.3

71

+137.3

79

+137.3

83

+137.3

92

+137.4

02

+137.4

08

+137.4

08

+137.4

81

+137.4

83

+137.5

07

+137.5

08

+137.5

09

+137.5

10

+137.5

38

+137.5

72

+137.5

76

+137.5

99

+137.6

09

+137.6

13

+137.6

14

+137.6

23

+137.6

41

+137.6

59

+137.6

70

+137.6

81

+137.6

83

+137.6

83

+137.6

89

+137.7

25

+137.7

27

+137.7

55

+137.7

67

+137.7

76

+137.7

87

+137.7

97

+137.8

13

+137.8

20

+137.8

20

+137.8

23

+137.8

24

+137.8

32

+137.8

45

+137.8

51

+137.8

68

+137.8

99

+137.9

07

+137.9

10

+137.9

10

+137.9

13

+137.9

37

+137.9

37

+137.9

64

+138.0

08

+138.0

34

+138.0

40

+138.0

65

+138.0

70

+138.0

82

+138.0

88+138.1

19

+138.1

26

+138.1

33

+138.1

37

+138.1

41

+138.1

60

+138.1

63

+138.1

99

+138.2

25

+138.2

38

+138.2

91

+138.3

00

+138.3

07

+138.3

08

+138.3

15

+138.3

34

+138.3

36

+138.3

44

+138.3

73

+138.3

87

+138.3

95

+138.4

05

+138.4

18

+138.4

20

+138.4

40

+138.5

43

+138.5

73

+138.5

74

+138.5

76

+138.6

14

+138.6

36

+138.6

65

+138.6

72

+138.6

75

+138.6

83

+138.6

86

+138.7

30

+138.7

43

+138.7

62

+138.7

67

+138.7

89

+138.8

12

+138.8

19

+138.8

39

+138.8

53

+138.9

19

+138.9

23

+138.9

58

+138.9

66

+138.9

86

+138.9

86

+139.0

04

+139.0

14

+139.0

47

+139.1

14

+139.1

19

+139.1

78

+139.2

48

+139.2

56

+139.2

76

+139.3

16

+139.3

16

+139.3

73

+139.3

76

+139.3

80

+139.3

90

+139.4

77

+139.5

00

+139.5

16

+139.5

18

+139.5

18

+139.5

22

+139.5

41

+139.5

55

+139.5

87

+139.5

91

+139.6

11

+139.6

14

+139.6

43

+139.6

62

+139.6

65

+139.7

10

+139.7

39+

139.7

47

+139.7

75

+139.7

89

+139.8

02

+139.8

06

+139.8

10

+139.8

14

+139.8

21

+139.8

27

+139.8

41

+139.8

48

+139.8

55

+139.8

56

+139.8

66

+139.8

81

+139.8

81

+139.9

32

+139.9

34

+139.9

40

+139.9

61

+139.9

75

+139.9

79

+139.9

89

+140.0

23

+140.0

33

+140.0

68

+140.1

15

+140.1

23

+140.1

30

+140.1

34

+140.1

49

+140.1

63

+140.1

81

+140.1

85

+140.1

88

+140.1

98

+140.2

03

+140.2

07

+140.2

22

+140.2

40

+140.2

47

+140.2

47

+140.2

53

+140.2

58

+140.2

58

+140.2

69

+140.2

72

+140.2

81

+140.2

83

+140.2

84

+140.2

87

+140.2

92

+140.2

93

+140.3

07

+140.3

13

+140.3

24

+140.3

69

+140.3

70

+140.3

97

+140.4

13

+140.4

41

+140.4

43

+140.4

47

+140.4

52

+140.4

62

+140.4

66

+140.4

80

+140.4

80

+140.4

86

+140.4

86

+140.4

94

+140.4

96

+140.4

97

+140.4

98

+140.4

98

+140.4

99

+140.5

01

+140.5

03

+140.5

07

+140.5

09

+140.5

11

+140.5

16

+140.5

21

+140.5

21

+140.5

24

+140.5

28

+140.5

31

+140.5

36

+140.5

38

+140.5

38

+140.5

43

+140.5

53

+140.5

55

+140.5

57 +140.5

57

+140.5

59

+140.5

61

+140.5

63

+140.5

66

+140.5

67

+140.5

68

+140.5

68

+140.5

70

+140.5

71

+140.5

72

+140.5

74

+140.5

75

+140.5

78

+140.5

79

+140.5

87

+140.5

88

+140.5

90

+140.5

90

+140.5

91

+140.6

03

+140.6

13

+140.6

15

+140.6

20

+140.6

29

+140.6

35

+140.6

36

+140.6

40

+140.6

47

+140.6

57

+140.6

69

+140.6

76

+140.6

88

+140.6

92

+140.6

93

+140.7

01

+140.7

02

+140.7

06

+140.7

10

+140.7

12

+140.7

12

+140.7

12

+140.7

13

+140.7

14

+140.7

15

+140.7

19

+140.7

20

+140.7

25

+140.7

26

+140.7

26

+140.7

30

+140.7

32

+140.7

33

+140.7

39

+140.7

40

+140.7

42

+140.7

49

+140.7

50

+140.7

50

+140.7

53

+140.7

66

+140.7

67

+140.7

67

+140.7

70

+140.7

72

+140.7

72

+140.7

73

+140.7

74

+140.7

75

+140.7

76

+140.7

80

+140.7

82

+140.7

84

+140.7

87

+140.7

87

+140.7

90

+140.7

92

+140.7

95

+140.7

96

+140.8

00

+140.8

00

+140.8

07

+140.8

07

+140.8

07

+140.8

11

+140.8

15

+140.8

16

+140.8

17

+140.8

19

+140.8

25

+140.8

26

+140.8

32

+140.8

32

+140.8

37

+140.8

40

+140.8

41

+140.8

42

+140.8

44

+140.8

46

+140.8

46

+140.8

47

+140.8

53

+140.8

57

+140.8

60

+140.8

62

+140.8

62

+140.8

62

+140.8

65

+140.8

66

+140.8

71

+140.8

73

+140.8

74

+140.8

75

+140.8

75

+140.8

86

+140.8

86

+140.8

89

+140.8

89

+140.8

91

+140.8

94

+140.8

96

+140.8

96+140.9

06

+140.9

09

+140.9

10

+140.9

11

+140.9

12

+140.9

16 +

140.9

16

+140.9

21

+140.9

23

+140.9

32

+140.9

35

+140.9

35

+140.9

35

+140.9

37

+140.9

37+140.9

38

+140.9

44

+140.9

45

+140.9

47

+140.9

48

+140.9

50

+140.9

54

+140.9

54

+140.9

56

+140.9

61

+140.9

62

+140.9

67

+140.9

70

+140.9

74

+140.9

79

+140.9

83

+140.9

86

+140.9

92

+140.9

92

+140.9

95

+140.9

95

+140.9

98

+141.0

02

+141.0

04

+141.0

09

+141.0

10

+141.0

10

+141.0

14

+141.0

18

+141.0

18

+141.0

19

+141.0

20

+141.0

22

+141.0

25

+141.0

26

+141.0

27

+141.0

38

+141.0

48

+141.0

55

+141.0

58

+141.0

61

+141.0

63

+141.0

63

+141.0

67

+141.0

72

+141.0

92

+141.1

21

+141.1

69

+141.1

98

+141.2

64

+141.2

97

210 0 10 metres5

LEGEND

Torb

olton Dr.

Berry Creek

Islington Ave.

BOREHOLE LOCATIONS PLAN

BH18-2

BH18-1

BH18-1

Toronto, Ontario

274 - Culvert. Over Berry Creek, Islington Avenue,

City of Toronto Culverts Replacement


BOREHOLE / MONITORING WELL LOCATION

ENCLOSURES


Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer” Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm) Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description


Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater


6

0.2

0.7

2.9

3.7

5.6

8.5

9.5

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

45

13

13

10

2

24

20

25

50/150mm

50/150mm

10

ASPHALT: 180 mm

GRANULAR BASE: 120 mmGRANULAR SUBBASE: 350 mm

FILL: sand and gravel, some silt,brown, moist, compact to loose.

FILL: silty sand, some gravel,brown, very moist, very loose.

SAND AND SILT TILL: tracegravel, some clay, brown, moist,compact.

SILTY SAND: trace gravel, traceclay, grey, moist to wet, compact tovery dense.

SILTY CLAY TILL: trace gravel,some sand, brown, moist, hard.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.6m upon completion of drilling;

39

140.3

139.8

137.6

136.8

134.9

132.0

131.0

PID:2.8ppm

PID:91.2ppm

PID:21ppm

PID:13.6ppm

PID:8.4ppm

PID:17.2ppm

PID:0ppm

PID:0ppm

PID:0ppm

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

140

139

138

137

136

135

134

133

132

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

140.5

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

Continued Next Page

1 OF 2

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION



PROJECT LOCATION: Islington Ave, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario


BH LOCATION:

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


w

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface


Diameter: 110mm

Date: Aug/31/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 2

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H P

ID

17M

-021

82-0

0-C

ULV

ER

T 2

74 I

SLI

NG

TO

N A

VE

.GP

J 2

0/9/

18

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Caved in

W. L. 136.2 mSep 04, 2018

2). Water was at depth of 4.4m bgsupon completion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Sep 4, 2018 4.25

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

UNCONFINED

2 OF 2

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION:

GR


w

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Continued


Diameter: 110mm

Date: Aug/31/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 2

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H P

ID

17M

-021

82-0

0-C

ULV

ER

T 2

74 I

SLI

NG

TO

N A

VE

.GP

J 2

0/9/

18

3

0.1

0.5

2.9

3.7

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

57

10

8

6

5

10

79/280mm

50/150mm

50/150mm

9

ASPHALT: 120 mmGRANULAR BASE: 140 mmGRANULAR SUBBASE: 190 mmFILL: silty clay, some sand, brown,moist, stiff to firm.

---------------------black, organic inclusion

FILL: silty sand, some gravel,brown, very moist, loose.

SILTY SAND: trace gravel, traceclay, brown, moist to wet, verydense.

END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.6m upon completion of drilling;2). Water was at depth of 4.4m bgsupon completion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Sep 4, 2018 4.74

31

140.4

140.1

137.6

136.8

134.0

PID:0.7ppm

PID:0.7ppm

PID:14.7ppm

PID:4.5ppm

PID:3.4ppm

PID:0ppm

PID:0ppm

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

140

139

138

137

136

135

134

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

140.5

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION:

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface


Diameter: 110mm

Date: Aug/31/2018

REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00

ENCL NO.: 3

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-20

17.G

LBW

SP

SO

IL L

OG

WIT

H P

ID

17M

-021

82-0

0-C

ULV

ER

T 2

74 I

SLI

NG

TO

N A

VE

.GP

J 2

0/9/

18

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Caved in

W. L. 135.8 mSep 04, 2018

FIGURES

Sep.10, 2018

1


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Sand and silt till, some clay, trace gravel13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm

2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.099.093.889.185.681.273.355.548.839.934.930.023.319.116.611.610.0

2.4698 0.7460 0.13130.0802 0.0205 0.00500.0014 91.58 2.23

Sampled by Jack on Aug.31, 2018F.M.=1.07

City of Toronto

Culverts Replacement for Islington AveToronto, ON

17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 6.2 4.7 7.9 32.4 38.6 10.2

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


Sep.10, 2018

2


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel9.5mm

4.75mm2mm

0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm


100.097.191.987.279.467.947.040.029.824.821.517.414.912.4

9.98.3

1.3748 0.6489 0.18260.1211 0.0457 0.00890.0033 55.56 3.49

Sampled by Jack on Aug.31, 2018F.M.=1.09

City of Toronto

Culverts Replacement, Islington Avenue, Toronto, ON

17M-02182-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 2.9 5.2 12.5 39.4 31.0 9.0

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


APPENDIX A

final geotechnical reports of culverts - toronto...creek, toronto, ontario city of toronto final...

Documents