michael pacholok purchasing and materials management ...€¦ · michael pacholok purchasing and...
TRANSCRIPT
Michael Pacholok Purchasing and Materials ManagementDirector Division
City HaIL lath Floor. West Tower100 Queen Street WestToronto. Ontario MSH 2N2
July 10, 2017 Posted on website: (3 pages + 3 attachments)
ADDENDUM NO.2TENDER NO. 178-2017
REVISED CLOSING; 12:00 NOON (Local Time), July 18, 2017RE: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PREFABRICATED SERVICE YARD STAFF BUILDING AT
DON VALLEY GOLF COURSE
Please refer to the above Tender Call document in your possession and be advised of the following:
ADDITIONS & DELETIONS
The following Architectural Drawings in the Tender set are to be deleted and are to bereplaced; The Drawings were included in the CD’s previously released in Addendum 1 andform part of the tender set;
- Cover sheet & Site Plan AOl.
The following reports were included in the CD’s previously released in Addendum 1 and formpart of the tender set;
- Geotechnical Report by Golder Associates New Service Building at Don Valley Golf Courseby Golder Associates dated Nov. 30, 2016
- Geotechnical Investigation Prefabricated Building Don Valley Golf Course Service Yard byEdward Wong & Associates Inc., dated Oct. 3,2013
CLARIFICATIONS
With regard to excavation and fill below the new building refer to the Geotechnical ReportNew Service Building at Don Valley Golf Course by Golder Associates dated Nov. 30, 2016;Geotechnical Investigation Section 5. Section 1.0 of that report mentions the wood cribslocated under the existing building that will have to be investigated and removed, andreplaced with fill. As well there was 8 to 10 cu. m of lean mix concrete inserted under thesouth west end of the existing building.
N. The existing water, hydro and gas services to site, to existing remaining buildings, &equipment, fuel pumps, irrigation system, field pumps, etc. are to be maintained as useableby the Owner throughout the Construction period, even if they are to be relocated. Providenew and/or temporary service equipment, piping, conduits & cabling as required ahead ofswitchover to keep all systems operational at all the times. All switchover work shall be done
outside of owner’s regular operation time.
hi. Include for replacement of existing hydro pole with new weatherproof wooden type c/w guywires to suit service providers standards and requirements. Coordinate isolation/removal/reinstallation of power & communication cables as present with respective service providers.
cc,1 of 66
iv. In Detail 2 on Drawing E2, add branch circuit reference of A-2/4 (3#6AWG RW9O+G in it)for outdoor condensing unit AC-i.
v. On Drawing E2, in Mechanical Room, add branch circuit reference of #B-24 for HRV-i,26 for Domestic Hot Water Tank and #B-28 for Domestic Hot Water Re-circulator Pump.
Ill. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Qi. Are we supplying the appliances or just installing them?
Al. Kitchen appliances will be provided by Owner- it is the Contractor’s responsibility toprovide power for them & install them.
02. The structural drawings call for 4:, of underslab insulation and the architectural drawings callfor 2”. Can you please clarify the required thickness
A2. Refer to A4.Ol - 4” of rigid insulation is required under the foundation slab and gradebeams, typical.
03. There is a DSS report for the building that is to be removed and there is some abatement tobe done. The cash allowance has abatement included but the site plan drawings say toperform the required abatement as per the DSS report. Are to include the abatement in thebase price?
A3. The Cash allowance includes an amount of $15,000.00 for abatement.
04. There are a few walls that are shown in elevations to be polished ground block. The small wallin the kitchen and the corridor wall shown on the 1st page. They are WAO2 walls. The wallschedule shows WAO2 walls as drywall partitions. There is no masonry wall listed in the wallschedule on A2.OO. Can you please clarify which walls are to be polished ground block.
A4. All polished concrete block walls have been removed refer to A2.00 for Wail type legend.
05. The specs call for an anti graffiti coating. Is the coating for the exterior only or all interiorsurfaces as well?
A5. As the polished block has been removed - the anti-graffiti coating will not be used.
06. The site plan shows a water line to be brought in for a fire hydrant and reference anEaglebrooke Engineering drawing. I do not see an Eaglebrooke Engineering drawing includedin the package
A6. Refer to revised Site plan A 1.00 this item was installed in previous work and has beenremoved from the site plan drawing.
2 of 66
IV. ATTACHMENTS
i. Architectural DrawingsH. GEO Report — Oct30 (33 pages)
iii. Geo Report — Nov30 (26 pages)
Should you have any questions regarding this Addendum, contact Marianne Gonzalez Angulo,Corporate Buyer, at email: [email protected].
Please attach this addendum to your Request for Tender document and be governed accordingly.Bidders must acknowledge receipt of all Addenda on the space provided on the Tender Call CoverPage as per the Process Terms and Conditions, Section 1, Item B - Addenda, of the Tender Calldocument. All other aspects of the Tender remain the same.
Yours truly,
o nne Kehoenager, Construction Services
urchasing & Materials Management
ccc3 of 66
4 of 66
TZJZtbJ =ZD
-
--—
—-
I
(1)0a•il
tl1kIT—U*I
C)I]
a
171——
m
0H-11.
ri:•rsr:tYtii
Car:9:1
zo
Z
C)0C
0m
E
5 of 66
(J(
::iZiO1NOUI1T
--
A
ri
(A
O4
-
:-:
d
__
__
__
_1
LI&
J-i.
H
/a
I•-
,-
-\\.
r
-
I’
—r
/—
F—
—1
S‘
S
7-
.4“S
-b
c
S-H
S—----
S 4
4
6 of 66
!E EDWARD WONG
Geotechnical InvestigationProposed Prefabricated Building
Don Valley Golf Course Service YardToronto, Ontario
Prepared for:
City of TorontoSocial Development, Finance & Administration
Purchasing & Contract Mana,ement55 John Street, Metro Hall, 8 Floor
Toronto, OntarioM5V3C6
Edward Wong & Associates Inc.
34 Marcelline Crescent trgeOOG33aToronto, Ontario October 302013Canada M2K 1WTelephone: (416) 9034288Facsimile: (416) 221-0795
7 of 66
Proposed Prefabncated BuildingDon Valley Golf Coune Service Yard, Toronto bge00633a
Table of Contents1. Infroduction I
2. Procedure 2
3. Subsurface Conditions 33.1 Subsoils 3
3.1.1 Topsoil 33.1.2 Pavement Sthictwe 33.1.3 Fill 33.1.4 Silty Sand 33.1.5 silt 43.1.6 Sandy Silt 4
3.2 Groundwater 4
4. Engineering Discussion and Recommendations 54.1 General S4.2 Building Consthiction 5
4.2.1 Foundation Considerations 54.2.1.1 Foundation Genera] 6
4.2.2 Excavation and Groundwater Control 74.2.3 Floor Slab Construction and Permanent Drainage 74.2.4 Site Seismic Classification 84.2.5 Backfill Considerations 9
5. Environmental Considerations 105.1 Gas Vapour Monitoring 105.2 Laboratory Testing Program 10
52.1 Comparison to the MOE’s Document entitled Soil, Groundwater and SedimentStandards for Use Under Part XV.! of the Environment Protection 11
6. General Comments I
I
8 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
Appendix A: Logs of Borehole
Appendix B: Certificate of Chemical Analysis
Drawings
Borehole Location Plan Drawing No. 1
Guidelines for Underpinning in Soil Drawing No. 2
Drainage and Backfill Recommendations for Slab-on-Grade Drawing No. 3
2
9 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frgeOO6l3a
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out at the Don ValleyGolf Course Service Yard in Toronto, Ontario.
The project involves the proposed design and construction of a single storey prefabricatedbuilding with no basement. The footprint of the proposed prefabricated building covers anarea of about 186 m2.
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to determine the subsoil and groundwaterconditions at the Site and, based on this information, to provide geotechnical engineeringguidelines for the design and construction of the proposed prefabricated building.Recommendations and/or comments regarding foundation type, allowable bearing pressures,groundwater conditions, excavation and backfill, slab-on-grade construction, modulus ofsubgrade reaction, permanent drainage requirements and site seismic classifications were tobe provided.
Our Terms of Reference includes limited environmental testing on selected soil samples. Thetests were carried out to provide a preliminary assessment of environmental quality of thesoils at the Site and to determine the disposal options for excess soils to be generated fromthe Site. Results of the environmental soil testing are discussed in Section 5.2 of the report.
The comments and recommendations given in this report are based on the assumption thatthe above-described design concept will proceed into construction. if changes are madeeither in the design phase or during construction, this office must be retained to reviewthese modifications. The result of this review may be a modification of ourrecommendations or the requirement of additional field or laboratory work to checkwhether the changes are acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint.
I
10 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frgeOOGS3a
2. Procedure
The fieldwork was carried out on October 22, 2013. The original plan was to advance four(4) boreholes (Boreholes I to 4) to about 5 m below grade at selected locations within thearea for the proposed building. Due to the obstruction of a boulder, Borehole I wasterminated at about 2.4 m below grade. Approximate locations of the borehole are shown onthe attached Drawing No. 1 (Borehole Location Plan).
The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flightsolid stem augers owned, supplied and operated by a specialist drilling contractor. Thefieldwork was supervised throughout by Edward Wong’s geotechnical personnel whomonitored the drilling and sampling operations and logged the borings.
Tests for the generation of methane gas and Total Organic Vapors were carried out inBoreholes 1 to 4, using a portable combustible gas tester (RKI Eagle multi-gas detector).
The groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were closely monitored during and uponcompletion of drilling.
All recovered soil samples were transported to Edward Wong’s laboratory for detailed visualexaminations and soil classifications. Moisture content determinations were carried out on allrecovered soil samples.
Two (2) selected soil samples were submitted to an analytical laboratory in Mississauga forchemical testing. The soil samples were tested for general and inorganic parameters. Thechemical test results are discussed in Section 5 of the report.
Borehole locations were established in the field by Edward Wong & Associates Inc. Prior tothe commencement of drilling, the borehole locations were cleared for underground utilitiesby a private locator retained by Edward Wong & Associates Inc. to minimize the potential ofcontacting them during drilling.
2
11 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto UgeOOS33a
3. Subsurface ConditionsThe subsurface stratigraphy, as revealed in the logs of borehole, consisted of a topsoil layer ora pavement structure over a discontinuous fill stratum which was in turn underlain by nativedeposits of silty sand, silt and sandy silt
3.1 Subsoil
A brief description of the soil profiles, in order of depth, follows.
3.1.1 Topsoil
Topsoil was encountered at theground surfaces in Boreholes 1,2 and 3. The topsoil layers inBoreholes I and 3 were about 125 mm thick. In Borehole 2, the topsoil layer is about450 mm thick.
3.12 Pavement Structure
Pavement structure was encountered at the ground surface in Borehole 5. The pavementstructure consisted of about 125 mm of asphaltic concrete over about 125 mm of granularbase materials. The granular base materials consisted of sand with trace silt and some gravel.The granular base materials were moist Moisture content was about 9 percent.
3.1.3 Fill
Fill, extending to depths of about 1.2 m and 1.5 m below grades, was contacted below thetopsoil in Boreholes 2 and 3. The fill materials consisted of silty sand. Rootlets, wood piecesand/or crushed limestone were noted within the fill samples recovered from Boreholes 2and 3. The fill materials were very moist. Moisture contents ranged from 13 percent to 15percent
3.1.4 Silty Sand
Silty sand was encountered below the topsoil and pavement structure in Boreholes land 4and extended to depths of about 2.4 m and 1.5 m, respectively. Silty sand was alsoencountered below the fill at a depth of about 1.2 m below grade in Borehole 2 and extendedto a depth of about 2.3 m. The silty sand was found to be compact (medium dense). Standardpenetration test “N” values ranged from II blows per 300 mm penetration to 27 blows per300 mm penetration. The silty sand was very moist Moisture contents ranged from about 9percent to 14 percent.
A boulder was encountered at about 2.4 m below grade in Borehole I.
3
12 of 66
Proposed Prefabñcated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
3.1.5 Silt
Silt was encountered below the silty sand at depths of about 2.3 m and 1.5 m below grades inBoreholes 2 and 4 and extended to depths of about 4.95 m and 3.05 m, respectively. Silt wasalso encountered below the fill at a depth of about 1.5 m below grade in Borehole 3 andextended to a depth of about 4.5 m. The relative density of the silt ranged from loose tocompact. Standard penetration test “N” values ranged from 7 blows per 300 mm penetrationto 22 blows per 300 mm penetration. The silt was wet. Moisture contents ranged from 18percent to 27 percent
3.1.6 Sandy Silt
Loose sandy silt was encountered below the silt at a depth of about 3.05 m below grade inBorehole 4 and extended to termination depth of about 4.95 m. Standard penetration test “N”values were 6 blows per 300 mm penetration and 9 blows per 300 mm penetration. The sandysilt was wet. Moisture contents were 13 percent and 17 percent.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater conditions were assessed in the open boreholes during the course of thefieldwork. Borehole 1 was thy, during and upon completion of drilling. Groundwater levelsin Boreholes 2, 3 and 4 were measured at depths of about 3.05 in, 3.05 m and 2.25 in belowgrades, during and upon completion of drilling.
4
13 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
4. Engineering Discussions and Recommendations
4.1 General
The project involves the proposed design and construction of a single storey prefabricatedbuilding with no basement.
4.2 Building Construction
4.2.1 Foundation Considerations
Based on the results of the investigation, the use of spread and strip footings to support theproposed prefabricated building is considered feasible.
Footings founded on undisturbed native soils (compact silt sand / silt) below all topsoil,existing pavement structure, fill and; sofi audi or loose soils may be designed for thefollowing recommended bearing capacities:
• Bearing Capacity at Serviceability Limit State (SLS) = 75 kPa
• Factored Bearing Capacity at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) = 125 kPa
These bearing values are generally available at 0.8 m to 1.5 m below grades in Boreholes 1 to4 drilled in the area of the proposed building. Table I below show the highest elevations atthe borehole locations where the recommended bearing values can be applied.
Table 1: Highest Elevation at Borehole Locations whereRecommended Bearing Values can be applied
Proposed Prefabricated Building
Loose silty sand and sandy silt was encountered at a depth of about 1.5 m below grade atBorehole 4 location. To minimize the risk of overstressing the underlying soils, footing in thearea of Borehole 4 should be set as high as possible.
Borehole Founding Soil Spread and Strip FootingLocation 75 kPa at SLS
125 kPaatULS
Depth (m) Elevation (m)
1 Compact Silty Sand 0.8 99.20
2 Compact Silty Sand 1.2 98.80
3 Compact Silt 1.5 98.50
4 Compact Silty Sand 0.8 99.20
5
14 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frgeOO633a
4.2.1.1 Foundation General
New footings constructed immediately adjacent to the existing building should be founded atthe same level as the existing footings to eliminate underpinning requirements.
Where footings arc stepped, a maximum level difference of 600 mm should be maintained.
Footings which are to be placed on overburden at different elevations should be located suchthat the higher footings are set below a line drawn up at 10 horizontal to 7 vertical from thenear edge of the lower footing, as indicated on the following sketch:
l.ATh FilCHER flNG
FOOTINGS AT DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS
Footings should be stepped down below any loose soils, fill and or site services and placed oncompetent and approved subgrade.
MI footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions should be protected from frost action byat least 1.2 m of soil cover or equivalent insulation, depending on the final designrequirements.
The total and differential settlements of well designed and constructed footings placed onundisturbed native soils in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to beless than 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively.
The silty sand and silt deposits are vulnerable to inclement weather and construction traffic. Itis recommended that a mud slab be placed on the footing base excavation, immediate aftergeotechnical inspection and approval.
Prior to placement of structural concrete, all founding surfaces must be evaluated by
geotechnical personnel from Edward Wong & Associates Inc. to ensure that the founding
soils are similar to those identified in the boreholes and are capable of supporting the designsoil bearing pressure.
6
15 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frgeOO633a
4.3.2 Excavation and Groundwater Control
No major groundwater problems are anticipated during excavation at the Site. The excavationfor most parts is expected to be extended through the existing fill and terminated in upperlevel of the native deposits (silty sand and silt). Any seepage which may occur fromprecipitation or from water which may be perched in the existing fill or more peMous seamswithin glacial till can be controlled by pumping from temporary sumps. However, moredifficult conditions are anticipated during excavation in the wet silt and sandy silt deposits.
All construction works must conform to the latest edition of the Occupational Health andSafety Act (OHSA) and local regulations. With respect to the OHSA, the native soils belowthe water level are considered as Type 4 soils. The dewatered native soil, the fill, the compactsily sand! silt and loose sandy silt are considered as Type 3 soils. If an excavation containsmore than one soil type, trench and excavation slope geometry shall be governed by thehighest numbered soil
For guideline, side slopes of 1 vertical to I horizontal may be used for the temporaryexcavation anticipated, subject to geotechnical inspection during construction. Where loosesoil is encountered at shallow depth or within persistent seepage at depth, it may be necessaryto locally flatten the side slopes.
It should be noted that cobbles and boulders occur in glacial deposits. The presence ofboulders may influence the progress of excavation. Consequently, provisions should be madein the contract documents to cover any delays caused by boulder obstructions.
The exact locations and depths of the existing structures and services adjacent to theexcavation should be determined and a support system be implemented, if the structure orservices are within the zone of influence defined on the attached Drawing No. 2. It will benecessary to support existing services in the excavation, if any, where the excavation extendsbelow the existing services.
4.3.3 floor Slab Constmcton and Permanent Drainage
The floor slab may be poured as a slab-on-grade on prepared and approved subgrade.
Alt topsoil and obviously unsuitable materials should be removed from the entire floor areaThe exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy roller and examined by qualifiedgeotechnical personnel. My soft areas detected during the proof-rolling process should bedug out. The area can then be brought up to design subgmde level with approved on-site orimported materials.
The fill materials should be clean and inorganic soil with its moisture content close to itsoptimum moisture content determined in standard Proctor maximum thy density test. The fillmaterials should be placed in lifts not more than 200 mm thick in the loose state, each liftbeing compacted to at least 98 percent standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).
7
16 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto trgeOO633a
Ml backfihling and compaction operations should be monitored by qualified geotechnicalpersonnel to approve material, evaluate placement operations and ensure the specified degreeof compaction is achieved uniformly throughout the fill
A minimum 150 mm thick layer of 19 mm clear crushed stone (moisture barrier) isrecommended directly beneath the floor slab.
A coefficient of subgrade reaction of 24 MPa! m may be used for the slab-on-gradeconstructed as recommended as above.
If a moisture sensitive floor finish is to be provided, polyethylene sheeting should be used asa vapor barrier.
Within any unheated areas and entrances to service areas, adequate insulation should beprovided below the floor slab and adjacent perimeter walls to protect them against movementdue to frost heave.
Under-floor drains are generally not required for proposed prefabricated building withoutbasement. Perimeter wall drains can be eliminated if the floor slab is at least 300 mmabove the exterior grade. Drainage and backfill recommendations for slab-on-gradeconstruction are provided in Drawing No. 3.
Around the perimeter of the proposed prefabricated building, the ground surfaces should besloped away from the structures to promote surface water mn-off and reduce groundwaterinfiltration adjacent to the foundations.
4.3.4 Site Seismic Classifications
Based on the investigation results, the Site can be classified as “Class C” (soft soil) inaccordance with Table 4.1.8.4.A, OBC 2006.
The seismic hazard design values for Toronto area are shown on Table 2 below (Table 1.2,Design Data for Selected Location in Ontario, OBC 2006; Supplementary Standard SB-I):
Table 2: Seismic Hazard Design Values for Toronto Area
Sa (0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(l.0) Sa(2.0) PGA
L 0.26 0.13 0.065 0.015 0.l7g
PGA is the peak ground acceleration in unit of g. Sa (1) is the spectral acceleration.. T is theperiod in seconds.
Based on OBC Table 4.1 .&4B, an acceleration based site coefficient (Fa) value of I may beused.
S
17 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto bgeOOG33a
Based on OBC Table 4.l.8.4C, a velocity based site coefficient Wv) value of 1 may beapplied.
4.3.5 Backfill Considerations
Backfill used to satisl’ underfloor slab requirements, and service trenches, etc., should becompactible fill, i.e. clean inorganic soil with its moisture content close to its optimummoisture content determined in a Standard Proctor test.
The fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm and compacted to minimum98 percent standard Proctor maximum thy density.
Backfill should be placed simultaneously on both sides of the foundation walls. Heavycompactors, which generate large lateral stress, should be kept at a safe distance fromsubsurface walls to avoid structural damage.
All backfllling and compaction operations should be monitored by qualified geotechnicalpersonnel to approve material, evaluate placement operations and ensure the pecified degreeof compaction is achieved uniformly throughout the fill.
9
18 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
5. Environmental Testing
5.1 Gas Vapor Monitoring
Tests for the generation ofmethane gas and Total Organic Vapors (TOV) were carried out inall boreholes using a portable combustible gas tester, RKI Eagle multi-gas detector.
No methane was detected in any of the boreholes. Down-hole TOV readings were at non-detectable levels. No chemical odors or staining which may be indicative of contaminationwere noted in any of the samples.
5.2 Laboratory Testing Program
Two (2) selected soil samples were submitted to Maxxam Analytics in Mississauga forchemical analyses. The soil samples were analyzed for general and inorganic parameterslisted in the MOE’s Document entitled “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Useunder Part XV. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, dated April 2011.
These tests were carried out to provide a preliminary assessment of the environmental qualityof the soils at the site and to determine the disposal options for the excess soil materials.Sample locations and analytical data are listed in Table 3 below. The Certificates ofChemical Analyses are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3: Sample Locations and Analytical Data
Sample I.D. Location Sample Matrix Tested For
T06045 BH 2, 552 Fill General and Inorganic0.75 — 1.2 m depth Parameters
T06046 Bil 4, 553 Native General and Inorganic1.5 — 2.0 m depth Parameters
10
19 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
5.2.1 Comparison to the MOE Document entitled “Soil, Ground Water and SedimentStandards for Use under Part Xvi of the Environment Protection Act’
The analytical concentrations comply with the MOE Document Table I (Background SiteConditions) Residential! Parldandl histitutionali Industrial! Community/ Commercialproperty use criteria, with the following exception.
An Electricity Conductivity (EC) concentration of 2.1 mS/cm was recorded in the soil samplerecovered from Borehole 4. The measured EC concentration exceeded the MOE DocumentTable I “Residenflall Parkland! Institutional! Industrial! Commercial! Community” propertyuse criterion of 0.57 mS/cm for EC.
The EC parameter is associated with winter road salting activities. It should be noted that theelevated EC level is not considered to be harmful for human health, but could interferencewith the growth of certain species of plants and vegetation. Therefore, near surfaceplacement of these materials are not recommended for landscaping, parkiand or agriculturalpurposes. As such, elevated level of EC do not automatically preclude disposal atdevelopment Sites accepting clean fill.
Based on the above, excess soils generated from the subject Site may be disposed of at anyland based Sites in Ontario that are being developed for Residential! InstitutionaL Industrial!Commercial! Community land uses in the area where landscaping is not intended, subject toapproval from individual receiving Site authorities.
11
20 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Gait Course Service Yard, Toronto frge00633a
6. General Comments
The recommendations in this report have been based on the findings in the boreholes. Soilconditions may vary between and beyond the boreholes. Consequently, during the ifituredevelopment of the property, conditions not observed during this investigation may becomeapparent; should this occur, Edward Wong & Associates Inc. should be contacted to assessthe situation and additional testing and reporting may be required. Edward Wong &Associates Inc. has qualified personnel to provide assistance in regards to ffituregeotechnical and environmental issues related to this property.
The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers.Edward Wong & Associates Inc. should be retained for a general review of the final designand specifications to verit& that this report has been properly interpreted and implemented. Ifnot accorded the privilege of making this review, Edward Wong & Associates Inc. willassume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in the report.
We mist that this report is satisfactory for your purposes. Should you have any questions orcomments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Yours truly,
Edward Wang & Associates Inc.
Edward B.H. Wong, M. Eng. P. Eng.
Distribution: Client
EW trge00633a - georpt.
(2)
12
21 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto bgeOOG33a
Appendix ALogs of Borehole
22 of 66
Edward Wong &Associates Inc. BORING NUMBER I— 34 Marcelline Crescent PAGE 1 OF I
Toronto, Ontario, 112K 2W
CUEN C4y of Toronto PROJECT KAlE Service Yard Prefabricated Buildinq
PROJECT NUMBER trqeOO6S3a PROJECT LOCATiON Don Valley Soft Course, Toronto
DATE STARTED 10122113 COMPLETED 10122)13
DRILliNG CONTRACTOR Groundwork Dri*iiq
DRIWNG METHOD Solid Stem Auqers
LOGGED BY J.J. CHECKED BY E.W.
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION lOOm HOLE 51W 100mm
GROUJII) WATER LEVELS:
AT flUE OF DRILLING
AT END OF DMWNG._AnER DMWNG -
0
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
2Z is SPINVAWE‘. 20 40 60 60
&nE Pt MU IL
b a- zs*.D 20 48 60 SO
flF*eSCON1EW(%)fl
.. a_ 20 40 60 60
an SAND- brown, very moist, compact.
-becoming grey below —1.5 m depth
-encountered boulder at —2.4 m depth
r.Bottom of hole at 2.40 m.
‘7
S
C
0
4UIz0
I23 of 66
t Edward Wong&Associates Inc. BORING NUMBER 2SC 34 Marcelline CrescentToronto, Ontario, M2K 2W
CliENT C1vof Toronto PROJECT MAI SeMce Yard Prefabricated Buildina
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NUMBER trqeOOG33a PROJECT LOCATION Don Valley Golf Course, Toronto
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
V AT TIME OF DRILliNG 3.05 m / EIev 96.95 mCHECKED BY LW. TAT END OF DRILliNG 3,05 m I Dcv 96.95 m
DATE STARTED 10/22)13 COMPLETED 10/22/13DRI WHO CONTRACTOR Groundwork Onling
DRIWNO METHOD Solid Stem Augers
LOGGED BY Li.
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION lOOm HOLE SIZE 100mm
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
AFTER DRIlLING —
*>-rr-mc>0
0w
U
U)
rowz-J0<-J
mO0z
zwI—s
000.
SFTN VALUE
20 40 60 CC
IxC
HI. MU LI.
20 40 CC CCo RNES CQHNT (%) C
20 40 CC CC
SILTY SAND- brown, wry moist. compad.
-becoming wet below -1.5 m depth
SILT- trace clay, grey, wet corupad.
y
I
Bottom af hale at4.95 m.ICC
C4
40
C
a0
I
24 of 66
:c Edward Wong&Assoclates Inc. BORING NUMBER 3— 34 Marcelline Crescent
Toronto, Ontario, 142K 2W
ClIENT Cy of Toronto
PROJECT NUMBER troeOO633a
PROJECT NAMP SeMce Yard Prefabñted Baiq
PROJECT LOCA11ON Don Valley Golf Courw Toronto
PAGE 1 OF I
DATE STARTED 10122113 COMPLETED 10/22/13
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Grwndwoê DTflnq
DRILLING METHOD Solid Stem Aiswn
LOGGED BY J.J.
___________
GROUND E1.EVATION 100 m HOLE SIZE 100mm
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT ISlE OF DIUNG 3.05 m I EIev 96.95 m
TAT END OF DRILLING 3.05 m I Elev 96.95 mCHECKED BY E.W.
NOTES
__________________________ _______--
AFTER DNUJNG —
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
moist
Lowz-J
taO>Liz
zLu0-I-lisa
U0a-
SF1 N VM.LE
20 40 80 80PL MC Li.ISI
20 40 80
bE
_______
— DnNESCONTENTI%)D0 20 40 80 )
SILT- trace clay, grey, wet compact.
Bottom of hole at 4.95 m.
n
S00‘C0‘C
CU
zC
CL0C0-Jr
C.,
I10
25 of 66
S00‘C0
0
U,00
x
U,
ar
Edward Wong&Assocbtes Inc. BORING NUMBER 4— 34 Marcelline CrescentPAGE 1 OF 1Toronto, Ontario, M2K 2W
CLIENT City of Toronto PROJECT NAME Service Yard Prefabricated BuildinqPROJECT NUMBER trqeOO6aJa PROJECT LOCATION Don Valley Golf Count, Toronto
DATE STARTED 10122113 COMPLETED 10/22/13 GROUND ELEVA11ON 10Cm HOLE SIZE 100mmDRILLING CONTRACTOR Groundwoth Dulling GROUND WATER LEVELS:DRILUNG METHOD Solid Stem Augers VAT TffiE OF DRILLING 2.25 m / Elev 97.75 mLOGGED BY ii. CHECKED BY EW It AT END OF DWWNG 225 m I Elev 97.75 m
_________—
NOTES
_____________________________________
AFTER DRILLING —
8! SPTNVAtUEr
20 40 60rLU
th °- MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONo
0
PPAVEMENT STRUCTURE- —125mm of asphahic concrete
.._pver —125mm oF brown sand, trace silt, some gravel, very moisj,.
‘no>0Ott0wIt
cow2-i
LEO>02
SILlY SAND- occasional silt lumps, brown, very moist,compact.
ZtUi0_
00a a
t& MC LL1S1
20 40 60 60C FiNES CONTENT (%) C
20 40 60 60I
xx
AU
$5I
sS2
7HHI
2
3
4
SILT- trace day, some sand, mollet, brown, wet. compact.
1-T
-becoming looes below -Z3 m depth ss4
-: SANDY SILT- grey, wet. loose. 4.,
:-:J1ss.
— .
.
I4.
Bottom of hole at 4.95 m.
I
26 of 66
Proposed Prefabricated BuildingDon Valley Golf Course ServIce Yard, Toronto frge00633a
Appendix BCertificate of Chemical Analysis
27 of 66
rvi m
Your Project It. TRG EGO 633ASUWt COURSE. SERVICE YARDSite Location: DON VALLEY GOLFYour C.O.C. fr 20054
AfleMlon: Edwwd WonqEdward Wong & Assodales Inc34 Marteiline CresToronto, ONM2K 2W
Report Date: 2013/10/30
CER11FICATE OF ANflYSISMA)(XAM JOB I: 8310626ReceIved: 2013110)22. 14:43
Sample Matrix: SofiIt Samples Received: 2
Dale Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Asaymd Labacwy Method ReferenceHot Water Extractable Boron 2 2013110/25 2013110129 CAM SOP-00408 R153 Na Prot 2011Free (WAD) Cyanide 2 WA 2013110)25 CAM SOP-00457 Ontario MOE CN-E30l5Conductivity2 WA 2013110/28 CAM SOP-00414 MOE 158 £3138 ‘/2Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC (I) 2 2013110)26 2013110/26 CAM SOP-00436 EPA SW846-306011199Add ExIt-. Metals (aqua regla) by ICPMS 2 2013110/25 201311(1/28 CAM SOP-00447 EPA 6020Moisture2 WA 2013110/25 CAM SOP-00445 Rtarter,1 993pH CaCI2 EXTRACT 2 2013110126 2013110/28 CAM SOP-00413 SM 450014+ BSodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 2 2013110/22 2013110129 CAM SOP-00102 EPA 6010
• RPDs celailated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result In the apparent difference.• Results relate only to the items tested.
(1) Soils am reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise spedfled.
Encryption Key— Balbfli
30 Cd 2013 I 15&29 -OttoPlease dked all quesii,nAJ this Certificate of Analysis to yXJC Project Manager.
Gina Baybayan, Project ManagerEmail: GBaybayan©maxxam.caPhone# (905) 817-5766
Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use &the electronic signature and have the required signatcdeC, as per section510.2 of ISO/lEG 17025:2005(E). signing the reports. For Service Group specific ‘alidafion please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Total cever pages: 1
Page 1 of 8
%ekAwp AnrIyrIi nIwlalional corpo-alon aa ManI1 AnIyI Orb canpobeIIo Road Missaa, onNmUN as Tn (905) Bfl-5?UO Tca:-Ir 000-563-&161 r.1* lIDS) Oh-Sill wnwnsnx.r,1ca
28 of 66
Pvla
arn
Edw
ard
Won
g&
Ass
oci
ates
Inc
Max
xam
Job
It:83
1062
8C
lien
tP
roje
ct#:
TR
GE
OO
633A
Rep
ort
Dat
e:20
13/1
0/30
Sit
sL
ocat
ion:
DO
NV
AL
LE
YG
OL
F
O’R
EG15
3M
ETA
LS&
INO
RG
AN
ICS
PKG
(SO
IL)
Man
amID
jT
0604
5T
0604
6T
0604
6Sa
mpl
inp
Dat
e20
13/1
0/22
1201
3/10
/22
2013
110/
22U
nits
Cri
teda
AB
H2
882
j81
14.
583
8144
.883
abD
uo
RO
t.Q
CB
atch
Cal
cula
ted
Par
amet
ers
Sodi
umA
dsor
ptio
nR
atio
N/A
2.4
Ii29r
0,05
6I
N/A
IN
/AT3
3950
3sin
orga
nics
Chr
omIu
m(V
i)up
/n0.
66<0
.2<0
.2<0
.20.
234
0022
8C
ondu
ctiv
itym
S/cm
0.57
0.19
2.1
N/A
0.00
234
0071
3Fr
eeC
yani
deup
/p0.
051
<0.0
1<0
.01
N/A
0.01
3397
177
Moi
stur
e18
15N
/A1.
033
9874
3A
vaila
ble
(CaC
I2)
PHpH
.7,
497,
41N
/AN
/A34
0089
1M
etal
sH
otW
ater
Ext.
Bor
on(5
)up
/p0.
100.
10N
/A0.
050
3399
033
Add
Ext
ract
able
Ant
imon
y(S
b)up
/p1.
3<0
.20
<0.2
0N
/A0.
2033
9889
8A
ddE
xflc
tabl
eAss
enlc
(Aa)
up/p
182.
5<1
.0N
/A1.
033
9889
8A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Bar
ium
(Ba)
up/p
220
6544
N/A
0.50
3398
898
Add
Ext
ract
able
Berw
ilium
(Be)
up/p
2.5
022
0.24
N/A
0.20
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leB
oron
(B)
up/n
36<5
,0<5
.0N
/A5.
033
9889
8A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Cad
miu
m(C
d)up
/p1.
2<0
.10
<0.1
0N
/A0.
1033
9889
8A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Chr
omiu
m(C
r)up
/p70
9.5
9,8
N/A
1.0
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leC
obal
t(C
o)up
/p21
3,5
3,3
N/A
0.10
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leC
oppe
r(C
u)ug
/g92
7.2
7.4
N/A
0.50
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leLe
ad(P
b)up
/p12
05.
14.
3N
/A1.
033
9889
8A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Mol
ybde
num
(Mo)
jig
/p2
<0.5
0<0
,50
N/A
0.50
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leN
icke
l(N
I)up
/p82
7.8
6.6
N/A
0.50
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leSe
leni
um(S
e)up
/p1.
5<0
.50
‘0.5
0N
/A0.
5033
9889
8A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Silv
er(A
g)up
/p0.
5<0
.20
<0.2
0N
/A0.
2033
9889
8A
cId
Ext
ract
able
Thal
lium
ffl)
up/p
1<0
.050
<0.0
50N
/A0.
050
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leU
rani
um(U
)up
/p2.
50.
280.
33N
/A0.
050
3398
898
Aci
dE
xtra
ctab
leV
anad
ium
N)
up/p
8617
15N
/A5.
033
9689
8A
ddE
xtra
ctab
leZi
nc(Z
n)up
/p28
018
26N
/A5.
033
9889
6A
cid
Ext
ract
able
Mer
cury
(Hg)
up/p
0.27
0.08
4<0
.050
N/A
0,05
033
9889
8
N/A
=N
otA
pplic
able
RD
L=
lport
abie
Det
ectio
nLi
mit
OC
Bal
di=
Qua
lity
Con
trol
Bat
chC
riter
iaA:
Ont
ario
Rag
.15
3/04
(Am
ende
dA
prIl
15,
2011
)T
able
1:Fu
llD
epth
Bac
kgro
und
Site
Con
ditio
nSt
anda
rds
Soil
.R
idan
tlaV
Park
iand
/inst
itutlo
naU
lndu
stH
aVC
omm
erda
VC
omm
unity
Prop
erty
Use
Pag
e2
of6
Max
x&
iiA
naif
lics
Inte
rna)I
onal
Corp
ora
tion
0/a
Maxxarn
Arn
Iy
ti5740
Canpoball
ofl
ood,
Mts
lsaaig
a,
barrio
.L
r3N
an
Tat
:(0
05)
817-5
700
Toll
-Fre
e:
00
0-5
03
-62
60
Fax:
(00
5)
01
7-b
777
Ww
vm
axxw
tca
29 of 66
IAa
7<
5/a
m
Edw
ard
Won
g&
Ass
ocia
tes
Inc
Max
xam
Job
#:B
3106
28C
lient
Pro
ject
#:T
RG
EO
O63
3AR
epor
tD
ate:
2013
/10/
30SI
teL
ocat
ion:
DO
NV
AL
LE
YG
OL
F
Test
Sum
mar
y
Nan
amID
T06
045
Col
lect
ed20
1311
0/22
Sam
ple
IDB
H2,
552
Shi
pped
Mat
rix
Soil
Rec
eive
d20
13/1
0/22
Tes
tD
escr
ipti
onIn
stru
men
tati
onB
atch
Ext
ract
edA
naly
zed
Ana
lyst
Hot
Wta
rE
xtra
ctab
leB
oron
lOP
3399
033
2013
110/
2520
13/1
0/29
Azl
taFa
zael
lFr
ee(W
AD
)C
yani
deTE
CH
3397
177
N/A
2013
/10/
25X
uanh
onci
Olu
Con
dwU
vfty
CO
ND
3400
713
N/A
2013
/10/
28L
emen
eli
Mdi
sH
exav
3len
tC
hrom
ium
inSo
ilby
ICIC
/SPE
C34
0022
820
13/1
0/26
2013
110/
26Y
oqes
hPa
tel
Add
Edt
.M
etal
s(a
qua
regi
s)by
ICPM
SlO
P/M
S33
9869
820
13)1
0125
2013
/101
28Jo
hnB
owm
anM
olat
ueBA
L33
9874
3N
/A20
13/1
0/25
Thoa
l Tro
yan
Huy
nhpH
Cac
12EX
TRA
CT
3400
891
2013
110/
2820
13/1
0/28
Yoq
esh
Pato
lSo
diun
Ads
orpt
Ion
Rat
io(S
AR
)C
ALC
IMET
3395
035
2013
110/
2920
1311
0129
Aut
omat
edSt
atch
k
Mex
xam
IDT
0604
6C
olle
cted
2013
/101
22Sa
mpl
eID
8H4,
SS3
ShIp
ped
Mat
rix
Soil
Rec
eIve
d20
1311
0/22
Tes
tD
escr
Iptio
nin
stru
men
tatI
onB
atch
Ext
ract
edA
naly
zed
Ana
lyst
Hot
W&
ter
Ext
ract
able
Bor
onIC
P33
9903
320
1311
0/25
2013
110/
29A
zlta
Feza
eiI
Free
(WA
D)
Cya
nide
TEC
H33
9717
7N
/A20
13/1
0/25
Xue
nhon
gO
luC
ondu
ctiv
ityC
ON
D34
0071
3N
/A20
13/1
0/28
Lem
eneb
Add
isH
exav
alen
tC
hrom
ium
InSo
ilby
ICIC
/SPE
C34
0022
820
13/1
0/26
2013
/10/
26Y
oqes
hPa
tel
Aci
dEg
r.M
etal
s(a
qua
reqi
alby
ICPM
SIC
PIM
S33
9869
820
1311
0/25
2013
/10)
28Jo
hnB
owm
anM
oist
ure
BAt.
3398
743
N/A
2013
110/
25T
hoai
Tm
yen
Huy
nhpH
Ca0
12EX
TRA
CT
3400
891
201
3/10
/28
2013
/10/
28Y
oqes
hPa
tel
Sodi
umA
dsor
ptio
nR
atio
(SA
R)
CA
LCIM
ET33
9503
520
131
10/2
920
13/
10/2
9A
utom
ated
Stat
chk
Pag
e3
of8
Maxan,
An
al1
ticu
Inie
rnati
onal
Corp
ora
tion
a/a
Maxxam
Analy
tics
6740
Canpoholt
ofl
oat,
,M
isais
sauga,
On
tari
o.
L5N
as
Tot:
(905)0
17-5
700
To
ll-F
ree:
600-5
63-0
268
Fa,
(0051
017-5th
WW
W.n
IaX
Kafl
tCa
30 of 66
J
N
U-
NN
1
C
-
0>
odg
e
N
002
A
C
wo
CC
— S
“4 I,
ttta
N
a
i
C
SI
2
Ez
I
0
0,
0
pma
“4
C
2
2
0
m
-n
C
U
N
.2V
C8a—£2
E4
2C
a 0
2
0
F
eeS
00 E oE S
C
—
31 of 66
E
NNNU,LI
-002 2
C(Dw
EL8w<coØ> E S
Wa,
C C0 0 aCOC a, IJ
0 22aaC2! a
00ca_I , =
woö5 . a,-C -C NF I—
CNU,
4a
a, a,Q£6
S S aN
U’‘aa, a, a
UIa
In E° °Co
10o a,_4 a, C
0a a
C- fX a02 2(ft
taa- 2!
C
V0 0Naais
o00o -o -S
—U’ 4
EL£
E SC
6
It - 0do ca-
-0
3a, •6
\g a..2 0 0 —
99 2C ,
a[a
Iv a00 - ‘a
-stEE
a, = a, a,a C,,
32 of 66
F%Aa5
ia
m
Man
amJo
b#:
8310
628
Rep
ort
Dat
e:20
1311
0/30
Edw
ard
Won
g&
Ass
ocia
tes
Inc
Clie
ntPr
ojec
t#:
TRG
EOO
633A
Site
Loc
atio
n:D
ON
VA
LLEY
oar
WA
=N
dA
pplic
able
IWO
=R
ilativ
ePe
rcan
i Dif
fere
nce
QU
ALI
WA
SSU
RA
NC
ER
EPO
RT
Snik
edB
lank
Met
hod
Bla
nkR
PDD
CS
tand
ard
Doa
lical
ePa
ired
anal
ysis
ofa
sepa
rate
xrt
on
ofth
esa
me
sam
ple.
Use
dto
eval
uate
the
vari
ance
frith
em
easu
rem
ent
Mat
rixSp
ke:
Asa
mpl
eto
whi
cha
know
nw
To
tmi
ofth
een
aMe
&fr
ilere
siha
sbe
enad
ded.
Use
dIt
eval
uate
sam
ple
mat
rix[t
ader
ence
.C
CS
tarn
rd;
Asa
mpl
eof
know
nco
ncen
frad
onpr
epar
edby
anex
ienm
lag
ency
unde
rsu
frig
ent c
ondi
tions
.U
sed
asan
inde
pend
ent c
hock
ofm
etho
dac
ancy
.Sp
eed
Bis
nk:A
blan
km
atrix
sam
ple
tow
hidi
akn
own
amou
ntof
the
anal
Øe.
usu
ally
frtr
na
saain
dso
w,
has
been
adde
d.U
sed
toev
alua
tem
etho
dac
cura
cy.
Met
hod
Ban
kA
blan
km
atrix
a,nt
affi
frig
anre
agen
tsus
edin
the
mla
Mka
ipm
codu
re.
Use
dto
Iden
tify
labo
rato
ryco
ntam
inat
ion.
NC
(Mn
Splk
e): T
here
cove
ryin
the
mat
rixfle
was
notc
alcu
late
d.T
here
imiw
eth
ifer
enca
betw
een
the
conc
entr
atio
nin
the
pare
ntsa
mpl
ean
dth
esp
iked
amou
ntw
asro
tsuf
fide
ndy
sIgn
ifica
ntto
penn
ita
relia
ble
reco
vrny
calc
ulat
ion.
NC
(RP
DT
heR
PDw
asno
tcal
cula
ted.
The
leve
l of
enal
yte
dete
cted
intrw
pare
ntsa
mpl
ean
dIts
dupl
icat
ew
asro
tsu
ffid
endy
sign
ifica
ntto
perm
ita
relia
ble
calc
ulat
ion.
(1)-
Rec
oser
yor
RPD
fart
Ns
para
met
erIs
outs
ide
cont
rol
Imits
, The
met
alqu
ality
cont
rol
forI
Ns
anal
ysis
mee
tsac
cept
abIl
Ity
crite
ria.
(2)-
The
natr
ixsp
ike
reco
very
was
belo
wtrw
low
erco
ntr
ol
Dm11
. Thi
sm
aybe
due
inpa
rtto
the
redu
cIng
envi
ronm
ent o
fth
esa
mpl
e.
Pag
e6
of8
Mat
rix
Bol
keQ
CB
atch
Par
amet
erD
ate
V.R
ecov
ery
CC
Lim
Its
%R
ecov
ery
CC
Lim
itsV
alue
Uni
tsV
alue
(%)
CC
Lim
Its
V.R
ecov
ery
CC
Lim
its33
9717
7F
reec
yani
de20
1111
0125
0375
-125
9680
-120
<0.0
1oW
nN
C35
3398
743
MoI
stur
e20
1111
0125
8.7
2033
9889
8d
dE
xU
ttb
1eM
tlrn
on
y(S
b)
2013
/10/
2810
275
-125
108
80-1
20<0
.20
uo/g
NC
3033
9889
6eA
nen
lcfA
e)
2013
/102
899
75.1
25
9980
-120
<1.0
g/g
5.1
3033
9689
8A
ddE
xtra
ctab
loB
arlu
cn(B
e)20
1111
0/28
NC
75-1
2596
80-1
20<0
.50
uWg
02
3033
9889
8ci
dExt
mda
bleB
ervl
tum
fBe)
2013
/101
2810
275
-125
WI
80-1
20<
020
ida
NC
3033
9689
8lc
ldE
xtnd
able
Bor
onfB
)20
13/1
0128
9375
-125
9480
-120
<Sfl
OW
nN
C30
3398
898
tddE
,Ira
ctab
leC
adm
lim
ilC
d)20
13/1
0/28
103
75-1
2510
480
-120
<0.1
0oW
nN
C30
3398
698
koId
Ext
raaa
blaC
tsom
k,m
(Cr
2011
1101
2810
175
-125
9880
-120
<1.0
tiara
42
3033
9889
8kd
dtxl
ract
able
Cob
altl
Co)
2013
/10/
2810
575
-125
102
80-1
20<0
.10
uofo
7.0
3033
9689
8kd
dExt
ract
able
Cop
perl
cu)
2011
1101
28N
C75
-125
100
80-1
20<0
.50
infg
2.6
3033
9969
8d
dE
Are
ctab
lete
sd(P
b)
2013
/10/
2810
375
-125
104
80-1
20<1
.0ua
’p1.
730
3396
890
Add
E4r
adab
leM
dybd
enum
(Mol
2013
110/
2810
575
-125
103
80-1
20<0
.50
ugtg
NC
3033
9889
8kd
dExf
rect
eble
Nlc
kel(
Nl)
2013
/101
28N
C75
-125
102
80-1
20<0
.50
up/p
4.8
3033
9089
8kd
dExt
mct
able
Sel
enlu
m(S
el20
1311
0128
100
75-1
2510
280
-120
<05
0up
/pN
C30
3398
898
kddE
Ara
dnble
Sll
ver
fAp)
2013
/101
2810
475
-125
104
80-1
20<
020
up/p
NC
3033
9889
8W
dExt
ract
able
Tha
ilk,m
fTt)
2013
/10/
2892
75-1
2583
80-1
20
<0.
050
flo
NC
3033
9689
8d
dE
xfl
dab
leU
ran
km
,W)
2013
/101
2694
75-1
2592
80-1
20<0
.050
up/p
GA
3033
9889
8‘d
dExt
mda
bleV
enad
lum
M20
1311
0128
103
75-1
2598
80-1
20<5
.0up
/aN
C30
3398
898
ddE
xtm
ctsb
leZ
kict
Zn)
2013
/101
28N
C75
-125
102
80-1
20<5
.0rig
/p1.
330
3398
898
kddE
xtrs
dabl
eKte
rcur
yft4
o)20
13/1
028
116
75-1
2579th
80-1
20<
0050
up/p
NC
3033
9903
3K
ctW
aler
Ext
flom
nlB
)20
13/1
0126
9775
-125
107
75-1
25<0
.050
i.nla
NC
3534
0022
0C
Nom
lLzn
lVl)
2013
1101
2643
t,,si
75-1
2595
80-1
20<
02at
QN
C35
8375
-125
3400
713
Con
duct
ivIty
2013
/101
281%
90-1
10<0
.002
mS/
cm0
10
Max
xw
nA
nal/
tics
Inie
rnalt
onal
crporal.
on
ala
ManM
nA
mly
tla
6740
Canpobell
oR
oad.
Mls
sis
saig
a.
On
twio
LE
Nas
to
t(0
05
)817-6100
Tall
-Fre
er
80
0-5
63
-6
26
0F
ax:
(00
5)
817-5777
wW
Wflt
axxaT
l.C
a
33 of 66
NVC,VV
00V
CL
00C’Ci0
Cl2
Ci000
0I.a, - -
Claa
-— 0I—Z .2 iso——
-‘- aa tO a -
Cr— m
C-
32o 2
•=.S--
V— 00
—
2
I‘.0
I-E- t,
—•ELx.L
.2 .2SS
It
I Ii Ilç3—•
2 ci
34 of 66
INVO
ICE
INFO
RMAT
iON
Cunp
awL
’uA
dfr
qer
.3P
MQ
CC
tV,n
eC
rtc14
__
____-
p:t
’7b%
Z8
Faz%
Izz
I-o?
tL5
Reg
ulat
ion
153(
2011
)O
ther
Reg
ulat
ions
4k4
Rn
?%IA
e?.n
e5.
,tarj
Smee
6iaw
Iat)e
2bt
toi,
tnC
ease
536
SlaI
nSa
Wer
B4a*
Taut
3A9
&OUm
zFo
rR5C
___
__
__
154*
flvn
i—f
jun
.r
(tpeo
ty):
PLEA
SEPR
OVID
EAD
VANC
ENO
TICE
FOR
RUSH
PRO
JEC
TS.
Re7
Aar
pdsr
d)T
hT:
(gr
wv,W
igda
ysFo
r mos
tIes
ls)
Rus
hTA
T:“‘
Sam
ples
mus
tbe
,ere
edbe
3pm
togu
asai
ee5m
gTA
T
Rush
Con
lmni
atL
PN
fliu
ay
2dm
03d3y5
Dal
elle
q’d:
MY
,b’c
wtn
,tu
ftat
•S
eatbue
coK
1ax
Mec
aM
aiae
r,ft
’&tS
ft/ia
6740
Co
belo
Road
.ki
ssis
ssjg
a.ON
LSN
218
Gin
ailn
yhav
en/
Pn9O
581?-
57W
Fax:
0058
17.5
779
Tc
Free80
01S3
-676
6ITh
IlIhIFH
UIH
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_
B310
628
compan
yNam
e:____________
NPZ
ENV.
622
_________
Mn
___
22-O
ct-13
14’13
REPO
RTIN
FORM
ATIO
N(P
diN
e,
CHAI
NOF
CUST
ODY
RECO
RD
2005
4Pa
qeci
ORM
ATIO
NM
AXXA
MJO
BNU
MBE
R
Noic
Fe.W
IlER
eØ.h
dDth
N)i
Via
smjle
s.$aa
turnN
Ddnk
i ig
Wfl
rti
lt.’
”
Rcn
e:
__________
Fax:
______________________
nat
Ptcj
ect#
cot’
(j3c
c.R
tI-
ca4o
nOc
tI4’
1_4f
jfSi
te4’
SaT
I1.d
Br_
_______
AN
A1Y
SRE
QU
ESTE
Dpl
ease
beee
dfie
)I
CHAI
NO
fCU
STOD
YS
00
WR
NIR
OU
ND
liME
(MU
REQ
UIR
ED
2 t S I 3 0I 0 C ‘U
“S [2 t It 0 0 a C
incl
ude
Crite
riaon
Cer
tific
ate
ofA
naly
sis
(Y11
4?
Sle
Idei
TI
[late
rime
Mat
team
p 552
bc.nz
3Q
.rl
51:1
2 3L
Q1t
se’
ICl
Coo
t
/
5; a: a
COM
JAEN
[SI
TAT
COM
MEN
tS
G.j
cL1
ii-
*1
19
&IE
OO
Y(
-rn
*oec
mvaw
rnmjnw
CE
!D6Y
Sls
aLaP
tio4
Jiat
e(fl
fVV
flM
&tO
)T
n:
IJA
RSU
SED
AN
Dla
ailx
yuse
Ontg
tCt1
1,
ft\
i3aD
i22
—ic
ilNO
TSUB
MIT
TED
ody1
Feaç
erM
ure
qo
nH
eco
et
IP.
esen
tA
Ir
-
—r
Inta
ct‘M
ANDA
TORY
SECT
iON
SIN
GREY
MUS
TBE
FILL
EDóÜ
t AN
INCO
MPL
ETE
CHAI
NO
FCU
PSQ
O$
MM
’RE
SULT
INAN
ALYT
ICAL
TAT
DELA
YS.
-°‘
&F
l’,
‘J.
4,i4
4n
IL,,, m
rV,
LI,
Maxxufl
An
alj
tica
lnlo
rnao
on
at
corp
ora
llon
c/a
Ma,e
xan
iA
naty
lIs
6740
Can
po
bo
I(o
floac,
Mis
ala
saig
a,
Onta
rio,
15Na
reP
:(0
05
)8
17
-5700
To
Il-F
ree:
80
0-5
03
-02
60
Fax.
(005)017-5777
ww
vis
nxatf
l-C
a
35 of 66
Proposed Prefabñcatad BuildingDon Valley Golf Course Service Yard, Toronto frgeOO6S3a
DrawingsBorehole Location Plan
Guideline for Underpinning in SoilDrainage and Backfill Recommendations
for Slab-on-Grade Construction
36 of 66
-Sc‘owL
C tOCtcj C-f’
£
cCCo4J0)UL C
CC?
tO tfl 0LOU
LCC4 Oj
0 C —.
CICO
ci 4S -aCuw-an
£Cw— a.
C,zC)
D
\
I
\
\ \\
\\)
/
I
//
I/
II
/ wL.J
C” 0 L
ctj
V
37 of 66
Project: frgeOO633a Drawing No. 2
2N’
N’
___
1 TIGHTLY BRACED/TIED1 4-EXCAVA11ONWALL
A1 \ B
‘S /N. \ BASE OF EXCAVATIONC/‘\:N / 4
O.Bm
Zone A Foundations located within this zone normally requireunderpinning. Horizontal and vertical pressures on theexcavation wall of non underpinned foundations mustbe considered
Zone B Foundations located within this zone normally do notrequire underpinning. Horizontal and vertical pressureson the excavation wall of non underpinned foundationsmust be considered
Zone C Underpinning to structures is normally founded in thiszone. l_ateml pressure from underpinning is not normaflyconsidered
(Figure 27.16 from Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 3” Edition)
Guidelines for Underpinning in Soil
38 of 66
Project: TrgeOO633a Drawing No.3
Exterior Grade (10)Bhnding (6)
Moisture Barrier U)
Subgrade
Interior Backfill (5,6)
1. Drainage tile to consist of 100 mm (4”) diameter weeping tile or equivalent perforatedpipe leading to a positive sump or outlet. Invert to be a minimum of 150 mm (6”) belowunderside of floor slab.
2. Pea gravel - 150 mm (6”) top and side of drain. If drain is not on footing, place 100 mm(4 inches) of pea gravel below drain. 20 mm (3/4”) clear stone is an alternative providedit is surrounded by an approved porous plastic membrane (Terrafix 270R or equivalent).
3. G.S.A. fine concrete aggregate to act as filter materiaL Minimum 300 mm (12”) top andside of tile drain. This may be replaced by an approved porous plastic membrane asindicated in (2).
4. Impermeable backfill seal - compacted clay, dayey sift or equivalent. If original soil isfree-draining, seal may be omitted.
5. The interior fill may be any clean non-organic soil which can be compacted to thespecified density in this confined space.
6. Do not use heavy compaction equipment within 450 mm (18”) of the wall, Do not fill orcompact within 1.8 m (6’) of the wall unless fill is placed on both sides simultaneously.
7. Moisture barrier to be at least 200 mm (8”) of compacted dear 20 mm (314”) stone orequivalent free draining material.
8. If the 20 mm (3/4”) stone requires surface blinding, use 6 mm (1/4”) stone chips.9. Slab on grade should not be structurally connected to the wall or footing.
10. Exterior grade to slope away from building.
DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONSFOR SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTiON
(not to scale)
Note:This system is not normally required if the floor slab is at least 300 m (1’) above the exterior grade.
Impermeable Seal (4,6)Slab on grade (9)
c.SA fine
Pea Gravel (2)
Drainage Tile (1)
Notes
Exterior Footing
39 of 66
40 of 66
GolderwAssociates
November 30, 2016 Project No. 1544818 (13000)
Mr Mark GoulartSenior Project CoordinatorCity of TorontoParks, Forestry & RecreationParks Development & Capital ProjectsEtobicoke Civic Centre399 The West MallMain Floor, North BlockToronto, ON M9C 2Y2
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONNEW SERVICE BUILDING AT DON VALLEY GOLF COURSE, 4070 YONGE STREET, TORONTO, ONTARIO
Dear Mr Goulart;
Colder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by the City of Toronto (“the City”) to provide geotechnical
engineering services in support of the proposed construction of a new prefabricated service building at the Don
Valley Golf Course. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Yonge Street and Wilson Avenue in North
York, Toronto, Ontario. The terms of reference and scope of work for this project are outlined in Golder’s proposal
dated August 30, 2016. Authorization to proceed with this investigation was received by email from Mr. Mark
Goulart, Senior Project Coordinator with the City, on September 7, 2016 (CRO#901 9005) and this project is being
executed under the blanket contract number 47019624 with the City.
The purpose of the investigation was to assess the general subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site
by means of a limited number of boreholes and laboratory tests. Based on an interpretation of the factual
information available for this site, a general description of the subsurface conditions at the locations of the
proposed building is presented. The interpreted subsurface conditions and available project details were used to
prepare engineering recommendations for the geotechnical design aspects of the project, including construction
considerations which could influence design decisions.
The factual data, interpretations and recommendations contained in this report pertain to a specific project as
described in the report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. If the project is modified in
concept, location or elevation, or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report,
Colder should be given an opportunity to confirm that the recommendations are still valid.
This document should be read in conjunction with the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report”,
following the text of this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information, as it is essential for
the proper use and interpretation of this document.
Our professional services for this assignment address only the geotechnical (physical) aspects of the subsurface
conditions at this site. Ceo-environmental (chemical) and hydrogeological aspects of the project, including
consequences of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of
the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources, are not addressed
herein.
Solder Associates Ltd.140 Renfrew Oriee, Stale 200 Marltham, Ontano, Canada L3R 603Tel +1 )905) 476 5691 Fax. + 1 )905) 475 5267 vrttw.goider corn
Colder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Auslralaa[a, EtIrolte, North America and South America
Colder. Colder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarics of Colder Assooates Corporation.
41 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulal 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator — November 30, 2016
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 78 Wilson Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Yonge Street inToronto. Ontario as shown on Figure 1 (attached). The site is occupied by the existing single storey slab-on-gradeservice building laid out in an east to west direction, Adjacent to the east end of the existing service building is arecently built single storey slab on grade storage building, as shown on Figure 2 (attached). An access road leadingto Yonge Street is located on the north side of the existing service building. The area immediately south of theexisting service building is an asphalt paved area used for parking and access and the remainder of the site isoccupied by a garage and fuel storage tanks located on the south side of the site. The site is located at the top ofthe east bank of Don River West Branch.
At the time of writing this report only preliminary information related to the proposed new construction wasavailable. Based on our conversation with Bill Lobb Architect, the west portion of the one storey brick building hasnotable signs of distress. A previous geotechnical investigation (not provided) suggests that the west portion ofthe building is supported on timber cribbing. It is further understood that the existing building will be demolishedand a new pre-fabricated one storey slab-on-grade building (tilt-up construction) will be constructed.
We understand that the foundations of the existing adjacent storage building consist of shallow conventionalspread/strip footings.
2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The surf icial geology aspects of the general site area are presented in the following publication:
Chapman, L. J., and Putnam, D.F., 2007, “The Physiography of Southern Ontado Ontario GeologicalSurvey.
Physiographic mapping in the area according to the above noted reference indicates that the site lies within thephysiographic region known as the South Slope. The surficial geology mapping indicates that the site is within anarea of modern alluvial deposits consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel and may contain organic remains. The resultsof this investigation are generally consistent with the physiographic mapping.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field work for this subsurface investigation was carried out on October 18, 2016, at which time five horeholes(BH16-1 to BH16-5) were advanced at the locations shown on the Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2. The boreholeswere advanced to depths of about 6.6 m to 8.1 m below the existing ground surface.
The boreholes were drilled using a standard drill rig outfitted with 110 mm diameter solid stems augers suppliedand operated by Geotech Support Services Inc. of Markham, Ontario. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) andsampling were carried out at regular intervals of depth in the boreholes using conventional 38 mm internal diametersplit spoon sampling equipment driven by an automatic hammer in general accordance with the SPT proceduresoutlined in ASTM Dl 586. The results of the in situ field tests (i.e.. SPT “N”-values) as presented on the Record ofBorehole sheets and in subsequent sections of this report are uncorrected.
The groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling. Two 19mm diameter PVCpiezometers were installed in BH16-1 and BH1 6-3 to allow further groundwater level monitoring. A sand filter packsurrounds the screen in the piezometer and above the screen the borehole and annulus surrounding the PVC pipewere backfilled to the ground surface with bentonite pellets. The remaining boreholes were backfilled uponcompletion in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 (as amended).
Prior to drilling, the borehole locations were marked in the field by Golder personnel. The field work for thisinvestigation was monitored by a member of our geotechnical staff, who arranged for the clearance of underground
‘GoIder218 .‘Associates
42 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulart 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinalor November 30, 2016
services, observed the drilling, sampling and in situ testing operations, and logged the boreholes. The soil samples
obtained during this investigation were identified in the field! placed in appropriate containers! labelled and
transported to our Markham laboratory for further detailed visual examination by the project engineer, water
content and classification testing.
The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were derived from a topographic survey AutoCAD drawing
for the site provided by Bill Lobb Architect by email on November 3,2016! and the elevations should be considered
to be approximate. It is understood thatthe elevations shown on the topographic survey drawing are referenced
to Geodetic datum.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes are shown in detail on the Record
of Borehole sheets attached. Grain size distribution curves for selected soil samples are attached. Method of Soil
Classification and Symbols and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits are provided to assist in the
interpretation of the borehole logs.
It should be noted that the stratigraphic boundaries shown on the Record of Borehole sheets have been inferred
from non-continuous sampling, observations of drilling progress and the results of Standard Penetration Testing.
They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another and should not be inferred to represent an exact
plane of geological change. Further! conditions will vary between and beyond the boreholes. The following is a
summarized general description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes advanced during this
site investigation.
4.1 Summary of Subsoil Conditions
The subsurface conditions consist of asphalt or topsoil overlying loose to compact non-cohesive fill. The fill deposit
is underlain by deposits of loose to dense clayey silt! sandy silt and silt encountered at depths ranging from about
2.4 m to 4.0 m below the existing ground surface. The following table provides additional details of the subsurface
conditions encountered:
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Depth (m) Natural
Soil Type SPT “N”-valuesConsistency Water
IState ContentFrom To (%)
Sandy Silt, SiltySand! Sand and 4 to 24 blows per Very loose to
3 to 43Fill Gravel! Sand! 0.2 to 0.3 2.4 to 4.0 0.3 m of penetration1 compactGravelly Sand,
Clayey_Silt
Native Sandy Silt! Silt! 6 to 31 blows per Loose to 16 to 282.4to4.0 6.62to8.12Soil Clayey Silt 0.3 en of penetration compact
Notes:
I One SPT !!Nvalue measured in the fill in Borehole 1 was 51 blows per 0.3 m of penetration but was likely
caused by a brick obstruction.
2. Borehole termination depth.
4.2 Groundwater Levels
Groundwater level measurements in the piezometers taken on November 4, 2016! indicate groundwater levels at
the depths of 3.5 m and 3.8 m in BH16-1 and BH16-3, respectively. It should be noted that the groundwater
*Gthfr3/8 Associates43 of 66
Mr Mark Goularl 1544818(13000)Senior Project Coordinator November 30. 2016
measurements reflect the groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes at the time of the field work inOctober and November. 2016. Groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variationsin precipitation and snowmelt.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Foundation Design
Based the subsurface conditions encountered and discussions with the architect, the following foundation optionsmay be considered:
Conventional shallow strip/spread footings founded on engineered fill; or
Use of helical piles.
5.1.1 Footings in Engineered Fill
The existing fill materials are not considered suitable to support the foundations of the proposed new building.Consideration may be given to supporting conventional spread or strip footings bearing on engineered fill at aminimum depth of 1.2 m below the existing ground surface. The existing fill materials extending to depths of 2.4 mto 4.0 m will have to be removed and replaced with engineered fill.
If removal of the existing fill and replacing with engineered fill is considered feasible or practical, Golder can providebearing capacity recommendations for the conventional shallow strip/spread footing founded in engineered fill.
5.1.2 Helical Piles
If removal of the existing fill materials is not considered feasible, consideration may be given to supporting thefoundation on helical piles founded in the native silt to sandy silt deposits underlying the fill.
Typically, helical piles are considered a proprietary foundation system due to variability in the use of pile materialsand installation methods. Therefore, the detailed design and verification of the installed capacity of helical piles isthe responsibility of the proprietary foundation system designer/installer. The helical piers can generally beinstalled using portable equipment.
Helical piers would be augered into the ground, advanced through the fill and founded in the native deposits belowthe frost depth. The installation should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the piles arefounded in the native deposits and installed according to the project specifications. The pile contractor should bemade aware that the existing fill contains brick fragments and potentially other obstructions which could affect theinstallation of the piles.
5.2 Floor SlabDue to the variability of the existing fill materials and based on information provided which indicates that the existingslab is settling, we recommend that the existing fill be removed from the building footprint under the floor slab,which would require excavation up to about 4 m below ground surface on the west side and 2.6 mon the east sideof the existing building. Excavation to this depth would also require active dewatering to ensure that thegroundwater table is lowered to about 1 ‘n below the base of the excavation prior to placement of engineered fill.The existing fill material is not considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill based on the borehole information.However, during excavation of the existing fill, a further evaluation of the existing fill can be carried out andapproved excavated fill material which is free of organics and other deleterious materials may be reused as backfillfor supporting the floor slab, subject to geotechnical inspection during construction. The geotechnical engineermust approve the exposed base of the excavation prior to backfilling.
Gohier4/8 ‘Associates
44 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulart 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
Alternatively, if removal of all of the existing fill within the building footprint is not feasible or practical the new slab
can be designed as a structural slab. To reduce the likelihood of cracking of the structural slab, the upper 1 m of
the existing fill can be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After subexcavation to a depth of about 1 m, the
existing exposed fill area should then be proofrolled with a heavy vibratory compactor and inspected by Golder, to
confirm that the exposed fills are generally competent! and have been adequately cleaned of ponded water and
disturbed, loosened, softened materials or poorly performing zones. Remedial work during construction
(i.e. further sub-excavation) should be carried out as directed by Golder to remove any large or unsuitable debris
that could impact proofrolling/compaction operations. In general! the fill can be left in place below a depth of 1 m,
unless pockets/areas are worse than what was encountered in our boreholes. Given the length of time the fill has
been in place and the variability of its composition, additional sub-excavation below 1 m depth in some areas
should be expected and prepared for in the contract.
The base of the excavation below the proposed slab, Granular ‘A’ base and engineered fill should extend a
minimum distance out from the edge of the building footprint equal to the depth of the excavated fill, or 1.2 m,
whichever is greater.
Imported non-frost susceptible granular fill which conforms to OPSS.PROV (Aggregates) 1010 Select Subgrade
Material (SSM) can be used as engineered fill. The final lift directly beneath the floor slabs should consist of a
minimum of 150 mm of OPSS.PROV (Aggregates) 1010 Granular ‘A’ material, uniformly compacted to at least
100 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. This should provide a modulus of subgrade reaction of
approximately 20 MPa/m. Imported materials used for engineered fill must be approved by Golder at the source(s),
prior to hauling to the site. The water content of the materials for use as engineered fill must be within the range
of no less than 2% and no greater than 1% of the optimum moisture content for compaction. In any event, the
approved materials for engineered fill should be placed in maximum 200 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted
to at least 100% of the SPMDD throughout. Removal of the existing fill and placement of compacted engineered
fill must be carried out under full time monitoring by the geotechnical engineer. The final surface of the engineered
fill and granqlar/bedding layers should be protected as necessary from construction activities and freezing weather.
5.3 Excavations and Temporary Support
Excavation will be required during the removal of the existing fill. Excavation to the depths of 1 m to 4 m below
the existing ground surface will encounter loose to compact non-cohesive fill. It is anticipated that excavation can
be carried out using conventional hydraulic excavating equipment with the excavations likely consisting of
conventional temporary open cuts.
Groundwater control measures in the excavation which do not extend below the groundwater level can likely be
handled by conventional pumping from sumps located within the excavations. However, should seasonal
conditions result in higher water levels, groundwater seepage into the excavation should be expected. Excavation
below the groundwater level will require active dewatering to ensure that the groundwater table is lowered to about
1 m below the base of the excavation. Refe to Section 4.2 and the Record of Borehole sheets attached for
groundwater level measurements. An accurate prediction of the groundwater pumping volumes cannot be made
at this time, as the flow rate would be dependent on construction methods adopted by the contractor. An
application under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change should be submitted in the event that the pumping volumes exceed 50,000 Uday. Under the
EASR, a Permit to Take Water is not required for water taking for construction site dewatering for volumes less
than 400,000 Uday.
The existing generally loose to compact fill to be excavated as described above may generally be classified as
Type 3 soils according to the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations for Construction Projects and all
Golder5/8 rLd’Assaciates
45 of 66
Mr Mark Goulart 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30. 2016
excavations through these soils should be sloped no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical above the groundwaterlevel and 3 horizontal to 1 vertical below the groundwater level.
However, depending upon the construction procedures adopted by the contractor, actual groundwater seepageconditions, the success of the contractor’s groundwater control methods (if required) and weather conditions at thetime of construction, some flattening and/or blanketing of the slopes may be required. Care should be taken todirect surface runoff away from the open excavations and all excavations should be carried out in accordance withthe Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects.
Where the side slopes of excavations are required to be steepened to limit the extent of the excavation, some formof excavation support will be required (e.g.. soldier pile and lagging or steel sheet piles). The shoring method(s)selected to support the excavation must take into account the soil stratigraphy, the groundwater conditions, themethods adopted to control the groundwater, effects of weather and the ground movements associated with theshoring system and their impact on adjacent structures and utilities. The shoring systems may require bracingand/or support such as struts. The excavation support system should be designed to resist lateral earth pressuresof the soils, hydrostatic pressures and any surcharges while limiting ground movements to tolerable levels. Ifshoring is implemented at the site, the requirements of OPSS.PROV 539 should be followed and the systemshould be designed by a Professional Engineer including assessment of the potential for basal heave. It is acommon practice for a specialist contractor to design and install the excavation support system.
Temporary excavation support may be required to protect the adjacent utilities or foundations from disturbanceduring construction, depending on the depth and location of the utilities/foundations relative to the excavation. The
existing structures or utilities can be protected by bracing the sides of the excavation or by underpinning theexisting structure.
5.4 Seismic Consideration
The Ontario Building Code contains seismic analysis and design methodology. The seismic site classificationmethodology outlined in the OBC is based on the subsurface conditions within the upper 30 m below grade. Twomethods of defining the site class are presented in the following sections for the proposed development: aconservative approach based on shallow boreholes (i.e., boreholes less than 30 m in depth) with using localgeological/physiographical experience; and a method based on geophysical testing in accordance with the Section4.1.8.4 of the QBC.
It has been our experience that depending on the structural design requirements for structures that fall under theOBC jurisdiction, significant structural design and construction costs are frequently associated with the seismicdesign aspects. Significant cost savings may, therefore, be realized by adopting a more accurate site classificationmethod which can only be determined based on actual physical testing extending to a depth of at least 30 m belowthe ground surface. As such, we recommend that the methodology for the seismic testing of the site soils beselected in conjunction with discussions with the structural engineer for the project.
5.4.1 Conservative Approach
The conservative site classification is based on physical borehole information obtained at depths of less than 30 mand based on general knowledge of the local geology and physiography. Based on the results of our boreholes,the underlying soil conditions at the site generally consist of loose to compact flll overlying loose to dense sandysilt to silt. Based on the borehole information and our local experience, a preliminary Site Class E may be usedfor the building design.
5.4.2 Geophysical Method
To determine the actual site classification based on physical on-site measurements of shear wave velocity asrequired by OBC 2006, the Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) can be utilized. Should it be required
I :n Golder6/8 WAssociates
46 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulad 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
by the structural engineer to optimize the Site Class for the development, MASW testing should be carried out at
the site.
5.5 Exterior Flatwork
It is understood that exterior concrete flatwork such as sidewalks may be required. The subgrade for exterior
concrete fiatwork should be inspected during construction to determine if it is capable of supporting the proposed
loads and to identify soft zones and areas of unsuitable subgrade soil. Therefore, during construction, the prepared
subgrade should be proofrolled in conjunction with an inspection by Colder. Remedial work shquld be carried out
on any softened, disturbed, wet or poorly performing zones as directed by Colder. Any low areas may then be
brought up to within at least 150 millimetres of the underside of the walkway slab, as required, using OPSS
Granular B, Type I or other approved non-frost susceptible material, placed in maximum 200 millimetres loose lifts
and uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).
The final lift of granular fill beneath concrete flatwork should consist of a minimum thickness of 150 millimetres of
OPSS Granular A, uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of SPMDD. Any filling operations should be
monitored and tested by Colder.
5.6 General Considerations
All exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be provided with at least 1.2 m of cover after final
grading, in order to minimize the potential for damage due to frost action.
Excavations for the proposed building must not encroach onto the zones of influence of any existing footings. The
zone of influence of a footing can be defined as any line drawn from the underside edge of the footing down and
away at 45° angles to the horizontal. Should there be any doubt regarding the potential for undermining the zone
of influence of any existing footings or structures by the proposed footings, Colder should be consulted to resolve
the conflict.
5.7 Testing and Inspection
During construction, foundation inspections, subgrade inspections and in-situ materials testing should be carried
out on site in order to confirm that the conditions exposed, are consistent with those encountered in the boreholes
and to monitor conformance to pertinent project specifications.
Colder7/8 Associates47 of 66
Mr. Mark Goularl 1544818 (13000)Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
6.0 CLOSURE
We trust that this geotechnical information is sufficient for your current requirements. Should you have furtherquestions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Yours Truly.
Golder Associates Ltd.
Rafael Abdulla, M.Eng., P.Eng., PMP Sarah EM. Poot, P.Eng.Geotechnical Engineer Associate, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RNSEMP/ra lab
Attachments:Attachment A — Figures 1 and 2 Site Location Plan and Borehole Location PlanAttachment B — Method of Soil ClassificationAbbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits,List of SymbolsRecord of Borehole Sheets: BH16-1 to BH16-5Attachment C — Figures 3 and 4: Geotechnical Laboratory FiguresAttachment D — Important Information and Limitations of This Report
n:active\205i3 eroill 543816 crtyoftoronto geo.t&i parks to\p513000.donvalley golf. geoitepofls\15148 I 8 130001 cot don valley go gao let 2016’l 130 doca
:tGolder8/8 Associates
48 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulad 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
Attachment AFigures 1 and 2 Site Location Plan and Borehole Location Plan
GoIderAssociates49 of 66
CONTOURS IM)ROADRAILWAY
UTILITY LINEWATER CO U R SEB U L-D NC
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYWATER BODYWETLAND
WOODED AREA
GolderAssociates
PROJOfl NO16448 18)136001
OECiECIrOCA. Jvr_srsr1CIICCII VALLEY QOui ODUPSE SEPTORONTO 0111CR
RE FE RE N CEI S}NASE DATA MNR LID. OETA;NEO DOTEPRODUCED IT COLDER ASEOOATES LW UNDER UCENCE PROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OP NATURALRESOURCES. C QUEENS PRINTER TOTE
TRANEVERSE MERCATOR DATUM NW ED COORDINATE SYSTEM UTM ZONE ON 50 of 66
a,z0-JDLii
U5
—D
U,0
.jO<
oz
zw
-
0Z
LX(‘w
oo
00
—
0—z0LX0—Li.0
C>
C—
CU
z0.
zop<U0-JLi,
I
c.J
CCU
thIa,1)
U
*
CCC
CCC
CC
51 of 66
Ar. Mark Goulart 1544818 (13000)Senior Project Co-ardinalor November30. 2016
Attachment BMethod of ClassificationAbbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Borehoes andTest PitsList of Symbo’sRecord of Borehole Sheets: BHI6I to BHI6-5
@‘GoiderAssociates52 of 66
METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATfON
The Goidcr 4ssociates Ltd Sol ClassifiCation System is based on the Uniftod Sot Ciassifcat on System (uSCS,
pe&SOn Cc
G a,e 5 Poortywith Graded
SI Or t3 GP GRAVEL00 a12%
——————-
————Ifines Wet Graded I to 3 GW GRAVEL
J:Bet ow A
I
wth Linen/a GM
GRAVEL‘12% —
fines Above A n/a GCCLAYEY
v macat LIne GRAVEL— — -I t30% —
Sands Poorlywith Graded
<6 51 or a3 SR SAND
t12% —-———-—---—— ——— ——--— —
rows %eIG’a,eo OS Ito: BAby nasaSands 5eVw A
ojC AM irema SI) SLT SAND
rar
bymass Low SAND
oc I Plaid in&at.
5m1t
Gresapi ItI N1A(cant
Rapid None None >5mm rot 3mm <S’u ML SILT
LiquidUmit —
.
<50Slow
Nfbeb0 Dull 3uit0 None to tow <5% ML CLAYEY SILT
-t Slowto Lowto Dutto 3mmto Low— 5%bo
CLORGANIC
g verystow medum stgtt 6mm 30% SILT
Q in Slowlo Lowso 3mmto Lowlo5 MH CLAYEY SILT
Is LqudLmtL51°’_jSt Smmrneeum <I
It asc Vetr a”o Irrrno Qedumlo 5uL C3-,C— N>ne or3, sql 3mm hgN 30
Cd
0 —-—-—-— ———-————-
L qsdLim None to01y . a CL S LTY CLAY
aOnin Lq.dLtm
Noneear ,QSJ I;rro
Medium an> c SLTY CLAY
- U see — —
E2 jo L fl None Hgn Sb n- <1mm high Note 2? Cii CLAY
—>-— L_ —
at peat and mreral sod° A SILTY PEAT
> matures SANDY PEATjZWcvun 75Ar>td m_mo 0 0 I? m I Predominantly peat
1 PT
‘ 00 2 E may oortain someu
I mineralsol fbrousor
Dual Symbol A dual symbol is two symbols separated
by a hyphen for example GP-GM SW-SC and CL-ML
For non Cohesive soils the dual symbols must be used
wt,en the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i e to
identify transitional matenal between clean and dirty
sand or gravelFor cohesiVe soils the dual symbol must be used wt’en the
1a- liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area
oF the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left)i
‘ i.vtAv BorderlIne Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols
I’ separated by a slash for example CL/Cl GM/SM CUML
A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil
I’ L2 has been identified as having properties that are on the IIL ML inN vi transition between similar materials In addition a I
‘ e Se borderline symbol may be used to oc indicates a range ofbeid u—S Lu t ii r i’ • within r urn
Note I — Fine gnined materials with P1 and LI that plot in this area are named IMLI SiLT with sm a so ypes as a
aUght pbsticfty Fine grained materiais which are non piasiic (i e a PL cannot be nessared) arenamed SiLTNote 2— For soils with <5% organic content include the descriptor race organics for soils withbetween 5% and 30% organic content include the prent organic before the Primary name
Ca
cITv II.,
n
C Loyal sir Maneinluit silt ot
——‘[si 5. MH
rI>N!L S iT OK
76%to PEAT
GGOIdeFAssociatesJanuary 2013 G-153 of 66
Soil Particle Size Millim tinoises
Constituent Description ° °(US Std. Sieve Size)
BOULDERSpflble >300Js
COBBLES Not 75 to 300 3 1012Applicable
GRAVEL Coarse 19 1075 0 75 to 3Fine 475to19 (4)toO7S
Coarse 200 to475 (10) to (4)SAND Medium 0 425 do 200 (40) to (ID)
[ Fine 10.075 toO 425
SILT/CLAY Classtf:edby<0 075 < (200)
MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTItUENTSPercentage
by Mass Modifier
Use and to comb:ne major constituents(I a. SAND and GRAVEL SAND and CLAY)
5 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with ‘gravelly sandy. SILTYI CLAYEY as auplicabie
>5to12some
55 trace
PENETRATION RESISTANCEStansiarci Panelration Resistance SRI. N-The number of blows by a 635 kg (140 16) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.)required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm(12 in.).
Cane Pe:aetration Test (CR1)An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60’ conical tip and a project end area of10 cm’ pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s Measurements oftip resistance (q1), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recordedelectmnioaly at 25 mm penetration intervals
The number cf blows by a 535kg (140 Ib) hammer dropped 750mm (30 in todrive uncasea a 50 mm. (2 in ) diameter. 60’ cone allached bK sse dnll rods fora distance of 300 mm (12 in )PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressurePM: Sampler advanced by manual pressureWH: Sampler advanced by static wetght of hammerWR: Sampler advanced by weigh: cf sampler and r
Compactnesst
Term SPT ‘N’ blowslo,3mVer Loose
4toioCom act 10 to 30
-5D
01566. uncorrected Icr
Temi Description
Dry Soil tows freely through fingers
Moist50:15 are darker than in the dry cond;ton andmay feel cool
v”eAsmost. but with free water form;ng on hands‘ when handled
GolderAssoctates
ABBREViATONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OFBOREHOLES AND TEST PITS
PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS SAMPLES
AS • Auger sample
ES Block sample
CS Chunk sample
DO orSeamless open ended, driven or pushed tubesampler — note size
DS Denison type sample
FS Foil sample
RC Rock core
SC Soil core
55 Split spoon sampler— note s:ze
ST Slotted tube
TO Thin-walled, open — nole size
TP Thin-walled, piston — note size
V/S Wash sam.pe
SOIL TESTS
w water content
PL , w. plastic limit
LL . w l:quid limit
C - consoidabcn (oedometer) test.-.---— -----—
CHEM chemical anaiys:s (refer to tettlCID consolidated isotropicaily dra:ned trtaxial test
CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test withporewater pressure measuremenC
D relative density (specific gravity, Gs)
DS direct shear test
GS specific gravity
M sieve analysis for particle size
MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis
MPC Modified Proctor compaction test
SPC Standard Proctor compaction test
CC organic content test
SC . concentraton of water-solubie suiphates
bc . unccnt.ned compression test
UU unconsoi.idated undratned traxla: test
V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)
y - unit weight
NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS
I Tests which are anisoopically consolidated pncr to shear areshown as CAD. CAU
COHESIVE SOILS
Consistency
I SPT ‘N in accordance with ASTftI overburdenpressure eltects.
2 Oetniticn of ccmpactnest descrpticns based on SRI N ranges trainTerzagni and Peck (1967) and correspond to typcal average N., values
Field Moisture Condition
TUndraIned Shear 1 SPTN’term
J/D3
y%___ <12 Oto2Soft 12to25 2to4Firm 2Sto5D 1 4toOStiff SOtolODi BtolS
Very Stiff 100 to 200 1 151030Hard >200 >30
sure5py in accorcance with ASTM 01586 unconecled for overburden pretetects approximate amy
Water Content
Term Description
Material is est:mated lobe drer than me PlasticwCPLLrnt
Mater;al is estimated to be close to tne PlasticLimit.
PLMateral is estmated to be weller than the PlasticLimit
January 2013 G-254 of 66
UST OF SYMBOLS
Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:
II. STRESS AND STRAIN
shear straina change in, e.g. in stress: a a
linear strainvolumetric straincoefficient of viscosity
I.) Poisson’s ratioa total stressa’ effective stress (a’ a - u)a’ initial effective overburden stress. principal stress (major, intermediate.03 minor)
mean stress or octahedral stress= (as ÷ 02 + 03)/3shear stress
U porewater pressureE modulus of deformationG shear modulus of deformationK bulk modulus of compressibility
Ill. SOIL PROPERTIES
Index Propertiesbulk density (bulk unit weight)*
dry density (dry unit weight)density (unit weight) of waterdensity (unit weight) of solid particlesunit weight of submerged soil
(‘1 = y- yw)
relative density (specific gravity) of solidparticles (On = Ps / Pw) (formerly G)
e void ration porosityS degree of saturation
Density symbol is p. Unit weight symbol is ywhere y = pg (i.e. mass density multiplied byacceleration due to gravity)
(b) Hydraulic Propertiesh hydraulic head or potentialq rate of flowv velocity of flow
hydraulic gradientk hydraulic conductivity
(coefficient of permeability)seepage force per unit volume
(c) Consolidation (one-dimensional)C compression index
(normally consolidated range)Cr recompression index
(over-consolidated range)C5 swelling indexCa secondary compression indexm coefficient of volume change
coefficient of consolidationdirection)
ch coefficient of consolidationdirection)
T time factor (vertical direction)U degree of consolidation
pre-consolidation stressOCR over-consolidation ratio = O’p / 0’v
Shear Strengthpeak and residual shear strengtheffective angle of internal frictionangle of interface frictioncoefficient of friction tan 8effective cohesionundrained shear strength ( = 0 analysis)mean total stress (Cl + 03)12mean effective stress (Ci + 03)12(Ci - 03)12 or (al - 03)/2compressive strength (Ci - 03)
sensitivity
Notes: 1 :=c’+a’tano’2 shear strength = (compressive strength)12
I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued)w water content
,t 3.1416 w1 or LL liquid limitIn x natural logarithm of x vip or PL plastic limitlog16 x or log x. logarithm of x to base 10 Ip or P1 plasticity index (wF — w5)g acceleration due to gravity w5 shrinkage limitt time IL liquidity index = (w — w) 1
Ic consistency index = (wr — w) / Iema* void ratio in loosest stateem16 void ratio in densest statelo density index = (emax — e) / (emax - emn)
(formerly relative density)
(a)
PCi)Pd(’fd)pw(yw)
Ps(l’s)
(vertical
(horizontal
(d)tp, tr
K4
c. sp
q
SI
t’’GoIderLd’AssodatesJanuary 2013 0-355 of 66
0
071
H
00
S
0
00OnccD0UIL
003-di
as
S09HSCasas0
0S“accSC0
IL
C03-di
as0’S090HSCccCH
C
0U,HSdi
UI,
PROJECT 1544518(13000) RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BHI6—1 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION. See Figure 2 DATUM: GeodeticBORING DATE October 18, 2016
SPTIOCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg: DRCP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE AUTOMATIC
CCIHdi
0SccCdi
SOIL PROFILEdi
Co
s-El
C
DESCR:PTION
SAMPLES
HCIL
GROUND SURFACE
DEPTH(ml
ASPHALT (400mm)
5ciS0di
CXX
OYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONEUCTIVITY,RESISTANCE, ELOWSiS3m ti, coWs
20 40 50 50 100 10’ 10’ IO
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + 0 - • WATER CONTENT PERCENTCu, tips rem V. I? U
WpF ‘A’ ‘WI
20 30 so so 10 20 30 40
FILL’ (SR’GP) SAND and GRAVELI BAS EAS U B BAS E IFILL - (MUSM) candy SILT to SILTYSAND, traCe to some gravel: brown,black stains, mats and mallets, woodfragments. non-cohesive, moist, loose tocompact
-JO<SZROw
0±
PIEZOM ST S NOR
STnIDPIPEINSTALLATION
.:141-.
1271? CA
as
55
FILL’ ISP/GP) SAND and GRAVEL,brown: non-cohesive, moist, Compact
325
0
El
H
55
(ML) sandy SILT, trace to smile gravel tograveily: grey: non-cohesive, wet, looseto compact
354
Coroosoe
Ce cnn DierneIsrPiesseeler
Evr?ovite
Naveeben 4. 20t5
SiIica Send tidIerand Screen
Cave
6 55 CI
so e
MH
NOTES:1, Borehole caved to a depth of about4.9 m below ground surface uponcompletion of drilling.
2. Groundwater level measured inborehole at a depth of about 3.7 m belowground surface upon completion ofditling,
3. Groundwater tevel measured inpiezometer at depth of about 3 S mbelow ground surface on November 4,2016,
DEPTH SCALE —. ‘
- Golder LOGGED: HS
1:50‘ Associates CHECKED TA
55 . Is
END OF OCR EHO LE122.22
ens
56 of 66
PROJECT: 1544018(13000) RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH162 SHEET 1 OF I
LOCATION: See Figure 2BORING DATE: October 18 2016 DATUM: Geode(c
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 84kg; DROP, 160mm HN1IMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
CCS
34
‘3SSCC
CaC
S1’0
SAIELES DYNAAI/C PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.RESISTANCE. BLOWS/U 3m 0, (iWs
€3 IC’ 10’
SHEAR STRENCTh rat V — - .1 WATER CONTENT PERCENI’Cj,kPa re’rV- U-
CP!EZCt.IETER
ORS’nIDP FE
E/STALLAT.ON
SOIL PROFILE
CESCRIPT.tN
GROUND SURFACE
AS Ph/ALT ( lXm mlFILL (SP;GP) SAND and GRAVELBASE’S U B BAS E
FILL - INtSM) sandy SILT ID SILTYSAND; trace to are gravel. brcm.biack strs ‘,cod fragmentsncn-c&m*,e moist, loose 10 compact
(ML) SILT, some sand; grey;non-cohesive, wet, compact
(ML) soody SILT; grey. r,oacchesse,wet. bose to compact
3
S
IA -
ES 23
2 55 1
3 ES 5
4 Es 21
ES 13Se
5511
7 ES
5 55 23
ELEV
DEPTHm}
t34E
25
127,153-25
403
123(5
0 ,3 ;3 I3
Rn ;;- IWI
10 20 30 40
C
CC05
CC
aC03C
CCC4;
CC3.-Ed
C
SCCp2S
I
I7.32END OF BOREHOLE
NOTES:
5. Borehole caved to a depth of about4 6 m below groUnd suttaca uponcompletion of drIlling,
2 Grntstwater level meaasxed i,bot’ehde 03 a depth of abcut 4Dm beIravgrand sLface Lçfln comp/etlen ofddt ing
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: HS
1 -50- Associates CHECKED: RA
57 of 66
PROJECT 1544618(13000) RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BHI6-3 SHEET 1 OF I
LOCATION. Sec Figure 2DOPING DATE October18. 2016 DATUM &odesc
SPTIDCRr RAMMER. MASS, 64kg. DRCP. leOmm HAMMER TYPE AUTOMATIC
— C SOIL pRorILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. —
— Hob STmN c SLCWP 6C IET11P
ESCR P’ ON 4 R Wa OH a) 0 • OCr’ NP RLEN’
GROUND SURFACE I-
-
ASPFttTi10OnIrnlFILL• fSP;CP) SAND and GRAVEL(DASESUDRASCI
FILL. ISMI SILTY SAND. some gravel 19mm oame:evto gravelly brows, red beck fragments.non-cohesive moist loose lover1 dense
3 51
Augers gnrrding at a depth of about2 7 ml below ground surlace
I—. S..
O . 1O .U..
hr-ember 3.1016 U.4
.
.
(ML) sandy SILT, trace gravel; grey: 4114
so nDn-cohesve. wet, compact ID dense LISIsa Sand P11 Icr L1-
55
IENDOFILOREHOLE
U-
NOTES
I Groundwater to-jet measixed flel’roIe at a depTh of about 4 0 is belowground ssface upal completIon ofnlls,O
2 Gnurdwater level measured inpiezomeler at a depth of about 1 8 rnbelow ground surfaca cc November 42316
C—
High N-vaIue likely caused by beckobslroclions
05,—zw
U
0
____--
-_
DEPTHSCALE- :Golder LOGGED: IS
1.50 Associates CHECKED; RA
58 of 66
PROJECT: 1544518(13000) RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BHI6-4 SHEET I OF 1
LOCATION: See Figure 2BORING DATE Oclober 18, 2016
. 00 CC
SPT!DCPT HAMMER: MASS. 64kg: DROP. 760mm HMAMERTVPE. AUTOMATIC
— °OIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,C RESISTANCE, OLOWSID 3m k, cr,ils
<z PIEZOMETER
CE..CRPCNDPT
SHEARSTW” nary -Q AT RCrNTPRCENT 5 NSTALLATtN
CR0UC SURFACE 131252TOPSOILI200mm)
FILL - (SP) SAflD to gravefly SAnD. Dr
trace Io screw nal-Øaslic frees bm.Cnnalchewve. ndsl, compact to loose
1 ES II
2 SE 12
IAi2.i.1 .... ss 5
(ML) CEAYEY SILT, trace sand: grey: JJ 2.55 3e :1non-cohesive, moist to wet, flnilslilf I]
I Fr10
0Ii
0
- __ _.-____.
127Th
kiLl ssmth 5:11 grey: nc-c&.esrvi -
wet. colTcwe
a0LuU,
S S 55 20
CO 5U.
003-Lu
SOo
eirSS
__________
ENDOFBOREHOLE 655
NOTES:
1. Groundwater level measured inborehole at a depth of about 3.4 m below
O . ground surlace upon completion otdrilling.
003-
£ DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: HS
1 50 CHECKED:59 of 66
U,
.503
00>-uJ
.5
200
20
C0
LuU,
2
0C
003
3-
C>
2
0a2
3-
In
0
U,
FILL (SM) SILTY SAND. now-cohesive.moist, compact to loose
ML) sandy SILT. grey- ncn’coaesieea-el- compact
END OF 000ENOLE
NOTES:
1 Groundwater level measured LIlborehole at a depth of about 3 7 m belowground surface upon cmspletiorl ofdrilling.
0
‘2
C0
PROJECT 1544515(13000) RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BHI6-5 SHEET I OF 1
LOCATION: Soc Figure 2AT d ISORING DATE October 15, 2016 0 dv - Sea e ic
SPT-DCPTA1MER MASS, 54k; CROP ?SOmm S1.!MCR TYPE AUTOMATIC—
— vol. PRnr- 0 iFLrS C’vNA.ICPeNc:RA,ON HSERAaICC0ILCUCTLVITY-
— RES:STANCS BLOWS.’ 3m
CC
085 CR : P 7 10 N
CR0u1,o suRrecs
TDPSD)(T7snnl
FILL - -tILL CLAYCY SILT some sandbrown, roots and roollets non-cohesive.moist, compact
:LL
C
F 51C1.OTER
S TA N CF IFS
iN S ‘TA L L AT C N
(ML) CLAYEY SILT to SLT. trace to - -
some sand: grey: non- cohesive, moisl,loose to compact
—u sip
a,
55. 111
2:
S 05 I!
20
ELEV
DEPTh
- 010
1)153C)?
32555241
74
12475
5REAR5TREN0m nalV -‘ 0-•Cu kPa mmv -0-i -
10 17’ 10’ -‘
LLATER CONTENT PERCENT
20 30 CT
DEFTH SCALEGo1der LOGGED HS
1 50 CHECKED T
60 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulart 1544818 (13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
Attachment CFigures 3 and 4: Geotechnical Laboratory Figures
®?coiderAssociates61 of 66
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(ML) Gravelly Sandy SILT FIGURE 3
Size of Opefllfl;S. nones U SS Sewe s:ze meshesfnch
5’.. 3’ 1 1”. i 3S34 8’O IS OS :oo 5050 KS SOC
100
90
80.
. .70 I.
zIfr 50
UizU-50IzUio 40Ui0.
30
20
10
• . •0
100 10 1 01 0,01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
COB&E COARSE F;NE COARSE MEOUM NE SILTANO CLAM szEs
SIZE GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
LEG END
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m)
• 16-1 6 4.57-5.03
Project Number: 1544818 (13000)
Checked By: PA Golder Associates Date: 28-Nov-16
62 of 66
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4
Size of openings, inches U S S Sieve size meshes/inch
54t 7 1W I ras 34 813 152030 405460 CD 15410G• I.e.’.
90
-
--
80 I
I
70z
60
LUz
50IzLU
40LU0-
30I
20
10 K
‘a. •C
100 10 1 01 001 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
CODDLE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FiNE SILTANOCSAYSIzES
SIZE GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m)
• 16-5 5 4.57 -503• 16-3 6 6.10 -6.55
Project Number: 1544818 (13000)
Checked By: RA Golder Associates Date 28-Nov-16
63 of 66
Mr. Mark Goulart 1544818(13000)
Senior Project Coordinator November 30, 2016
Attachment 0important information and Limitations of This Report
®GolderAssociates64 of 66
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
Standard of Care: Colder Associates Ltd (Colder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with thatlevel of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currentlypractising under similar conditions in the junsdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limitsand physical constraints applicable to this report No other warranty, expressed or implied is made
Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective,development and purpose described to Colder by the Client The factual data, interpretations andrecommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any otherproject or site location Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiatedwithin eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report Colder can not beresponsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Colder is requested to review and, if necessary,revise the report
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client Noother party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Colder’s express wntten consent If thereport was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable requestof the client, Colder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved Userfor the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process Any other use of this report byothers is prohibited and is without responsibility to Colder The report, all plans, data, drawings and otherdocuments as well as all electronic media prepared by Colder are considered its professional work product andshall remain the copynght property of Colder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to makecopies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by thoseparties The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or anyportion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Colder The Client acknowledges thatelectronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore theClient can not rely upon the electronic media versions of Colder’s report or other work products
The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions givento Colder by the Client, communications between Colder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared byColder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report In order to properly understand thesuggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole ofthe report Colder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended onlyfor the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project The extent and detail of investigations,including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affectconstruction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes Contractors biddingon, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of thefactual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but notlimited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities
Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic unitshave been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering andrelated disciplines Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involvesjudgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather thanabrupt Accordingly, Colder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions
ii Golder2013 1 of 2 WAssonates65 of 66
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions andeven a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurfaceconditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golderinterprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition tosoil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or onadjacent properties, The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects ofthe subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. Thepresence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activitiesor uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources areoutside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.
Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observedconditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form thebasis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reportedlocations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions, The condition of the soil, rockand groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater levellowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changesdue to wetting, drying or frost, Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes duringconstruction.
Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue ofthis report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client’sexpense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to bepresent, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.
Follow-Up and Construction Services;.All details of the design were not known at the time of submission ofGolder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior toconstruction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.
During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encounteredconditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpretedconditions considered in the preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that constructionactivities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder’s report.Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provideletters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where thisrecommendation is not followed, Golders responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the informationencountered at the ‘borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during thepreparation of the Report.
Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from thoseanticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is acondition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review orrevise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requiresexperience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect ifconditions have changed significantly.
Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for theproject. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Goldertakes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design andconstruction monitoring of the system.
20132 of 2 Associates
66 of 66